[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

[Fred Bauder]

> 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.
>

We routinely suppress disclosure of private information. When do the
details of an affair become public? And how? Decisions by media editors
is the short answer, but what criteria do they use?

If the subjects are mere celebrities, as opposed to persons with
political responsibilities, does intense public interest transmogrify
private affairs to public?

Fred