[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Sarah slimvirgin at gmail.com
Sat May 21 01:03:06 UTC 2011

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> 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.

I saw it in a reliable source recently that would have passed muster.
I personally don't care who's had an affair with whom, so I didn't
think to use it, but it would have been policy compliant -- except in
the sense that it was only one source and BLPs are safer with multiple
sources for anything contentious.

So yes, the sourcing policy (V, not BLP) -- specifically the concept
of "verifiability, not truth" -- did work. And, as Seth points out,
that means the superinjunctions worked too, because they're the reason
we lacked verifiability until recently.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list