[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
fredbaud at fairpoint.net
Sat May 21 00:01:47 UTC 2011
> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
> super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively
> inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way).
> I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy
> Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer,
> and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial
> connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount
> of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it.
> Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED
> faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another
> lesson there as to relative costs imposed.
> Seth Finkelstein
Google searches for "superinjunction" "Name of footballer" "name of
squeeze" yields no hits at reliable sources.
More information about the foundation-l