Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
BozMo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke failure.to.communicate@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one day because it was a "bad day for vandalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167." It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit accusinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167Leiberman of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen Degeneres Show.
You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours.
This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure subjects?
We already know the answer to thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection.
Cool Hand Luke
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. ( http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc... ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l