[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy

[Delirium]

David Gerard wrote:
>> I dont follow. Could you give us a real example? For instance
>> how would I refer on the talk page to the claim that Ann Coulter
>> once gave a venereal disease to Clinton (on Festivus), without
>> actually referring to it? You can hypothetical examples if you like.
>>     
>
>
> Refer to the removed diff, as suggested? For claims that are new,
> provide the reference right there.
>   

A large part of the strength of Wikipedia is the ability to split work 
based on people's strengths, which requires the ability to openly 
communicate with other editors.

For example, questions along the following lines posted on talk pages 
are a relatively commonplace part of the normal functioning of 
Wikipedia: "I remember some sort of scandal involving [politician] in 
the mid-1990s that this article doesn't mention at all.  As I recall, he 
was accused of hiring a prostitute with government funds.  Does anybody 
know of a good source covering that story, or am I misremembering?"

The question can then be followed up with someone who has access to 
Lexis-Nexis or some other good way of researching the matter.  The 
people who have good research resources and the people who notice 
omissions aren't always the same person, so communication between them 
makes things work much more nicely.

Of course, that isn't biography-specific: I've made comments on 
science-related articles where the article omitted something I had 
learned in a class, but for which I couldn't find a good reference (my 
class notes not being citeable), and I've followed up on such comments 
from other people.  Coming up with a new rule that no negative 
information about a person can be even *discussed* without a solid 
reference being provided up front would systemically skew articles and 
hamper work on biographies, though.

-Mark