[WikiEN-l] Re: weekeepeedee-uh Libel

[Sheldon Rampton]

Awhile back, Jimbo wrote:

>>From our perspective, NPOV is a great mechanism for avoiding libel,
>because it's pretty hard to libel someone without taking any position.

His point at the time was that my Disinfopedia is inherently more 
controversial and confrontational than Wikipedia. Being controversial 
arguably creates more INCENTIVE for someone to sue. Regarding the 
question of actual LIABILITY, however, I don't think NPOV offers the 
protection that Jimbo thinks.

The Wikipedia editorial policy is "neutral point of view." My 
Disinfopedia policy is "fair and accurate." Either of those policies, 
if practiced consistently and completely, should offer protection 
against a successful libel action. (Actually, I think "fair and 
accurate" offers slightly better protection, because it may be easier 
to define "accurate" than "neutral.") In practice, however, 100% 
compliance doesn't exist. The real question is what happens if 
someone wants to sue over an article that they think fails to meet 
one of these standards.

To put this in concrete terms, let's consider how someone might write 
an article about Jeffrey Dahmer. It is certainly fair and accurate to 
say that Dahmer was a serial killer and human cannibal. I haven't 
looked at the Wikipedia article on Dahmer, but I imagine that's what 
it says about him, and I can't imagine anyone seriously claiming that 
these statements violate the NPOV rule. Moreover, Dahmer's relatives 
would have no basis for a lawsuit, because this characterization is 
true. It's been proven in court, and Dahmer admitted it.

Now let's imagine a hypothetical situation in which a false urban 
legend has been circulating that MERV GRIFFIN is a serial killer and 
human cannibal. This claim gets added to the Wikipedia by someone who 
believes it. Griffin responds by suing for libel.

You can't really argue that a NPOV rule prevents Wikipedians from 
calling ANYONE a serial killer and human cannibal. Therefore, the 
question of whether it's OK to say this about Merv Griffin ultimately 
devolves to whether it is a "fair and accurate" statement.

 From a strict NPOV perspective, in fact, you would have to refrain 
from taking a position either way about Merv's eating habits. Once 
someone has inserted that claim in an article, subsequent editors 
must either (1) delete the claim entirely, because it's ridiculous, 
thereby asserting a point of view; or (2) offer a tortured 
construction such as, "Some people allege that Merv Griffin kills 
people and eats them; most people, however, contend that this is 
ridiculous." If you adopt #2 (the strict NPOV construction), Merv 
might still have grounds for libel action.

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the Disinfopedia editorial 
policy is better than the Wikipedia policy. The two policies simply 
serve different purposes. However, I'm questioning whether 
Wikipedia's policy offers as much protection against libel action as 
some people seem to think.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------