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
Hey, Daniel, I hate to throw it back in your face, but...
Around here, the usual policy is:
1. If you see a problem, fix it.
2. If you can't fix it by yourself, ask for help.
I think you are capable of:
* attributing controversial statements to their adherents
* mentioning that So-and-so has called Saddam's policies "oppressive"
* mentioning that Whosis believes that Saddam has "terrorized" his own people
* reporting on the extent to which speaking out against him has gotten people killed
* writing (or linking to) an article about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds
* writing (or linking to) an article about uprisings following the first Gulf War, and the outcome of those uprisings, e.g., Joe StraightArrow said "Saddam brutally crushed the uprising in al-Giraffe, killing N thousand unarmed civilians" or whatever.
This might seem like a lot of work to you, but remember that you asked to become a sysop. People expect more!
Ed Poor
>Dan>"According to the constitution of the united states,
libel should be solved out of the courts simply by
notifying everyone of the incorrect information."
>Sean>Oh, really? Which article would that be?
The idea I think Dan is getting at is 'good faith' - If a good faith effort
isnt made to deal with the issue.. vis a vis.. a retraction, etc... then a
judge is likely to view the issue as beneath the court.
We had a brief talk about this..
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ALibel
The thing I'm curious about is, with regard to the setting up of a Wikimedia
foundation... and the necessary formalizing of some sort of policy.. vis a
vis libel issues... The creation of an NPO would take some of the heat off
of Jim, but would also put the WP in the hands of essentially...
beaurocrats.. some of whom would no doubt 'fit a certain mold.' Just poking
my nose in... -DK
Fellow Australian Tannin (Tony Wilson) and I were confused as to the naming
of Canberra -- why is it [[Canberra, Australia]] rather than just
[[Canberra]], since there is only one in the world? It turned out that Karen
Johnson had moved the article to [[Canberra, Australia]] before either of us
came here. Tannin, Karen and I discussed the matter on Karen's user page.
I'm keen to move every non-ambiguous name (e.g. Canberra) and every
predominantly Australian name (e.g. Brisbane) to the simple [[Canberra]] or
[[Brisbane]]. Karen said it was fine with her, as long as I can "persuade
people to agree". So here I am.
Are there any objections to my setting a new standard for Australian city
and town names, favouring simple names such as [[Canberra]]?
-- Tim Starling.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> writes:
> Yes! Even a noted skeptic like Michael Shermer is very
> careful about using the word. Pseudoscience literaly
> means false science.
Stop playing word games. Pseudoscience has a much wider
meaning than that. In any case, mainstream scientists and
skeptics use this word quite a bit. They only use this
word, of course, when there is no other alternative.
> In reality many of the subject areas popularly
> encompased by the term have never been proven true to
> the satisfaction of the traditional scientific
> community. To say that not proven equates to proven
> false is to apply the fallacy of the excluded middle
> that is often phrased "If you're not with us you're
> against us."
Untrue. This not how science works, or how the skeptical
community deals with claims of the paranormal. Propoents
of pseudosceince are unable to defend themselves from the
actual claims that scientists make, so they create a
straw-man carcicature of science, and attack that strawman.
That is shameful.
> The term "pseudoscience" is as much a pejorative
> as "kike" or "faggot" which have been discussed in a
> concurrent thread
That's a bald-faced lie, and an attempt to slander
scientists. I am shocked at the hateful way that
proponents of pseudoscience claim to be victims of
religious-like discrimination. The truth is that
proponents of pseudoscience push statements that can not be
proven, and when scientifically analyzed in controlled
studies, are found to be false - or fraudulent.
I am appalled that you publicly slander scientists, instead
of dealing with the issues.
RK
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Ordinarily I would just bring this up on a talk page, but
this issue cuts across several articles, and I might need
a ruling from Jimbo.
How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq has
chemical weapons"?
Officially, of course, they deny having any. And it's a
crucial yes-no matter because their alleged possession is
the chief rationale behind the US-led war in Iraq.
If Iraq doesn't chemical weapons, it looks like the US
military campaign is:
* not morally justified
* a violation of international law
...which may have ramifications about whether Iraq is
bound to treat POWs according to the Geneva Convention or
can "legally" torture, execute or rape them.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign seems:
* at least partially justified
* probably NOT a violation of international law
...although the last 2 points are in themselves
controversial.
The question is, how do we handle this when writing articles about the war?
Ed Poor
172 seems to really like his dictators and only appears to think warm, cozy
thoughts about them.
He has just added a lot of text to [[Saddam Hussein]]. Now it is not as bad as
what I've been hearing from the Iraqi Information Ministry but 172's text has
failed to mention /anything/ bad about the man (POV of omission) and has
failed to attribute many controversial statements to their adherents (it
reads like an essay - Hm. I see is editing it some right now making it a
little better).
Could somebody in the know bring some balance to this article (for example
there is nothing in the article mentioning the oppressive policies of Hussein
or the fact that he has terrorized his own people to such and extent that
speaking out against him can get you killed - not to mention his ordering the
use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds and the brutal
crushing of uprisings following the Gulf War. Also the fact that the Arab
world doesn't much care for him at all except for the fact that he has been
standing up against American imperialism)?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 21]]