The difference is one of intent. I dispute the claim that we often defame people - an innocent mistake in an article is not defamation. Even if we're a little careless to allow such mistakes, that still isn't defamation (I think the legal threshold in most jurisdictions is recklessness). On Nov 12, 2012 3:26 PM, "Thomas Morton" morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place. They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a better light.
Who is the good guy?
Tom
On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract
of
a
website. We regularly defame people.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweake...
is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive.
Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in them ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l