On 12/13/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/13/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
You've already ceded that yes, there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
No I haven't.
I'm sorry, but when you stated that yes, there was concern for reusers regarding potential suits, and could I suggest anything to be done, that that meant the foundation was likewise concerned. Is it the case that the foundation has no worries regarding funding or reputation in the light of a potential suit?
Maybe we're just miscommunicating. If there is something we can do to help reusers which doesn't compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, we should do it. But I don't think there is. I wouldn't say the foundation has to worry about this.
The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie Williams gay is true information. Does British law define this as libel or not?
According to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394#4
"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it's true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding 'allegedly' is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties."
As far as I can ascertain, only once the trial has ended can the nature of the allegation may be reported, when it becomes a matter for the public record. I am unclear on the position whilst the case is ongoing, but England and Wales have very strict laws to prevent the prejudicing of trials.
I don't understand. Is it libel, in the UK, to say "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? I agree Wikipedia shouldn't say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying. Can you be more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?
See above. It can be deemed libelous to repeat a rumour, so it can be deemed libelous to state "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? up until the point that it is settled in court. By repeating the allegation you are, if the allegation is false, disseminating false information and party to defamation.
I feel that enforcing such a rule in Wikipedia would greatly compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also think it could have some almost paradoxical conclusions, for instance when applied to the Seigenthaler case. Seigenthaler himself quoted Wikipedia in his USA Today article. Now obviously Seigenthaler couldn't sue himself for this, and presumably he couldn't sue the USA Today for publishing it. But what if someone quoted Seigenthaler quoting Wikipedia? Would that be legit? The rule to not repeat a rumor even if you make it perfectly clear that it's a rumor makes no sense to me.
To bring it back to what I was saying before, the statement that "two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay" is true, and Wikipedia should not censor true statements simply because making those statements is illegal under UK law. This brings up another difference between this libel law and copyright law. Under copyright law it is pretty much always possible to convey the information in another way (*). Under this UK libel rule there apparently isn't.
(*) In fact, this is essentially the reason why Wikipedia is a success. Copyright doesn't cover information. True, some images are very difficult to reproduce without falling under some copyright law somewhere, but that's why we make an exception for those images.
I'll ask again. What do you propose that we do?
I made that proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. It doesn't seem to have met with community consensus. The trouble seems to be hinging on whose definition of libel is used. I would add, however, that the foundation review either European law or the basing of assets in the European Union. I am not a lawyer, but I glanced at the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
For the reasons given above, yes, I believe we should not exclude *information* solely because of laws.
We clearly should remove false information from Wikipedia. I agree with that, and I think everyone else does. We should remove private information which has not been published anywhere else. Our verifiability rule ensures that. So what else should we do?
Clarify the position with regards to libel laws around the world as best as possible. At the moment we have different editors who are either based in the US and therefore do not care or have concerns but are feeling frustrated because no-one is prepared to stick their head above the parapet with even the loosest of risk assesments.
Wikipedia does not and should not give legal advice. If you'd like to do research on what the laws are your contribution to the encyclopedia would be greatly appreciated. But the foundation can't and shouldn't force anyone to do that research.
Even with images we have only gone so far to protect reusers. Images which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits. Images which can be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally kept. There is somewhat of a balancing act here.
But that's the point at issue here. Is wikipedia pursuing a policy that it is happy to use text which potentially only the online Wikipedia can use, or is it going to pursue a policy whereby text which can be used by a majority of reusers is the preferred option. If the latter is the case, then I would ask that the foundation sits down and explores how various libel laws affect reusers, and then formulate a policy appropriately, informing and appraising the community along the way so as not to be seen to be handing down dictats. If the former is the case, then I am unsure how wikipedia expects the text to be reused, and upon whose shoulders it places the burden of risk to fact check. If a reuser has to check every page for potential libel, why would it do so? When it comes to printing encyclopedias, information will likewise have to be vetted dependent upon the territory at which the publications are aimed. It would make sense to have some idea of how these problems are to be tackled, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't mind a tagging system to facilitate reuse. Right now reusing Wikipedia is difficult, and tagging articles (on the talk page) which are illegal to distribute in a particular country for whatever reason would make things easier. And while I agree that "text which can be used by a majority of reusers is the preferred option", I don't think it's appropriate to remove information solely to address this concern.
If we insisted on following every law from every jurisdiction on every page in the Wikipedia, I think we'd find ourselves with very little information left.
If you can come up with a way to be in better compliance with the laws of a particular jurisdiction without removing useful information from the encyclopedia, then I think we should definitely consider it.
Anthony