On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
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. Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject if they see one.
I would have no problem with a "Right of Reply" rule. It would not override well-documented information that is already on the page, but merely explain how the subject differs. It could also help to fill holes in non-controversial areas.
It's not a question of standing behind an article, but of recognizing that sources can be wrong.
By presenting it right it would also give the public image of listening to a subject's concerns.
Ray