I don't have any problem with this as long as legal liabilies are thought
through and we have funding and help available. Although, as I suggested,
you might check out how expensive serious litigation is, especially in the
US and UK.
Fred
From: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>om>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:01:33 +0800
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Formal request: Wikinews project
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:27:19 +1000, Tim Starling
<t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
I don't understand why Wikinews will have any
more exposure to legal
liability than Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been threatened with legal
action numerous times, for example by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Wikipedia has
many biographies of people who are only notable due to recent news
coverage, and these biographies typically consist of facts and rumours
originally published by the mainstream media.
Technically, you're right that there is no increase in legal
liability. However the nature of Wikinews brings about more legal
situations currently not seen with Wikipedia. If Wikinews engages in
primary source reporting, then it's possible to have whistleblower or
leaked information make it into the hands of Wikinews
editors/reporters, like with the Pentagon Papers or with the Valerie
Plame identity. This is not too far fetched considering the positive
reputation Wikipedia has right now. If the US Feds come knocking and
say, "reveal your source," Wikinews has got to be prepared for that.
My point is just that if we decide to avoid
Wikinews, it shouldn't be
for legal reasons.
Yes, but Wikinews should have procedures in place and lawyers ready to
tap on such matters.
--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l