[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
geniice at gmail.com
Fri May 20 20:00:07 UTC 2011
On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the
> Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made
> on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended
> period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and
> negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has
Questionable. Oh we've kept the better known cases under wraps but
oversight and rev del but the lesser known cases and the flat out
false ones (want to damage a footballer's reputation? hint that they
have a super injuction) we haven't been so good at keeping up with.
The pattern of reverts and rev dels is pretty obvious if you know what
to look for as is the suspicious traffic bumps.
Perhaps ironicaly the number of false accusations has reached the
point that if we did care about BLP issues the responcible thing to do
would be to publish most of the 53 on the main page.
More information about the foundation-l