>Brion:What would such a policy need to say that the
Neutral Point of View
policy does not?
Well, Daniel once again has got the feel for the issue... that is that NPOV
and being sued for libel are two different things... I can understand what
youre getting at Brion.. that they are related, with regard to an editors
point of view, But still, we here are involved in making policy and crafting
some general ways of dealing with related (even outside in the legal world)
issues so that later, when these things might come up, they've been thought
through somewhat beforehand.
NPOV is a good general policy.. but when Libel really means someone trying
to edit Wikipedia through a legal interface, rather than the normal one.
Here, of course, as I've said on the T:W:Libel page, theres a burden of
responsibility automatically placed on someone to make a change themselves,
if something is incorrect... Im sure this has been said before, in similar
words.. So, I dont think WP has much to worry about at all... If its true,
and the tribe sticks to it... and yet they want to sue... fine... That would
be one of the easier cases to argue... lawyer or not...
So, yes its an issue.. and having a foundation would inevitably mean a
policy with regard to being sued. And whatever policy that is.. simply by
nature of being solidified into some guide, would have some minimal bearing
on the freedoms Wikipedians enjoy in editing articles.
Funny enough, a major Libel case - Richard Perle is going to sue Seymour
Hirsch (and The New Yorker) for his column... not here in the US, but in
England... go figure... the laws there are apparently more favorable to him,
despite the fact that neither lives there, and the circulation there is a
sliver of what it is here. -Steve