How does Wikipedia and especially the foundation square up to the following:
In the Loutchansky v. The Times Newspapers Limited case, it was established that a suit may be brought many years after the information was added, since the viewing of the material within a browser counts in law as a dissemination, and an action must be launched within a year of such dissemination. This means that if the material is viewable within the page history of an article or talk page it will allow a suit to be brought at any point.
In the Polanski vs. Vanity Fair suit it has established that the claimant need not appear in person.
In the Godfrey v. Demon Internet case has established that a host of the libellous claim has a duty to remove libellous comments and is deemed to be the publisher for the purposes of libel law.
In the Lennox Lewis & Ors. v. Don King case has established that the courts of England and Wales are suitable forums to hear libel cases as long as defamation has occurred within their jurisdiction, since internet pages are published where they are downloaded.
My questions are, has the wikipedia foundation received advice on how it is affected by libel law in England and Wales?
If so, is it possible to see a copy of that advice?
Should libellous statements be completely removed from the edit history like copyright violations are?
Should Wikipedia have a policy on libel?
I'd also ask for opinions on whether each editor who edits and yet fails to remove a libellous statement could be open to being named in a suit under England and Wales law, since it can be argued that by editing and saving the page one has in turn republished the libel.
Note also, that in England and Wales libel law, the burden of proof is on the defendant, i.e. Wikipedia, to prove the statement is true. The claimant only has to show defamation, not falsehood.