On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation.
It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous. Brandt does not dispute the accuracy of the information in it; his core argument is that it presents him in a "false light". At the same time, he acknowledges that the distribution of publications about his activities results in a natural bias on the kinds of activities which he was involved in. This makes the entire argument meaningless; there is no evidence whatsoever of an attempt to deliberately give a false impression of who Brandt is and what he is doing. If such claims held any water, virtually any publication about Brandt's work would be similarly defamatory.
Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside interference
Not at all. If I actually saw any evidence that Brandt was being deliberately harmed through his article, I would be much more concerned about the legal implications. However, as far as I can tell, all that people have tried to do is write a neutral, well-sourced biography. That is what Wikipedia is for.
Brandt has to figure out what he wants. If he believes he has a moral or legal case because of the text of his biography, he has completely lost touch with reality; this text has been more diligently researched than probably anything that has ever been written about him in his life. If he, on the other hand, argues that _any_ Wikipedia article could _potentially_ contain something negative, he has similarly no legal case (so could any discussion forum, including the ones he posts to); however, I would agree that he has a limited _moral_ case. Wikipedia should do its best to protect the integrity of articles about living persons. We are not a random web forum and should hold our articles to a higher standard.
If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is more satisfying.