Dan Rosenthal wrote:
That's hardly legal research. If the Wikinews volunteers are that good at real legal research they can help me write my next memo.
Exactly. The process carried out by Mike and Jason was digging for corroborating sources for a news report. While that might be held to a fairly high standard it is not enough from a liability viewpoint to base hire and fire decisions upon. For liability reasons I would assume it would be common sense to use a background checking service as opposed to DIY dirt-digging.
As a FYI for all the people doing "chicken little" impersonations about this, I have just waded, chronologically, through every single Google-listed story right back to when the Register broke their "scoop". There is ONE listed source that also covered the story.
Everyone else is drooling over their keyboards in an effort to spin Google's "knol"s as a "Wikipedia killer".
Brian McNeil