1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer
I watched the CNN interview that Siegenthaler and Jimbo appeared on. There was considerable emphasis on bad material still being in history despite it being removed from the article itself. I don't think it is unreasonable to remove clearly false material from history when specifically asked.
In this particular case after Jimbo assuring Siegenthaler that the history would be cleansed, it would not do to not do so. Sometimes you must simply accept the consequences of whatever your spokesman said.
In the general case, most articles have something plainly wrong in them, but that is simply the nature of a wiki.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anywhere I can see the video? The CNN video player isn't working for me...
On 12/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I watched the CNN interview that Siegenthaler and Jimbo appeared on. There was considerable emphasis on bad material still being in history despite it being removed from the article itself. I don't think it is unreasonable to remove clearly false material from history when specifically asked.
In this particular case after Jimbo assuring Siegenthaler that the history would be cleansed, it would not do to not do so. Sometimes you must simply accept the consequences of whatever your spokesman said.
In the general case, most articles have something plainly wrong in them, but that is simply the nature of a wiki.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On point #2: Wouldn't the easiest way to kill two birds with one stone be to write up a little bit about his accusations against Wikipedia, the explanation of how they got there that Jimbo gave earlier (created by anon, checked but not "checked", not super important, etc.), quote the "libelous" material, then delete the original material from the edit history?
The end result would be that the history of the material would be there ("Siegenthaler's page said 'XYZ'."), but the unattributed, this-is-a-fact version would not be.
Plus, it would be a very, very clever form of reflexivity, and demonstrate our undiminishing openness, even on topics which make us look bad.
FF
On 12/5/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, now that I look (I admit, I have a tendency to speak before I read), that's almost exactly what we have now, sans the description of how it got that way.
FF
On 12/5/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On point #2: Wouldn't the easiest way to kill two birds with one stone be to write up a little bit about his accusations against Wikipedia, the explanation of how they got there that Jimbo gave earlier (created by anon, checked but not "checked", not super important, etc.), quote the "libelous" material, then delete the original material from the edit history?
The end result would be that the history of the material would be there ("Siegenthaler's page said 'XYZ'."), but the unattributed, this-is-a-fact version would not be.
Plus, it would be a very, very clever form of reflexivity, and demonstrate our undiminishing openness, even on topics which make us look bad.
FF
On 12/5/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
I would disagree. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to libel suits.
Steve Block wrote:
Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
I would disagree. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel, typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement, i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the offending article from their archives, which for historical archival purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: Steve Block wrote:
. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel, typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement, i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the offending article from their archives, which for historical archival purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark There is a difference. The only people who can access a media archives are researchers or people who choose to go in to look at the microfilms, which is a tiny number of people. In addition an apology is required to be entered in the paper. But our archives would be open access, so as long as we had the libel in open archives we could be repeating it by virtue of that access. In addition someone could simply revert back to it and cause legal nightmares.
Thom
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Well and are we technically "re-publishing" each time someone opens the page in their browser?
I'm not completely clear on what the legal model is in relation to websites as printing presses, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction?
FF
On 12/7/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: Steve Block wrote:
. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel, typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement, i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the offending article from their archives, which for historical archival purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark There is a difference. The only people who can access a media archives are researchers or people who choose to go in to look at the microfilms, which is a tiny number of people. In addition an apology is required to be entered in the paper. But our archives would be open access, so as long as we had the libel in open archives we could be repeating it by virtue of that access. In addition someone could simply revert back to it and cause legal nightmares.
Thom
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/7/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Well and are we technically "re-publishing" each time someone opens the page in their browser?
I'm not completely clear on what the legal model is in relation to websites as printing presses, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction?
FF
It's the position of the Wikimedia team that the foundation is not "publishing" at all, ever. In fact, if you read the USA Today article closely, Seigenthaler's lawyers apparently agree with this position.
"Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that 'no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.'"
That's a quote from the Seigenthaler Op/Ed piece. So even he apparently agrees that Wikipedia is not a publisher.
Anthony
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
Probably not very good. What do you suggest we do about this?
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
Probably not very good. What do you suggest we do about this?
Remove libel. As I responded to Kim, the next question is which libel laws we have to wrry about. In which countries are suits likely to be brought? Australia and the United Kingdom look likely candidates, any others?
On 12/9/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
Probably not very good. What do you suggest we do about this?
