In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
Could they sue other people that have edited the article without fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable.>>
-------------------- I don't think you would agree if this logic were extended to all articles.
Am I responsible, fixing the birthplace of George Bush, that someone else, in another section of that article has said "He killed his parents when he was three."
No I'm not responsible for that. I'm solely responsible for the edits I make, not those of others.
Similar to reverting vandalism. If the previous version was incorrect, than the responsibility rests on whomever put that into the article in the first place. Not on any subsequent editor. We are not all experts in what the PDR does and doesn't say. But any of us can fix spelling errors in an article. That does not mean, that we must know and approve the entire article and be responsible for it, simply because we are changing something of little consequence in it.
That's true for all articles, not just ones on drugs.
Will Johnson
************** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http...; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)