[WikiEN-l] Office actions

[Ray Saintonge]

Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
>>>such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
>>>Foundation on record.
>>>      
>>>
>>I thought this project was founded on accountability.
>>    
>>
>Editors are accountable for their own actions.
>
>The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
>people's actions.
>
This is all fine, but Office actions should not be a technique for 
sweeping issues under the rug indefinitely.  If someone has made a 
statement that may be libellous, and it is so alleged by a person who 
may be affected a bit of time needs to be taken to gather the 
appropriate verifiability. 

If an educational institution is not accredited we do need to mention 
which list(s) of accredited institutions we have checked to back our 
position.  But note too that we are supporting a negative position.  If 
they are accredited they should have no problem establishing that.  A 
failure to find their name on any reliable list, combined with their 
refusal to answer about their accreditation would be very difficult for 
them to sustain in any litigation.

I have no idea who if anyone has been threatening lawsuits, but students 
and alumni would likely not have standing for this.  Perhaps the 
university administration?  Surely the foundation is not responsible for 
the legal defence of its editors, but a plaintiff is likely to want to 
make the Foundation at least a co-defendent in a law suit, It should be 
prepared to defend itself against groundless, vexatious, or SLAPP 
lawsuits.  If it ends up defending an editor at the same time so much 
the better.

Ec