Remove libel. As I responded to Kim, the next question is which libel laws we have to wrry about. In which countries are suits likely to be brought? Australia and the United Kingdom look likely candidates, any others?
We already do remove libel.
As for which libel laws we have to worry about, assuming by "we" you mean the foundation, none, we don't have to worry about any libel laws. We should remove libel because it's false information, and we don't keep false information in the encyclopedia. To the extent that any country defines true information as libel, we should ignore it.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/9/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
Probably not very good. What do you suggest we do about this?
Remove libel. As I responded to Kim, the next question is which libel laws we have to wrry about. In which countries are suits likely to be brought? Australia and the United Kingdom look likely candidates, any others?
We already do remove libel.
As for which libel laws we have to worry about, assuming by "we" you mean the foundation, none, we don't have to worry about any libel laws. We should remove libel because it's false information, and we don't keep false information in the encyclopedia. To the extent that any country defines true information as libel, we should ignore it.
Are we not going round in circles here? I ask you how a reuser is going to feel when a writ is asked, you say not good and ask me what we should do, I tell you and then you reiterate the position that the foundation does not have to worry about libel. You've already ceded that yes, there are reasons for the foundation to worry. And no country that I know of defines true infomation as libel. The problem is this: recently, two British newspapers stated Robbie Williams was gay. Had Wikipedia repeated those claims, even in terms which made it clear we were just repeating allegations made by two British newspapers, Wikipedia would have opened itself and its reusers up to being named in the very succesful suit Williams just won. It may well have been true that two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay, but he wasn't gay and repeating false information isn't a defence in the United Kingdom. Otherwise the case against the two newspapers would have collapsed, since they only repeated allegations from an at the time due to be published book.
As to who I mean when I say "we", I mean, us as individual editors, the foundation and the community, since I am unclear what the separation between the three is. There is some small part of me that is hoping a suit is launched, because that seems to be the only thing that will actually get some clarification on these issues from people on Wikipedia.
The foundation apparently refused to use images that cause Wikipedia no problem because they impact on reusers, yet we also seem to refuse to take into account the impact on such reusers of the ability of the information to stand up to viable legal challenges.
Still, I think as an individual editor I'm not so bothered anymore. I would simply seek to have my name removed from any suit by arguing that I am not responsible for the fact that a website chooses to publish my solicited submission without any editing or verification.
On 12/13/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/9/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
Probably not very good. What do you suggest we do about this?
Remove libel. As I responded to Kim, the next question is which libel laws we have to wrry about. In which countries are suits likely to be brought? Australia and the United Kingdom look likely candidates, any others?
We already do remove libel.
As for which libel laws we have to worry about, assuming by "we" you mean the foundation, none, we don't have to worry about any libel laws. We should remove libel because it's false information, and we don't keep false information in the encyclopedia. To the extent that any country defines true information as libel, we should ignore it.
Are we not going round in circles here?
Maybe a bit.
I ask you how a reuser is going to feel when a writ is asked, you say not good and ask me what we should do, I tell you and then you reiterate the position that the foundation does not have to worry about libel.
The foundation doesn't have to worry about libel. Reusers might. We should remove false facts from the articles. We should remove privacy violations from the articles. If a reuser gets sued because something that was true and not a privacy violation was nonetheless considered libelous, well, there's nothing we can really do about that.
You've already ceded that yes, there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
No I haven't.
And no country that I know of defines true infomation as libel. The problem is this: recently, two British newspapers stated Robbie Williams was gay. Had Wikipedia repeated those claims, even in terms which made it clear we were just repeating allegations made by two British newspapers, Wikipedia would have opened itself and its reusers up to being named in the very succesful suit Williams just won.
The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie Williams gay is true information. Does British law define this as libel or not?
It may well have been true that two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay, but he wasn't gay and repeating false information isn't a defence in the United Kingdom.
I don't understand. Is it libel, in the UK, to say "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? I agree Wikipedia shouldn't say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying. Can you be more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?
Otherwise the case against the two newspapers would have collapsed, since they only repeated allegations from an at the time due to be published book.
As to who I mean when I say "we", I mean, us as individual editors, the foundation and the community, since I am unclear what the separation between the three is. There is some small part of me that is hoping a suit is launched, because that seems to be the only thing that will actually get some clarification on these issues from people on Wikipedia.
The foundation apparently refused to use images that cause Wikipedia no problem because they impact on reusers, yet we also seem to refuse to take into account the impact on such reusers of the ability of the information to stand up to viable legal challenges.
