In a message dated 7/22/2008 12:43:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, alecmconroy@gmail.com writes:

I wonder if the legal requirements of BLP would still apply if articles were "signed" or "owned" by specific users? Obviously, individuals who write the articles would face a certain liability, but mayhaps the foundation would be as immune from BLP issues as the phone company is immune from slander that travels over their long distance lines.

-------------- The foundation already *is* immune, in the same way and for the same reasons. By the way the vast majority of BLP isn't about "slander" per se, imho. It's about "oh why are we hurting someone's feelings...." or even just "we *might* hurt someone's feelings".

If fifteen newspapers and the AP report Britney Spears is in a mental hospital, we can't, because a well-heeled clan of "do-gooders" are off their meds :)

At least that's my witty or concealed-vicious way of putting the situation.

Otherwise I would agree with the rest of your reply, if, you would agree that a core policy should simply be "we will never have a notability policy". There is no need to mention "quality" at all, since some very high-quality articles can be writen about people of little to no notability (per se).

I mean fifteen people who know Florence personally could get together and write a good article about her, even though she, may not qualify for an article in-project, for notability reasons (no slur on Florence).

The problem in that case, if there was one, in this *new* project would be V not notability. That's as it should be, it's as I THOUGHT Jimmy had envisioned it when he stated that we should cover everything.

Since "we should cover everything" was never part of the CORE, it got swamped by Notability. The only way to prevent a repeat-performance is to make "no notability" itself a core principle.

Will Johnson

**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)