Mark Gallagher wrote:
I submit that this is a good standard for Wikipedia to
aim for (even if
we don't need to). If something is not true *and* in the public
interest to know, we should not be saying it about anyone, in particular
living people. That's not a legal decision, it's an editorial (and, if
you like, moral) one. We should be displaying more discretion than
simply "oh, it's true, chuck it in". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate
collection of facts.
I'd agree, but only if you have a pretty broad view of "public interest"
(possibly broader than that in UK law; I'm not an expert on UK libel
law). I do agree it doesn't make sense to publish all information, even
if true, about every random person in the world. However, I also don't
think something should have to rise to a particularly high level to be
worth mentioning; facts of less consequence than those disclosed in,
say, the Pentagon Papers are useful to have in an encyclopedia. In
general, we should provide to the public verifiable (and sourced) facts
about any subject they may potentially be looking for information on;
not act as a nanny deciding whether, in our subjective opinions, they
should know one fact but are better off not knowing another.