Wikipedia's published list of "Incidents at Disney parks"

[Timekeeper]

wow! can you actually sue someone for "loss of your wife's support"?

I haven't read the document that the post was referring to, but if I had to guess, the "support" for which a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit would seek against a defendant tortfeasor (the party that committed a wrongful act, or failed to act when there existed a legal duty to do so) is probably something known as "consortium." Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor. The deprivations identified include the economic contributions of the injured spouse to the household, care and affection, and intercourse.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, for example, the surviving spouse would list, among other things, loss of consortium as part of the damages suffered. (There are limitations on when a plaintiff can plead that damage. If someone slaps your wife across the face, that's a battery for which she could sue, but consortium would not be one of the alleged resulting damages - and it's typically reserved for wrongful death suits or other severely disabilitating injuries.)

Tk

 

[AEfx]

Like anything you read anywhere, yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak - but dismissing it is just as wrong as putting utter faith in it. Instead of one company controlling it (like, say, Encyclopedia Britannica) and the opinions, tone, etc., you will be hard pressed to find a more vetted place most of the time. There is no "man behind the curtain", which is the benefit of the trade-off of how it is edited.

Back to this topic, look at this article : has anyone been able to dispute any of it? It all has proper links, references, etc. If you come across an article that doesn't, it's usually marked as such - Wikipedia is extremely upfront about things like that. And you can view any and all changes yourself, along with the fact that repeated vandalism or posting of bad information leads to a series of safeguards (alerts, locks, etc.) that most people who dismiss Wikipedia based on what they have heard about it don't seem to understand at all.

If you don't have explicit, valid references, the article is marked as questionable. Wikipedia relies on you as the user to be a critical thinker about the information presnted, instead of just going to a book and thinking "Well that must be the answer! Says so right there!" I in no way endorse every single Wikipedia article - of course there are mistakes - but once you start using it regularly like many of us do, you start to learn just how valuable it can become, and that there really isn't a better, centralized choice out there, period and that the majority of the time the accuracy is as good as if not better than as any other encyclopedia.

AEfx

 

[jonnyc]

True, but that still isn't the end. It will quickly be changed back, and then someone else will try changing it again, and then the cycle starts over.

I like Wikipedia, but it is the devil. If you become involved with it the cycle WILL NEVER END! You will be fixing all the moron-edits all day and night in order to protect that one article.. :lookaroun

I added that my mate was the 6th Village person. I edited it too about 5 different articles to make it legit. But within a week of editing wars i lost the battle and it was gone.

I do value Wikipedia, but i also value the lols.

 

[blm07]

I edit on Wikipedia, and if I see someone edit something with false info or garbage I revert it right away. Maybe not everything is always accurate, but usually if the fact is disputed, you will see [citation needed] after the sentence. It can be a great resource for information though.

I mostly stick to Disney articles, so I don't get caught up in revert wars too often