[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy hypothetical

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I might be convinced by what you are saying here, but this example
> does not seem compelling to me.  I think, based on my limited
> recollection of this case, that it more or less turned out that the
> "alleged administrative adventures" were more or less cooked up, i.e.
> that this was a non-scandal.  But I would suspect that reasonable
> Republicans would take the same view that I do: the overall incident is
> still notable, of course.

Yes, it was a bad example :) A better example might be a scientific
study which is criticised by a religious group. Science-minded editors
would probably consider that criticism of little interest. Others
might find it relevant. Similarly, a scientific evaluation of a
paranormal claim might not be considered worth much of a mention by
most editors of the paranormal article (presumably those interested in
such things...)

Now, to really let my biases show, I would probably be a bad offender
in these cases. I tend to consider scientific studies of paranormal or
pseudoscience claims *not* to be relevant, as the mere fact of the
study lends too much credence to the field. Probably why I keep well
away from such articles :)

Steve