I'll ask again. What do you propose that we do? We clearly should remove false information from Wikipedia. I agree with that, and I think everyone else does. We should remove private information which has not been published anywhere else. Our verifiability rule ensures that. So what else should we do?
Even with images we have only gone so far to protect reusers. Images which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits. Images which can be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally kept. There is somewhat of a balancing act here.
Still, I think as an individual editor I'm not so bothered anymore. I would simply seek to have my name removed from any suit by arguing that I am not responsible for the fact that a website chooses to publish my solicited submission without any editing or verification.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/13/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
You've already ceded that yes, there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
No I haven't.
I'm sorry, but when you stated that yes, there was concern for reusers regarding potential suits, and could I suggest anything to be done, that that meant the foundation was likewise concerned. Is it the case that the foundation has no worries regarding funding or reputation in the light of a potential suit?
The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie Williams gay is true information. Does British law define this as libel or not?
According to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394#4
"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties."
As far as I can ascertain, only once the trial has ended can the nature of the allegation may be reported, when it becomes a matter for the public record. I am unclear on the position whilst the case is ongoing, but England and Wales have very strict laws to prevent the prejudicing of trials.
I don't understand. Is it libel, in the UK, to say "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? I agree Wikipedia shouldn't say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying. Can you be more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?
See above. It can be deemed libelous to repeat a rumour, so it can be deemed libelous to state "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? up until the point that it is settled in court. By repeating the allegation you are, if the allegation is false, disseminating false information and party to defamation.
I'll ask again. What do you propose that we do?
I made that proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. It doesn't seem to have met with community consensus. The trouble seems to be hinging on whose definition of libel is used. I would add, however, that the foundation review either European law or the basing of assets in the European Union. I am not a lawyer, but I glanced at the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R00... and these clauses give cause for concern:
(9) A defendant not domiciled in a Member State is in general subject to national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the Member State of the court seised, and a defendant domiciled in a Member State not bound by this Regulation must remain subject to the Brussels Convention.
(10) For the purposes of the free movement of judgments, judgments given in a Member State bound by this Regulation should be recognised and enforced in another Member State bound by this Regulation, even if the judgment debtor is domiciled in a third State.
(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant's domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction.
Number (11) would probably allow libel cases to take place in England for the English language wikipedia since that is where English is the primary language.
However, the McLibel case showed that the European Human Rights directive, which guarantees freedom of expression, is in conflict with the libel laws of England and Wales.
What I am ultimately asking is that the foundation consider seeking advice on the libel laws of England and Wales and those of Europe from a resident expert.
We clearly should remove false information from Wikipedia. I agree with that, and I think everyone else does. We should remove private information which has not been published anywhere else. Our verifiability rule ensures that. So what else should we do?
Clarify the position with regards to libel laws around the world as best as possible. At the moment we have different editors who are either based in the US and therefore do not care or have concerns but are feeling frustrated because no-one is prepared to stick their head above the parapet with even the loosest of risk assesments.
Even with images we have only gone so far to protect reusers. Images which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits. Images which can be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally kept. There is somewhat of a balancing act here.
But that's the point at issue here. Is wikipedia pursuing a policy that it is happy to use text which potentially only the online Wikipedia can use, or is it going to pursue a policy whereby text which can be used by a majority of reusers is the preferred option. If the latter is the case, then I would ask that the foundation sits down and explores how various libel laws affect reusers, and then formulate a policy appropriately, informing and appraising the community along the way so as not to be seen to be handing down dictats. If the former is the case, then I am unsure how wikipedia expects the text to be reused, and upon whose shoulders it places the burden of risk to fact check. If a reuser has to check every page for potential libel, why would it do so? When it comes to printing encyclopedias, information will likewise have to be vetted dependent upon the territory at which the publications are aimed. It would make sense to have some idea of how these problems are to be tackled, wouldn't it?
On 12/13/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/13/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
You've already ceded that yes, there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
No I haven't.
I'm sorry, but when you stated that yes, there was concern for reusers regarding potential suits, and could I suggest anything to be done, that that meant the foundation was likewise concerned. Is it the case that the foundation has no worries regarding funding or reputation in the light of a potential suit?
Maybe we're just miscommunicating. If there is something we can do to help reusers which doesn't compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, we should do it. But I don't think there is. I wouldn't say the foundation has to worry about this.
