[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as
>they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as
>reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source
>is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with
>libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
>
But "reliable" is a statement of opinion.  One can cite the source, and 
leave the reader to determine whether it is reliable.

A source may be wrong, but this should not necessarily imply a finding 
of fault.

"Libel" takes us even further afield.  Very little of the information, 
whether sourced or unsourced, will be libelous.  The primary consequence 
of false information would be a loss of credibility.  It clouds the 
issue when we dramatically try to make more of that than is warranted.

Ec