Jean-Baptiste wrote:
Actually I don't really see the difference with a
classical newspaper.
They can very well damage reputations... and actually they do ! But
just like
freedom of
the press, freedom of speech is more important than
individuals and
Laws allow special
liability regimes for both the press and wikipedia.
It's important to be clear here. There is no 'special liability regime'
that protects any publisher, editor, or author from charges of
liability. The doctrine is clear: if you write something or publish
something about someone that is *perceived as libelous* that person can
sue you. And such suits occur all the time (especially in the UK). God
grant it won't happen to WP, but it is important to consider that it
could (and, in some cases, perhaps should).
There is a more general consideration, tho: repeated notices in the
*trusted* print press to the effect that WP is not trustworthy will
drive people away. WP's reputation is on the line. So WP has both good
legal and practical reasons to institute some sort of (let me just say
it) formal editorial control over quality.
This, if I understand, is just what is being discussed now.
Best,
Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org