[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy hypothetical

[Andrew Gray]

[apologies to Steve, who gets this twice]

On 19/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly
> > influence its subject compared to anything else written about them,
> > should we have it?"
>
> If a Wikipedia article can't influence the public's perception of a
> subject, why bother having it?

Ah, now, I didn't say that. Note "compared to anything else written
about them". We should have good, informative articles; so should the
newspaper which mentions the organisation, or the biographical
dictionary which has a paragraph on the person.

But we shouldn't be the only ones publishing the story about
so-and-so's messy divorce. We shouldn't be the only ones pulling
together this court record and that advertisment and another press
release to say that the company has systematically defrauded its
customers.

If we can influence people to think, that's good. But if we can
influence them to think where no other published source would
influence them to think... are we really being an encyclopedia,
republishing knowledge, or is this a sign we're getting into original
research?

It applies disproportionately to less-notable people, and I feel it
ought to. Just because we can write a factual article doesn't mean we
*should*...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk