Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano) - and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
private musings wrote:
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
If you already know this is a bit dramatic, could you find some way to lessen that? For example, explaining both sides of this in a sympathetic or NPOV way before stating your conclusion?
That would make me feel more comfortable there's an actual issue, and it will help the people on the other side see that you have heard and understood their side of it.
Thanks,
William
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
private musings wrote:
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
If you already know this is a bit dramatic, could you find some way to lessen that? For example, explaining both sides of this in a sympathetic or NPOV way before stating your conclusion?
That would make me feel more comfortable there's an actual issue, and it will help the people on the other side see that you have heard and understood their side of it.
Thanks,
William
Well I would but Fred Bauder just deleted the talk page. Still here goes. Reports from three continents over a period of over a decade show that in 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud in the UK. Souces include the Scotsman the Guardian the Independent a newspaper from new zealand (Di Stefano went there in the early 90s but wasn't allowed to stay) and US court records (Di Stefano was removed from the US mid 90s no idea why he was there).
The other question is is Mr Di Stefano actually a lawyer. By normal sourcing standards we could get as far as probably (no really solid evidence that he is but the evidence against is mostly of the newspaper X couldn't find any records type). By the sourcing standards being applied by Fred to the fraud conviction thing we can't really say that he is.
Anyway against that we have what?
Well the short version is that the information isn't publicly avialble. Something is going on through the back channels and Jimbo is involved. Private eye (oh yes just to complicate matters they decided to report on the thing) guessed at legal threats and are probably right (mind you if you are Private eye legal threats are never going to be that far out of your mind) but no detail of those threats. The person you might want to ask is SqueakBox.
geni wrote:
Well I would but Fred Bauder just deleted the talk page. Still here goes. Reports from three continents over a period of over a decade show that in 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud in the UK. Souces include the Scotsman the Guardian the Independent a newspaper from new zealand (Di Stefano went there in the early 90s but wasn't allowed to stay) and US court records (Di Stefano was removed from the US mid 90s no idea why he was there).
The other question is is Mr Di Stefano actually a lawyer. By normal sourcing standards we could get as far as probably (no really solid evidence that he is but the evidence against is mostly of the newspaper X couldn't find any records type). By the sourcing standards being applied by Fred to the fraud conviction thing we can't really say that he is.
Anyway against that we have what?
Well the short version is that the information isn't publicly avialble.
I can't vouch for what was said in the papers, but if there was an actual conviction that information is publicly available from the court registry.
There is a need to distinguish between suppression based on public availability, and suppression based on Wikipedia's own policies.
Ec
On 15/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote: I can't vouch for what was said in the papers, but if there was an actual conviction that information is publicly available from the court registry.
There is a need to distinguish between suppression based on public availability, and suppression based on Wikipedia's own policies.
Ec
No one appears to be denying the the case happened. The debate is was it the same person. According to the New Zealand Press Association it appears we are not the first to ask that and the New Zealand authorities were in a position to get an answer:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071030/3/287t.html
On 11/15/07, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on
<snip>
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
Looks like more trolling to me. Are you planning to contribute something productive to this list, or should we moderate you?
Steve
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:22:44 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
Are you willing to foot the legal bills? I have seen the emails to OTRS from di Stefano. He is a lawyer. A wealthy lawyer who is prepared to defend people like Milosevic and Noye.
The fundamental problem, as has been detailed previously on the talk page, is that these papers are repeating a rumour which is not objectively provable. Di Stefano considers the rumour defamatory (which it is) and points out that if it were true he would not be allowed to practice law in England.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:22:44 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
Are you willing to foot the legal bills? I have seen the emails to OTRS from di Stefano. He is a lawyer. A wealthy lawyer who is prepared to defend people like Milosevic and Noye.
And for those wondering, I believe the official Wikimedia Foundation position is that editors are indeed on their own when it comes to the legal consequences of any edits they make. Even if those edits are obviously what we'd consider good edits.
There's some sound legal reasoning behind this, and I think they've made the right choice, but it was still a surprise to me when I learned it.
My guess is that if there were a reasonably good test case, there would be a fair bit of public support and possibly donations and/or pro bono legal assistance. But even with that a lawsuit like this would still be a substantial burden, probably a multi-year one, for the editor involved.
