[Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Ray Saintonge saintonge at telus.net
Thu Oct 6 08:57:24 UTC 2011

On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded
> "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against
> an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like
> that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an
> editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word
> printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be
> ludicrous to even contemplate.
> Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it 
> doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches
> more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently,
> there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't 
> necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher 
> would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP
> subject.
> So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a
> statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think
> that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject
> if they see one.
I would have no problem with a "Right of Reply" rule.  It would not 
override well-documented information that is already on the page, but 
merely explain how the subject differs.  It could also help to fill 
holes in non-controversial areas.

It's not a question of standing behind an article, but of recognizing 
that sources can be wrong.

By presenting it right it would also give the public image of listening 
to a subject's concerns.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list