G'day Anthony,
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no place in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with UK law, though. If we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.
On the other hand, we shouldn't publish stuff just because it's true, either (this is the cue for the "you deletionist vandal!" crowd to start making a ruckus on this issue, too). In Australia, one can defend against a defamation suit if a) the information is true, *and* b) it's in the public interest for the information to be published.
Truth in an of itself is not a defence, neither is "important if true". This additional burden presumably makes Australian law as nightmarish and evil as UK law (they hate freedom!), but is something I think it would do us no harm to heed. We should not be publishing defamatory information just because it's true, even if we really really dislike the subject. The truth of a statement is not sufficient for its inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
(Admittedly, WP:NOR can cover most instances of this, since if the information is verifiable, someone else will have already made the call).
If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation? I think we can all agree that it absolutely should not.
Good point.
<snip />
Cheers,