On 12/8/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no place in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with UK law, though. If we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.
On the other hand, we shouldn't publish stuff just because it's true, either (this is the cue for the "you deletionist vandal!" crowd to start making a ruckus on this issue, too). In Australia, one can defend against a defamation suit if a) the information is true, *and* b) it's in the public interest for the information to be published.
Truth in an of itself is not a defence, neither is "important if true". This additional burden presumably makes Australian law as nightmarish and evil as UK law (they hate freedom!), but is something I think it would do us no harm to heed. We should not be publishing defamatory information just because it's true, even if we really really dislike the subject. The truth of a statement is not sufficient for its inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
(Admittedly, WP:NOR can cover most instances of this, since if the information is verifiable, someone else will have already made the call).
If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation? I think we can all agree that it absolutely should not.
Good point.
<snip />
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
No, we shouldn't publish it simply because it's true. Actually, "we" shouldn't publish anything. We should provide the servers to allow others to publish things.
Anyway, you seem to be getting into privacy issues with part b). I think our policy of no original research should be enough to avoid any problems there. If it's already been published by some other respectable source, then we should include it in the encyclopedia. If it hasn't, then we shouldn't. Again, this really has nothing to do with laws, but fortunately it means we would be in compliance with the laws of most of the world. If you can think of a situation where this isn't the case, maybe you could change my mind there, though.