This does leave us with the risk of having articles that have been whitewashed due to legal threats. That worries me, so I've proposed a warning template for articles in that condition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
But I don't think anybody has used it yet.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:22:44 +1100, "private musings" wrote:
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
Are you willing to foot the legal bills? I have seen the emails to OTRS from di Stefano. He is a lawyer. A wealthy lawyer who is prepared to defend people like Milosevic and Noye.
And for those wondering, I believe the official Wikimedia Foundation position is that editors are indeed on their own when it comes to the legal consequences of any edits they make. Even if those edits are obviously what we'd consider good edits.
That seems sound.
There's some sound legal reasoning behind this, and I think they've made the right choice, but it was still a surprise to me when I learned it.
The myth still lives on the net that people can act with impunity. WMF is not in a position to act as an arbiter of whether what someone says is libelous or not, especially when the truth of the statement is in question. It can remove the obviously scurrilous name-calling if it is first brought to its attention, but that only deals with a small part of the problem. If The Times says that someone was convicted of fraud there is nothing wrong with saying that The Times reported this.
My guess is that if there were a reasonably good test case, there would be a fair bit of public support and possibly donations and/or pro bono legal assistance. But even with that a lawsuit like this would still be a substantial burden, probably a multi-year one, for the editor involved.
Probably so. It's something that every editor needs to keep in mind before he posts anything on _any_ site, not just this one.
This does leave us with the risk of having articles that have been whitewashed due to legal threats. That worries me, so I've proposed a warning template for articles in that condition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
But I don't think anybody has used it yet.
With due respect, not even you? But seeing that it is on a personal sub-page, it's most likely that no-one knows about it even if it has been there for more than a year.
The template does ask for the matter to be discussed on the relevant talk page, but part of the current discussion involves material deleted from a talk page. There still needs to be a place for the meta-discussion of such information.
Ec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
Fred
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
Fred
Um, Fred, I'm confused by this statement. The actual malice standard is a standard which is only relevant in the United States and only the standard for public figures. William Pietri's proposed template doesn't address what country or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even address that the issue is libel. So what precisely are you saying?
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
[...] William Pietri's proposed template doesn't address what country or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even address that the issue is libel.
For what it is worth, that is entirely intentional. If somebody is threatening to sue us, I wanted to avoid inflaming the situation by saying anything that might upset them further. I also didn't want something that would hint at the details of the problem, because many ways of stating the details might be equally disputed by somebody involved.
Really, the only goal is to let readers know that they are not receiving a good article, as with {{Unbalanced}} or {{POV}}. And like those warnings, we don't need to say which way we think the article might be bent. We just have to let readers know that they're not getting what they get out of most of our articles: a quick, balanced take on some topic of interest to them.
William
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Really, the only goal is to let readers know that they are not receiving a good article, as with {{Unbalanced}} or {{POV}}. And like those warnings, we don't need to say which way we think the article might be bent. We just have to let readers know that they're not getting what they get out of most of our articles: a quick, balanced take on some topic of interest to them.
A 'chilling effects' tag ... man, that'll be all over the press in seconds.
I'd run it past Sandra Ordonez (Foundation PR) and Mike Godwin (Foundation lawyer) before proceeding wholeheartedly.
(Can I say that my inner troublemaker is most pleased at the notion? That doesn't make it a good one, of course ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Really, the only goal is to let readers know that they are not receiving a good article, as with {{Unbalanced}} or {{POV}}. And like those warnings, we don't need to say which way we think the article might be bent. We just have to let readers know that they're not getting what they get out of most of our articles: a quick, balanced take on some topic of interest to them.
A 'chilling effects' tag ... man, that'll be all over the press in seconds.
I'd run it past Sandra Ordonez (Foundation PR) and Mike Godwin (Foundation lawyer) before proceeding wholeheartedly.
(Can I say that my inner troublemaker is most pleased at the notion? That doesn't make it a good one, of course ;-)
I think this is slightly different than a "chilling effects" tag. Slightly broader. It's meant to cover when we chicken out on something, but also the period when the Foundation has put an WP:OFFICE-ish hold on editing something while they think things through.
Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, it's easy to mistake each for the other. There has been relatively little clarity about when we cross that line, as the WP:OFFICE holds I've noticed seem to take a very long time and have very little visible progress.
Once we've ironed out objections to the tags here, I'll follow your suggestion and run it by those two folks. Thanks for the suggestion.
William
P.S. Although impishness is a big part of my character, I'm not looking to make trouble with this one. Although the necessity irks me, I accept that the WMF's legal budget is not infinite, and we have to pick our battles carefully.
