On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
That's enough crazy and against NPOV.
Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate.