Dan>"According to the constitution of the united states,
libel should be solved out of the courts simply by notifying everyone of the incorrect information."
Sean>Oh, really? Which article would that be?
The idea I think Dan is getting at is 'good faith' - If a good faith effort isnt made to deal with the issue.. vis a vis.. a retraction, etc... then a judge is likely to view the issue as beneath the court. We had a brief talk about this.. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ALibel
The thing I'm curious about is, with regard to the setting up of a Wikimedia foundation... and the necessary formalizing of some sort of policy.. vis a vis libel issues... The creation of an NPO would take some of the heat off of Jim, but would also put the WP in the hands of essentially... beaurocrats.. some of whom would no doubt 'fit a certain mold.' Just poking my nose in... -DK
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 20:41, Stevertigo wrote:
The thing I'm curious about is, with regard to the setting up of a Wikimedia foundation... and the necessary formalizing of some sort of policy.. vis a vis libel issues...
What would such a policy need to say that the Neutral Point of View policy does not?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
It would probably need to say stuff like Wikimedia Foundation is not liable for any libelous content. The NPOV statement has nothing about liability. Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 20:41, Stevertigo wrote:
The thing I'm curious about is, with regard to the setting up of a Wikimedia foundation... and the necessary formalizing of some sort of policy.. vis a vis libel issues...
What would such a policy need to say that the Neutral Point of View policy does not?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature name=signature.asc
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Stevertigo wrote:
Sean wrote:
Dan wrote:
According to the constitution of the united states, libel should be solved out of the courts simply by notifying everyone of the incorrect information.
Oh, really? Which article would that be?
The idea I think Dan is getting at is 'good faith' - If a good faith effort isnt made to deal with the issue.. vis a vis.. a retraction, etc... then a judge is likely to view the issue as beneath the court.
IANAL, but this sounds correct to me. However, such court practices would derive from case law; I'm sure that the US Constitution says nothing directly about it. (That said, the 1st Amendment may be seen as lending support for it, and a court might cite the spirit of that amendment in a decision.)
So the idea is probably right, it's just not clear-cut in the consitution's text.
-- Toby