P.S. Although impishness is a big part of my character, I'm not looking to make trouble with this one. Although the necessity irks me, I accept that the WMF's legal budget is not infinite, and we have to pick our battles carefully.
Yes, but keep in mind that winning is almost as expensive as losing. If you think the Arbcom is bad, try the courts.
Fred
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
P.S. Although impishness is a big part of my character, I'm not looking to make trouble with this one. Although the necessity irks me, I accept that the WMF's legal budget is not infinite, and we have to pick our battles carefully.
Yes, but keep in mind that winning is almost as expensive as losing. If you think the Arbcom is bad, try the courts.
Fred
UK law Fred not US. Costs are generally paid by the losing side if they can afford them.
On Nov 15, 2007 10:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, but keep in mind that winning is almost as expensive as losing. If you think the Arbcom is bad, try the courts.
UK law Fred not US. Costs are generally paid by the losing side if they can afford them.
That's a bold statement. Yes, costs are normally awarded against the losing side but that does not mean they will actually get paid. English legal history is full of people who have won libel actions and yet been financially ruined.
(There's a system called 'paying money into court' where the defendant will put up a sum of money as an offer for settlement without admission of liability. If the plaintiff wins but the jury awards less in damages than the amount paid into court, then the plaintiff is still required to pay their own costs)
On 15/11/2007, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
That's a bold statement. Yes, costs are normally awarded against the losing side but that does not mean they will actually get paid. English legal history is full of people who have won libel actions and yet been financially ruined.
(There's a system called 'paying money into court' where the defendant will put up a sum of money as an offer for settlement without admission of liability. If the plaintiff wins but the jury awards less in damages than the amount paid into court, then the plaintiff is still required to pay their own costs)
The statement was made from the POV of the defendant so paying money into the court doesn't really apply.
Fred Bauder wrote:
P.S. Although impishness is a big part of my character, I'm not looking to make trouble with this one. Although the necessity irks me, I accept that the WMF's legal budget is not infinite, and we have to pick our battles carefully.
Yes, but keep in mind that winning is almost as expensive as losing. If you think the Arbcom is bad, try the courts.
Oh, I agree. I'm fortunate enough never to have personally been involved with the courts, but I've seen it happen to a couple people close to me. I would strongly rather avoid suits altogether.
I think we won't be able to do that forever, though. We have the same problem that first-rank newspapers do. Our readers value us to the extent we can give them the straight scoop on whatever it is they're looking up.
If it becomes known that we can be bullied into whitewashing articles, we take a double hit. First, our readers will lose some confidence in us, suspecting perfectly good articles just because somebody with money or power might care to influence them. Second, because they see a better chance at succeeding, the number of people willing to try intimidating us will go up.
It's definitely a Scylla-and-Charybdis situation. Disaster on either side, and the path between is narrow and fraught.
William
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
Fred
Um, Fred, I'm confused by this statement. The actual malice standard is a standard which is only relevant in the United States and only the standard for public figures. William Pietri's proposed template doesn't address what country or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even address that the issue is libel. So what precisely are you saying?
From our article on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974:
Rehabilitation Act and actions for libel under British law
According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media law, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.
As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of spent convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation.[1]
To apply this to the case at issue, the sentence, if there was one, may have been for over 30 months, and the conviction may have been overturned on appeal. So this particular law may not apply at all. However, notice the English use of the concept of malice.
Fred
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
Fred
Um, Fred, I'm confused by this statement. The actual malice standard is a standard which is only relevant in the United States and only the standard for public figures. William Pietri's proposed template doesn't address what country or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even address that the issue is libel. So what precisely are you saying?
From our article on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974:
Rehabilitation Act and actions for libel under British law
According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media law, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.
As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of spent convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation.[1]
To apply this to the case at issue, the sentence, if there was one, may have been for over 30 months, and the conviction may have been overturned on appeal. So this particular law may not apply at all. However, notice the English use of the concept of malice.
Fred
Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really interesting that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to tell the British government that they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today so moving on...) Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.
On 15/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really interesting that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to tell the British government that they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today so moving on...)
It's not all bad. The UK libel law is considered likely incompatible with EU rules on freedom of speech - which are nothing like as good as the US First Amendment, but certainly better than what we have. Unfortunately, making this stick will require people spending a lot of money to take it through the courts first.
- d.
Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really interesting that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to tell the British government that they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today so moving on...) Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.
