Sheldon, I think you worry too much -- at least, as far
as Jimbo and the Wikipedia project are concerned.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think anyone
would bother to launch a libel action against it, if for
no other reason than it's hard to hit a moving target.
Think about newspapers. Suppose the New York Times
prints a letter to the editor from Joe Blow, saying that
Merv Griffin is a cannibal. Is that actionable?
Suppose it's a signed column on the op-ed page. Joe
Crow, columnist, says Griffin eats people.
Suppose it's an editorial: the NYT calls Griffin a
cannibal.
Or it's a front-page article, with a headline screaming
"Griffin eats human flesh!"
But then his lawyers contact the paper and say, "Dude!
Whassup with that? That's grody to the max!"
The response of the newspaper to the lawyer's letter is
key.
If they say, "We stand by our story" then they may have
to battle it out in court.
But if they say, "Oops, you're right! We'll print a
retraction" -- then what basis is their for a libel
action?
Wikipedia is way different from your project: we
constantly strive for neutrality on all issues; you take
a definite stand on many issues. We'll never have to
fight, because we're not *asserting* anything. But
you're going around accusing this person and that group
of deceptive PR campaigns to cover up misdoings
(especially environmental wrongs), and on top of that
you're planning to *assert* that you're doing so
"fairly and accurately".
We march to different drummers, dude!
Ed Poor