Hello,
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor who hit the save button on a page that contained the defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
I don't think anywhere you have said that you authorise content on a page by saving it. You haven't signed a contract to that effect, and you're not paid. You might as well argue that reading a page without changing counts as "authorising" it.
I would be interested to know whether it would be legally acceptable to keep the old libellous material in the history, but labelled with some {{libel}} tag, that screamed at the user "THIS INFORMATION IS FALSE AND DEFAMATORY. It is only kept here for reference for those doing research on this libel case. A statement from the injured party is here...". Would that hold up in court?
Steve