On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:13:53 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
IF a Wikipedia article is to exist on this person at all, it should certainly mention that ... distinction ... and I don't see anything wrong with quoting the SFWA on the matter - in fact, better to have it in their own words than ours. On the other hand, is it enough for an article? Quite possibly not.
Yes, exactly that. We should not be scared of reporting what the sources say, just because litigious individuals threaten us. What we should do is to make sure that everything in the article is attributed to the best source possible and stated in the most neutral terms.
If you go to court and say that so-and-so reported that the Foo Society called you a charlatan, then over here at least the fact that the Foo Foundation /did/ call you a charlatan is a valid defence - *for you*. Not, of course, for the Foo Foundation.
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the case. As far as I can see she and the credulous wannabes she fleeces almost deserve each other...
Guy (JzG)