On 8/18/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)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(a)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