On 4/20/06, maru dubshinki
<marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We shouldn't examine that data, however. Very
bad precedent, and poor
for privacy, especially since we aren't dealing with out-and-out
vandals here, but merely critics.
If the circumstantial evidence provided is valid, this is far worse
than vandalism. This is people in a position of trust abusing it and
possibly exposing Wikipedia to liability for copyright infringement or
defamation by causing such material to be published.
If the premise that the material is such that would expose its publisher
to that kind of liability there would be no liability to Wikipedia if
the material was removed shortly after the problem was discovered. If a
person subsequently abuses the material any liability would be on his
shoulders.
Ec