Fred Bauder wrote:
However common sense plays a role here. Consider the situation of anyone contemplating a lawsuit against you...
Well, from this perspective, Sheldon's disinfopedia is at more of a risk than we are, I think. His project is political and confrontational in a way that ours isn't. He specifically lists what he calls "Case Studies of deceptive PR campaigns," for example.
From our perspective, NPOV is a great mechanism for avoiding libel,
because it's pretty hard to libel someone without taking any position.
Just as an example, Wikipedia would not call a PR campaign "deceptive", we would merely report that Disinfopedia said so. ;-)
As far as the liability we might have for words posted by a random contributor, the DMCA gives a pretty strong defense to that.
--Jimbo