That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.
I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this matter could be so characterized.
Fred
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.
I do. Not on the issue we are debating but there have been a few clearly false rumors floating around.
I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this matter could be so characterized.
Fred
Our standards don't do a very good job then. Check the last sentence of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Eldon_Byrd
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Barrett
There are other cases.
Quoting geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.
I do. Not on the issue we are debating but there have been a few clearly false rumors floating around.
I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this matter could be so characterized.
Fred
Our standards don't do a very good job then. Check the last sentence of:
I don't see the issue with that one.
Oh please don't remind me of that. I get heartburn and a headache whenever I look at that page.
There are other cases.
And now I won't get any sleep tonight. Thanks Geni.
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From our article on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974:
Rehabilitation Act and actions for libel under British law
According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media law, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.
I'm not sure how well you would do trying to argue that a wikipedia editor gets qualified privilege. Somehow I doubt you would get very far.
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
I completely agree that no editor should act maliciously or repeat malicious accusations as if they were fact, and so material like that would presumably fail a host of standards, like NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP. We shouldn't rely on BLP alone for that, of course. We may or may not be less concerned about injuring a corporate or governmental reputation, but those people can still cause us plenty of legal trouble.
I believe we should use some sort of warning template when we think an article is missing otherwise good material just because we've been scared by threat of legal action. It is part of our duty to readers to let them know that an article is compromised. It sounds like that's happening on Giovanni di Stefano, and it definitely happened on Gregory Lauder-Frost. I'm not particularly attached to that wording, though; feel free to tinker.
William
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This does leave us with the risk of having articles that have been whitewashed due to legal threats. That worries me, so I've proposed a warning template for articles in that condition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
But I don't think anybody has used it yet.
With due respect, not even you? But seeing that it is on a personal sub-page, it's most likely that no-one knows about it even if it has been there for more than a year.
Nope. I haven't placed it in an article. I agree that lack of promotion is part of why it hasn't been used. For me it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
If somebody would like to use it on an article, I'm glad to move it to template space. I'd like to follow David Gerard's suggestion to run the phrasing by our PR and legal advisors at WMF first, so give me a few days of warning.
William
Are you willing to foot the legal bills?
The odds of a successful libel claim are nonexistent if eight independent journalistic organizations have reported something as a fact. Libel's just about impossible to prove anyway, and it definitely wouldn't apply here. For one thing, truthfulness is always a defense to libel "The Guardian reported .... " is certainly a fact.
Note also, if this were legitimate libel the place to start would be the deep pockets of the media organizations that are STILL publishing the statements about Mr. DI Stefano on their website.
That said, BLP isn't just about protecting us from legal disputes, it's also about making sure we do the right thing and accurately portray Di Stefano, regardless of whether we could ever get into problems for it.
So, my "Probably no legal concerns here" aside, I'm certainly not the foundations laywers, so as I said on the article talk page-- no hurry at all. It's a minefield, go nice and slow, letting the laywers and foundation take the lead. It'll all come out in the wash.
Alec
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:08:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Are you willing to foot the legal bills?
The odds of a successful libel claim are nonexistent if eight independent journalistic organizations have reported something as a fact. Libel's just about impossible to prove anyway, and it definitely wouldn't apply here. For one thing, truthfulness is always a defense to libel "The Guardian reported .... " is certainly a fact.
You think. But it's not your money.
And do believe that I have already gone down the "according to X" route. I am not actually a clueless newbie.
Guy (JzG)
On 15/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Are you willing to foot the legal bills?
The odds of a successful libel claim are nonexistent if eight independent journalistic organizations have reported something as a fact. Libel's just about impossible to prove anyway, and it definitely wouldn't apply here. For one thing, truthfulness is always a defense to libel "The Guardian reported .... " is certainly a fact.
Wrong legal system. Di Stefano is in England/Scotland. Previous reporting means nothing. Defending libel cases under UK law is tricky.
Note also, if this were legitimate libel the place to start would be the deep pockets of the media organizations that are STILL publishing the statements about Mr. DI Stefano on their website.
Independent ran a piece in 2007
That said, BLP isn't just about protecting us from legal disputes, it's also about making sure we do the right thing and accurately portray Di Stefano, regardless of whether we could ever get into problems for it.
BLP can't make up it's mind what it is for.
