The internet offers a certain level of Freedom of Speech not to be found anywhere else on earth. Where else –and when else in history- have human beings enjoyed such generous opportunities to voice our opinions and feelings? The world wide web isn’t, of course, offered world wide; it depends on where you are, access-wise, and what your government allows. But all in all, who is going to argue that at this point in recorded history, we have the opportunity to express ourselves as never before? The universal right to express ourselves should, certainly, have been here all along. I applaud the liberty to express myself, and during the last several years have often enjoyed this liberty via the web. As dictated by the crusaders of censorship as the world has been over the last two thousand years, we should all rejoice at what modern technology offers.

But –you probably guessed there was going to be a “but” in here, so don’t act surprised- BUT, in this age when we can blog daily and enjoy other forums where the almost immediate delivery of our composed word can be served up to the world, we often forgot a couple of important considerations: Who is reading What we write? And Who is being Influenced?

If any situation has given me reason to pause and reflect on these questions, it would be the events in the recent suicide-murder of Pro-wrestler, Chris Benoit and his family. I read this article in a local paper printed on June 26: “Pro wrestler Chris Benoit was found dead on June 25 after apparently killing his wife and son during the preceeding weekend, police said. Benoit strangled his wife, Nancy, 43, and smothered his 7-year-old son, Daniel, before hanging himself in his weight room, a law enforcement official close to the investigation told The Associated Press.”

The deaths are horrific enough. Then on the 29th I came across this article:
“In what was a poorly thought through prank or an eerie forewarning, someone apparently reported the death of Chris Benoit's wife on Wikipedia — the online open source encyclopedia — more than 14 hours before police discovered her body, along with her son's and husband's, at the pro wrestler's Fayette County home.
An anonymous user edited the biography of the wrestler on Monday at 12:01 a.m., said Sandra Ordonez, communication manager for the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the encyclopedia.
Authorities discovered the bodies at the Benoit's Green Meadow Lane home that afternoon, at 2:30 p.m.”

The reasons for the murder-suicide are still under investigation. Anabolic steroids were found in Benoit’s home by police, and his physician’s office consequently raided. Although no arrests have been made yet, Dr. Phil Astin told authorities that he had been treating Benoit for low testosterone levels, which the doctor confirmed likely originated from steroid use. As of today authorities are still looking at Benoit’s medical records, particularly focusing on the history of steroid prescription and the appropriateness of such prescriptions if made.

This information would, ordinarily, suggest a commonplace tragedy involving a celebrity. Then, shortly after the initial murder investigation, the story took a chilling turn when it came to light that some person or persons had logged into the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and already altered the wrestler’s biographical entry. *(Wikipedia is a free-use “encyclopedia” that relies in much part on user provided material. Though content is often questionable, this fact has not stopped some elementary school officials and teachers in my own town from referring to it as an informational source for children.*) This entry change on Benoit’s page, made seven hours before the bodies of Benoit, his wife and son were found, remarked that Benoit had missed a match two days earlier, “stemming from the death of his wife, Nancy.” A Wikipedia official confirmed Thursday that the entry was made by someone using an Internet protocol address registered in Stamford, Connecticut. An IP address, a unique series of numbers carried by every machine connected to the Internet, does not necessarily have to be broadcast from where it is registered.

Since the Wikipedia alteration came to light, an anonymous poster has come forward to take credit for the entry.

Posted at Wikinews (connected to Wikipedia and described as “the free news source you can write!”), the poster termed what he’d written, “A huge coincidence”. Further reading offers, “It is one of those things that just turned into a huge coincidence. That night I found out that what I posted, ended up actually happening, a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening, or so I thought. I was beyond wrong for posting wrongful information, and I am sorry to everyone for this. I just want everyone to know it was stupid of me, and I will never do anything like this again. I just posted something that was at that time a piece of wrong unsourced information that is typical on wikipedia, as it is done all the time.”

