[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy

[Keith Old]

On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/18/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those
> terms)
> > to  remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put
> it on
> > the talk page where people could still see it
>
> IANAL, but to me there is a difference between stating the claim *as
> fact* in an *encyclopaedic article* (which most people, bless their
> souls, will take to *be* fact), and discussing the claim *as a dubious
> supposition* on a *discussion page*, where its validity is being
> questioned. I agree that simply repeating a claim can still be
> damaging, but by phrasing it in those terms "Is this true? Can anyone
> back this up?" might be less so?
>
> I strongly feel that if we can't discuss the claim openly on talk
> pages, then our chances of getting a good source for *that specific
> claim* are greatly reduced.
> >
> > If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously
> > contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person
> > contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong
> sources
> > if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that
> that
> > included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
>
> "Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find
> a good source for it?"
>
> ???
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Folks,

If the claim has a strong basis in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find a
source/

If it doesn't, it shouldn't be on the article or on the talk page. We
shouldn't have potentially defamatory material where it can be publicly
accessed unless we can be fairly certain that it stands up to close
scrutiny.

Regards

Keith Old