[WikiEN-l] The problem with flagging things with {{office}}

[Delirium]

James D. Forrester wrote:
> Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea,
> but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info
> (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for
> them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you
> can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost
> it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they
> are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that
> it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then
> liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I
> know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the
> way the Real World(tm) works.
>   

No, that isn't at all how the Real World works.  In the Real World, when 
someone is accused of libel, they do exactly what we do: Take down the 
content and post a prominent notice that it was taken down.  Often the 
original content is actually republished along with an apology; 
something like: "We claimed in our issue of November 2 that Dr. Smith 
was indicted for fraud; in fact, he was merely investigated by a grand 
jury and never indicted; we regret the error."

As far as I know no media organization has been actually sued (at least 
not successfully) for that.

-Mark