On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:13:53 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
IF a Wikipedia article is to exist on this person at
all, it should
certainly mention that ... distinction ... and I don't see anything
wrong with quoting the SFWA on the matter - in fact, better to have it
in their own words than ours.
On the other hand, is it enough for an article? Quite possibly not.
Yes, exactly that. We should not be scared of reporting what the
sources say, just because litigious individuals threaten us. What we
should do is to make sure that everything in the article is attributed
to the best source possible and stated in the most neutral terms.
If you go to court and say that so-and-so reported that the Foo
Society called you a charlatan, then over here at least the fact that
the Foo Foundation /did/ call you a charlatan is a valid defence -
*for you*. Not, of course, for the Foo Foundation.
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the
case. As far as I can see she and the credulous wannabes she fleeces
almost deserve each other...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG