Fred Bauder wrote:
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
We're not; we're linking to *a notable source* that may have also published defamatory information. The _New York Times_ has also published defamatory information, some of which may be retrieved through its online archives, but we still link to nytimes.com. Heck we link to stormfront.org, which has even more obviously published defamatory information and exists mainly to publish racial attacks---but is nonetheless still notable.
IMO, when it comes to notable sources, when or if they should remove information becomes their problem, not ours. If an article should be removed from a NY Times archive, or a well-known professor's blog, that's a matter to take up with them, not with us. This is a quite different case from a site that *isn't* notable, and whose entire purpose is to publish defamatory information, and for which there is no reason to link to in the first place.
-Mark