So, my "Probably no legal concerns here" aside, I'm certainly not the foundations laywers, so as I said on the article talk page-- no hurry at all. It's a minefield, go nice and slow, letting the laywers and foundation take the lead. It'll all come out in the wash.
We are yet to see a statement from Mike Godwin and he isn't part of Jimbo's working group.
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The fundamental problem, as has been detailed previously on the talk page, is that these papers are repeating a rumour which is not objectively provable. Di Stefano considers the rumour defamatory (which it is) and points out that if it were true he would not be allowed to practice law in England.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. I don't have access to OTRS but can make an educated guess as to what might have been written there. This is a public forum and so we should be as guarded here as on the article talk page, but there are two issues of dispute which are not represented in the article at present.One of them is more than a rumour. The other is more speculative.
The first is the conviction of a John di Stefano in March 1986 for fraud, for which there are multiple impeccable sources; there are also many reliable sources who say this person is Giovanni di Stefano. Giovanni di Stefano says that the conviction was overturned on appeal. The existence of a successful appeal has been disputed.
Then there is the more vexed question of whether Giovanni di Stefano is an 'avvocato'. There is a 2002 court judgment which found in his favour on the basis that he was. Subsequently there is a 2004 newspaper article which has cast doubt on it.
The problem with the point Giovanni di Stefano makes, as relayed by Guy, is that it is possible to work out a way in which someone might have been able to practice law in England with a degree of privileged access given to those presumed to be qualified to practise, and yet have an outstanding conviction. It requires a combination of failing to check credentials and incompetence by the authorities, but it is not impossible.
The problem so far as editors of the article are concerned is that it is not protected, not under office examination, and yet no guidelines have been given to editors about the limits. Is any mention of a 1986 conviction prohibited? If so, then it would be better to say so given that indefinite blocks are being threatened. There seem to be invisible lines beyond which one cannot step. It would be helpful if they became visible.
On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Are you willing to foot the legal bills? I have seen the emails to OTRS from di Stefano. He is a lawyer. A wealthy lawyer who is prepared to defend people like Milosevic and Noye.
Milosevic conducted his own defense. Any criminal defense lawyer in england would have defended Noye.
The fundamental problem, as has been detailed previously on the talk page, is that these papers are repeating a rumour which is not objectively provable.
Di Stefano is Italian so technically it should be possible to tell one way or another through Carta d'identità and passport records.
Di Stefano considers the rumour defamatory (which it is) and points out that if it were true he would not be allowed to practice law in England.
Questionable. He doesn't qualify through UK mechanisms but Italian ones and we don't know what their standards are.
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:22:44 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
Are you willing to foot the legal bills? I have seen the emails to OTRS from di Stefano. He is a lawyer. A wealthy lawyer who is prepared to defend people like Milosevic and Noye.
The fundamental problem, as has been detailed previously on the talk page, is that these papers are repeating a rumour which is not objectively provable. Di Stefano considers the rumour defamatory (which it is) and points out that if it were true he would not be allowed to practice law in England.
This really shouldn't be being discussed on an open list. That said, the response to that is he should be going after the very many sources which do have the claim, and suing them. We're simply using the reliable sources (including a United States federal court decision).
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
This really shouldn't be being discussed on an open list. [...]
We are an open project, so personally I lean toward discussing as much of this as possible in public. One of the lessons I draw from the BADSITES fiasco is that public decisions based on secret discussion do not stick nearly as well as our usual fully open approach.
Is your concern more about a good-faith discussion accidentally giving someone grounds for action against a participant? About not tipping our hand in some way? About risking legal action against the Foundation itself?
William
Quoting William Pietri william@scissor.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
This really shouldn't be being discussed on an open list. [...]
We are an open project, so personally I lean toward discussing as much of this as possible in public. One of the lessons I draw from the BADSITES fiasco is that public decisions based on secret discussion do not stick nearly as well as our usual fully open approach.
Is your concern more about a good-faith discussion accidentally giving someone grounds for action against a participant? About not tipping our hand in some way? About risking legal action against the Foundation itself?
Yes, yes and yes. In general, once there are serious legal threats in play it almost never makes sense to discuss them in the open. This is simple pragmatism. There are many possible risks and not enough gain.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting William Pietri william@scissor.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
This really shouldn't be being discussed on an open list. [...]
We are an open project, so personally I lean toward discussing as much of this as possible in public. One of the lessons I draw from the BADSITES fiasco is that public decisions based on secret discussion do not stick nearly as well as our usual fully open approach.
