On 30 Mar 2007 at 09:58, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:

I don't consider this scenario likely, though. We _are_ serious about removing libel, we've got powerful policies to that effect, and the site is laden with disclaimers in case we temporarily miss some. I have faith that the legal system is not _completely_ insane, as evidenced by the fact that numerous other sources that could be much more damaging have yet to be sued out of existence.

I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced by a recent message by Somey that says:

WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous, publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical webpage can and should be considered a form of attack. And ultimately, the trick might be to get the laws changed (internationally, one would hope) to establish that principle specifically. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7817

So he understands that the present legal system doesn't accept his novel theory that Wikipedia bios = Defamation (no matter what their content), and hence wants to *change* the legal system. And you thought that that crowd was audacious when they demanded that Wikipedia change all its policies to suit them; they actually want to do it to the international legal system. Since such a change would be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.