[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Fred Bauder fredbaud at fairpoint.net
Fri May 20 21:47:30 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
>> worked.
> 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.
> --
> geni

Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. We do
suppress any mention of a superinjunction, as the assertion that there is
embarrassing personal information sufficient to support issuance of a
superinjunction is defaming.



More information about the foundation-l mailing list