On 30 Mar 2007 at 09:58, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/