Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really
interesting
that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the
claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is
sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some
point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to
tell the British
government that
they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today
so moving
on...)
Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the
results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di
Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the
imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a
lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.
That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.
I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can
identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this
matter could be so characterized.
Fred