Is your concern more about a good-faith discussion accidentally giving someone grounds for action against a participant? About not tipping our hand in some way? About risking legal action against the Foundation itself?
Yes, yes and yes. In general, once there are serious legal threats in play it almost never makes sense to discuss them in the open. This is simple pragmatism. There are many possible risks and not enough gain.
I think this is good advice for entities that have good places other than "the open" to discuss things. Because power is so distributed on Wikipedia, we don't really have that.
We do have the Wikimedia Foundation, of course. But the more involved they get in content issues, the more they put themselves in the legal firing line. So I would expect them to work vigorously to stay very much a service provider that hosts Wikipedia, avoiding an editor-in-chief role.
But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss these thing. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss them in the open.
William
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss these thing. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss them in the open.
Depends. For a UK based editor writing about litigous people in the UK, my advice (as a somewhat knowledgeable non-lawyer) is: avoid. Leave the hell alone. Let the Americans deal with it, we have many good BLP editors in the US. Don't even TOUCH the article lest you get some liability stuck to you. It sucks, but it's reality under the UK's horrible horrible libel laws
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss these things. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss them in the open.
Depends. For a UK based editor writing about litigous people in the UK, my advice (as a somewhat knowledgeable non-lawyer) is: avoid. Leave the hell alone. Let the Americans deal with it, we have many good BLP editors in the US. Don't even TOUCH the article lest you get some liability stuck to you. It sucks, but it's reality under the UK's horrible horrible libel laws
Oh, I agree. Your paragraph above is a great example of exactly the kind of discussion I think we should be having.
Of course, the reach of British libel law may extend even to the US:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110...
US editors can be sued in Britain, and defending a suit would be an expensive and painful proposition. And even if you win a lawsuit like that, legal victories are frequently Pyrrhic ones.
William
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Oh, I agree. Your paragraph above is a great example of exactly the kind of discussion I think we should be having.
Of course, the reach of British libel law may extend even to the US:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110...
US editors can be sued in Britain, and defending a suit would be an expensive and painful proposition. And even if you win a lawsuit like that, legal victories are frequently Pyrrhic ones.
The problem is that quite a lot of courts are deciding that they have world wide jurisdiction. How much do you know about Japaneses civil law?
William Pietri wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss these things. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss them in the open.
Depends. For a UK based editor writing about litigous people in the UK, my advice (as a somewhat knowledgeable non-lawyer) is: avoid. Leave the hell alone. Let the Americans deal with it, we have many good BLP editors in the US. Don't even TOUCH the article lest you get some liability stuck to you. It sucks, but it's reality under the UK's horrible horrible libel laws
Oh, I agree. Your paragraph above is a great example of exactly the kind of discussion I think we should be having.
Of course, the reach of British libel law may extend even to the US:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110...
US editors can be sued in Britain, and defending a suit would be an expensive and painful proposition. And even if you win a lawsuit like that, legal victories are frequently Pyrrhic ones.
The case was only scheduled to be heard to-day. We'll need to wait for the judgement. The UK decision on this one was for an undefended case. US courts have usually been very reluctant to enforce this kind of decision.
I agree, however, about the safety of leaving these UK controversies to Americans and others where the risk is lower.
Ec
Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the UK, take this warning very seriously.
"Attribution
It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability. The main problem with the use of references is that while the sources themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so clever. Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney is a felon, that somehow slipped through the cracks, find a source. Likewise, if you think a European lawyer is not qualified or permitted to practice in the UK, find a source, don't just quote some report that hints around that he's not. Fred Bauder 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"
Fred
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano) - and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the UK, take this warning very seriously.
"Attribution
It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability.
That would only apply if there was a sentence of less than 2 and a half years.
The main problem with the use of references is that while the sources themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so clever.
Cleverly implying is not a defence I've run across under UK law. I know of cases that were lost because the article implied things. If you want to bring that kind of complication up I suspect you would be better off arguing about qualified privilege. The press have it to an extent I suspect we don't.
Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney
I think we can be pretty sure he isn't a practicing attorney. Certainly no recent reports place him in the US.
On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the UK, take this warning very seriously.
This, by the way, is why I actively avoid editing certain controversial UK living bios, and why Wikimedia UK has a form letter regretting its lack of any control over the content and referring people to info@wikimedia.org.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the UK, take this warning very seriously. [...]
Thanks! I appreciate the clear, extended statement.
William