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