The poster went on to state that he/she/it is not connected to the WWE or Benoit in any way. Now, as an average person, this in itself feels like more strange coincidence when we consider that the World Wrestling Entertainment is based in Stamford, Conn., the same place in the world where the entry allegedly came from. While authorities continue to investigate the matter, WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt reported to a news official that, to his knowledge, no one at the WWE knew Nancy Benoit was dead before her body was discovered Monday afternoon. Text messages released by officials, however, show that messages from Chris Benoit's cell phone were being sent to co-workers a few hours after the Wikipedia posting. McDevitt stated that while WWE employees are given WWE e-mail addresses, he did not know if Chris Benoit had one.

The rest of the anonymous poster’s explanation can be found at Wikinews by visiting a page link from WebProNews
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/
2007/06/29/update-wikipedia-benoit-saga
(I regretfully had to take the direct Wikinews link off as its length screwed up the text field here. My apologies;
just copy and paste to follow.)

If we’re of a mind, there’s a lot to speculate about regarding the tragedy – conspiracy, collaboration, hell, even possible supernatural influences if you want to be totally side-tracked. But there are two issues here that I feel are consequential to remember:

1. If indeed the anonymous poster is a real person not affiliated with Wikipedia, and he/she is being honest now, there is the possibility someone was compelled to action by the entry. Huge Coincidence or not, that a false biographical entry can be made where any weak-minded, drug-affected or criminally inclined individual can take it as reason or excuse to kill someone is a very sad and frightening scenario.

2. Whoever wrote the entry and for whatever purpose, Wikipedia has become the glaring example of what is inherently flawed in forums where membership is indiscriminate and members can write as fact anything they want. As of this morning I found that Wikipedia has placed the Chris Benoit page under its Semi-Protected Against Vandalism category. For all the after-the-fact measures and disclaimers available to forum owners, the reality remains that situations like this one can be prevented. The words “submission approval” immediately comes to mind. There are forums with much less visible presence than Wikipedia where a practice called discrepancy is utilized. Some people may argue that discrepancy is tantamount to censorship. In my opinion, censorship is discrepancy taken to the fanatic level, a situation, which as history has shown, can have its own fatal consequences. Ethical use of discrepancy does, I feel, have its place; and in the conditional world of the online forum, its presence can prevent fabricated death reports from appearing as fact.

I’m not suggesting the policing of those sites where clearly the content is humor, fiction, artistic expression, or confirmed news and/or historical resources. Religious sites that refrain from spouting intolerance should be left alone, too. And adult sites where it is acknowledged that the content is for those over the age of consent should not be made the scapegoat of the morality police. But I think there is a desperate need for ethical discrepancy at sites which are sources of questionable truths (as with Wikipedia), and in forums where hateful personal remarks are thrown around like spitballs. It is no longer enough to defend one’s intolerance behind the If You Don’t Like It Don’t Read It mantra. Whether it’s a scathingly stated opinion or a malicious twisting of facts, consideration toward fellow human beings is being ignored by online users. Too often blog and forum writers show a perverse delight in starting flame wars. Amateur reporters, interviewers and reviewers have been known to resort to the emotional bullying when replying to comments. And forum owners who do not take responsibility for what is posted at their sites can -intentionally or not- encourage criminal behavior. I don’t want to see responsibility misused for the sake of censorship again, but where’s the middle ground? Organized institutions have historically chosen NOT to follow the middle ground; and their influence and power have led to countless fatal consequences. It is high time as a society we begin to distinguish the difference between responsible forum and censorship. But until we do away with the popular defense that politeness, tolerance, and consideration of others is the hallmark of a wuss, this is probably not going to happen.

I’m not sure who said it first, but I believe this much as truth: the most tragic things in life are those which could have been prevented by someone who cared but simply weren't. So, the question of the day, fellow and sister online users: do you care?

©June 2007 by Maria O. Perry writing as Desiree Erotique

"Desiree Erotique" is an author of fantasy, romance and erotica. Her website can be visited at www.romanticsurrender.com