This week's edition of the UK entertainment scandal e-mail Popbitch (see [[Popbitch]]) includes a link to [[Talk:Michael Colvin]] which includes some "bizarre conspiracy theories" relating to [[Derek Laud]], a contestant on the current series of Big Brother. User:Smoddy deleted them as "possibly libellous" but they have been restored. They also exist in the history of [[Michael Colvin]] at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Colvin&oldid=6052341
Do we really want to be carrying this stuff? If not we will have to delete it, both from the article (using selective undelete) and the talk page, and probably protect the pages to stop it being pasted back in again.
Opinions?
Rob ([[user:Rbrwr]])
Rob Brewer (rob@rbrwr.org) [050603 02:25]:
This week's edition of the UK entertainment scandal e-mail Popbitch (see [[Popbitch]]) includes a link to [[Talk:Michael Colvin]] which includes some "bizarre conspiracy theories" relating to [[Derek Laud]], a contestant on the current series of Big Brother. User:Smoddy deleted them as "possibly libellous" but they have been restored. They also exist in the history of [[Michael Colvin]] at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Colvin&oldid=6052341 Do we really want to be carrying this stuff? If not we will have to delete it, both from the article (using selective undelete) and the talk page, and probably protect the pages to stop it being pasted back in again. Opinions?
It's been deleted from the talk page once (admins can see it, and IANAL but I have been a journalist, and it sure smelt like defamation to me). This is close to zap on sight IMO. (It's certainly original research if the documentation backing it up isn't to hand.) May need to keep an eye on the article and talk page for a while, yes.
- d.
Rob Brewer said:
Do we really want to be carrying this stuff? If not we will have to delete it, both from the article (using selective undelete) and the talk page, and probably protect the pages to stop it being pasted back in again.
This is extremely serious abuse--the worst I have ever seen. As it's not really encyclopedic and in my opinion may pose a danger to Wikipedia I've taken the liberty of deleting it. I know this is not included in the deletion policy but this series of patently false and extremely damaging allegations could expose Wikipedia to a rather hefty defamation suit.
Tony Sidaway said:
Rob Brewer said:
Do we really want to be carrying this stuff? If not we will have to delete it, both from the article (using selective undelete) and the talk page, and probably protect the pages to stop it being pasted back in again.
This is extremely serious abuse--the worst I have ever seen. As it's not really encyclopedic and in my opinion may pose a danger to Wikipedia I've taken the liberty of deleting it. I know this is not included in the deletion policy but this series of patently false and extremely damaging allegations could expose Wikipedia to a rather hefty defamation suit.
I should add that I found the defamatory allegations not in the talk page (which had been zapped) but in the article itself, appended after the stub template. I zapped the Michael Colvin article. It will probably be recreated, so keep a lookout.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:59:58 +0100 (BST), Tony Sidaway wrote
I should add that I found the defamatory allegations not in the talk page (which had been zapped) but in the article itself, appended after the stub template. I zapped the Michael Colvin article. It will probably be recreated, so keep a lookout.
I have restored the safe revisions of [[Michael Colvin]] using selective undelete; Hoshie's edit that removed the libel reverted the article to the state it was in beforehand, and I've left that one deleted as well, so the history credits all diffs correctly.
Rob [[user:Rbrwr]]
Rob Brewer said:
I have restored the safe revisions of [[Michael Colvin]] using selective undelete; Hoshie's edit that removed the libel reverted the article to the state it was in beforehand, and I've left that one deleted as well, so the history credits all diffs correctly.
Thanks. You're a braver man than I.
I think Wiki-en has got off very lightly, as far as legal problems and defamation issues is concerned. I see that Alexa now makes WP #46 of English sites on the Web. There will come a point when not having serious assets is not an adequate defence against the litigious. (I'm not saying WP doesn't have other lines of defence, but 'not worth suing' may not last forever as the _first_ of those.)
Charles
PS IANAL, all that ...
I tried to fix the Derek Laud article the same way but now I can't see the history. Perhaps some database lag, or maybe I screwed up. There are some mischievous edits that aren't defamatory (using the word bummer, etc, just vulgar abuse) and I tried restoring those but the serious allegations I kept deleted and also some of the less defamatory but unsupported stuff
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:26:28 +0100 (BST), Tony Sidaway wrote
I tried to fix the Derek Laud article the same way but now I can't see the history. Perhaps some database lag, or maybe I screwed up. There are some mischievous edits that aren't defamatory (using the word bummer, etc, just vulgar abuse) and I tried restoring those but the serious allegations I kept deleted and also some of the less defamatory but unsupported stuff
Now you're the braver man. There is a danger, in case like this, of making the history misleading and thus putting us in violation of the GFDL. [[Michael Colvin]] was simple; this one looks like it wasn't.
Rob [[user:Rbrwr]]