The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie Williams gay is true information. Does British law define this as libel or not?
According to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394#4
"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it's true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding 'allegedly' is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties."
As far as I can ascertain, only once the trial has ended can the nature of the allegation may be reported, when it becomes a matter for the public record. I am unclear on the position whilst the case is ongoing, but England and Wales have very strict laws to prevent the prejudicing of trials.
I don't understand. Is it libel, in the UK, to say "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? I agree Wikipedia shouldn't say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying. Can you be more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?
See above. It can be deemed libelous to repeat a rumour, so it can be deemed libelous to state "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? up until the point that it is settled in court. By repeating the allegation you are, if the allegation is false, disseminating false information and party to defamation.
I feel that enforcing such a rule in Wikipedia would greatly compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also think it could have some almost paradoxical conclusions, for instance when applied to the Seigenthaler case. Seigenthaler himself quoted Wikipedia in his USA Today article. Now obviously Seigenthaler couldn't sue himself for this, and presumably he couldn't sue the USA Today for publishing it. But what if someone quoted Seigenthaler quoting Wikipedia? Would that be legit? The rule to not repeat a rumor even if you make it perfectly clear that it's a rumor makes no sense to me.
To bring it back to what I was saying before, the statement that "two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay" is true, and Wikipedia should not censor true statements simply because making those statements is illegal under UK law. This brings up another difference between this libel law and copyright law. Under copyright law it is pretty much always possible to convey the information in another way (*). Under this UK libel rule there apparently isn't.
(*) In fact, this is essentially the reason why Wikipedia is a success. Copyright doesn't cover information. True, some images are very difficult to reproduce without falling under some copyright law somewhere, but that's why we make an exception for those images.
I'll ask again. What do you propose that we do?
I made that proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. It doesn't seem to have met with community consensus. The trouble seems to be hinging on whose definition of libel is used. I would add, however, that the foundation review either European law or the basing of assets in the European Union. I am not a lawyer, but I glanced at the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
For the reasons given above, yes, I believe we should not exclude *information* solely because of laws.
We clearly should remove false information from Wikipedia. I agree with that, and I think everyone else does. We should remove private information which has not been published anywhere else. Our verifiability rule ensures that. So what else should we do?
Clarify the position with regards to libel laws around the world as best as possible. At the moment we have different editors who are either based in the US and therefore do not care or have concerns but are feeling frustrated because no-one is prepared to stick their head above the parapet with even the loosest of risk assesments.
Wikipedia does not and should not give legal advice. If you'd like to do research on what the laws are your contribution to the encyclopedia would be greatly appreciated. But the foundation can't and shouldn't force anyone to do that research.
Even with images we have only gone so far to protect reusers. Images which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits. Images which can be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally kept. There is somewhat of a balancing act here.
But that's the point at issue here. Is wikipedia pursuing a policy that it is happy to use text which potentially only the online Wikipedia can use, or is it going to pursue a policy whereby text which can be used by a majority of reusers is the preferred option. If the latter is the case, then I would ask that the foundation sits down and explores how various libel laws affect reusers, and then formulate a policy appropriately, informing and appraising the community along the way so as not to be seen to be handing down dictats. If the former is the case, then I am unsure how wikipedia expects the text to be reused, and upon whose shoulders it places the burden of risk to fact check. If a reuser has to check every page for potential libel, why would it do so? When it comes to printing encyclopedias, information will likewise have to be vetted dependent upon the territory at which the publications are aimed. It would make sense to have some idea of how these problems are to be tackled, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't mind a tagging system to facilitate reuse. Right now reusing Wikipedia is difficult, and tagging articles (on the talk page) which are illegal to distribute in a particular country for whatever reason would make things easier. And while I agree that "text which can be used by a majority of reusers is the preferred option", I don't think it's appropriate to remove information solely to address this concern.
If we insisted on following every law from every jurisdiction on every page in the Wikipedia, I think we'd find ourselves with very little information left.
If you can come up with a way to be in better compliance with the laws of a particular jurisdiction without removing useful information from the encyclopedia, then I think we should definitely consider it.
Anthony
Snowspinner wrote:
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
It is still stored in the database, just not publicly available. This strikes me as sufficient to deal with concerns about the historical record.
If someone wants to make a publicly available cache somewhere, I would advise extreme caution about it, but I don't think it is appropriate for us.
-Jimbo