[Foundation-l] Wikinews - not so much a state of the wiki

[Thomas Dalton]

> >That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable
> >for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by
> >a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's
> >correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled
> >about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose
> >reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New
> >York Times.
>
> If the comments are not subject to editorial control and not in print, you
> might as well be talking about Slashdot.

It didn't say there was no editorial control. It should be obvious
from context that I was assuming editorial control, since that was the
entire point of my argument.