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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas(a)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-tweak…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l