[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy

[Matt Brown]

On 8/20/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> An interesting question is what to do when the false rumors are
> well-sourced, but the real truth isn't.  I'd think this was rare
> except that I've seen it happen on quite a few occassions.  I'm sure
> Jimbo can attest to the fact that the media quite often turns complete
> falsehoods into what passes for a reliably sourced statement when it
> comes to living people.  When this happens should we give the person a
> chance to defend themselves?  How can we do this while keeping with
> the standards of verifiability and no original research?

Yes, this comes up fairly frequently; the press often gets things
wildly wrong, especially when a story is just too juicy to fully
fact-check, or through sheer laziness. (this is why a 'reliable
sources' policy is more shaky than people like to admit)

What I've personally considered is that under certain circumstances,
while original research cannot remain in an article, original research
can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article.  In other words,
I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of
certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it
should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published
sources.

-Matt