On 3/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The point of editorial oversight is not just to ensure factual accuracy, but also to ensure that you are not sued for false or defamatory claims. The deeper the pockets of someone printing something potentially defamatory, the greater the likelihood they will be sued. That's why newspapers, corporations, etc., are careful about what they put on their websites. A blog owner is much less likely to be sued for defamation, particularly if they remove the contentious claims the second a lawyer's letter arrives in their mailbox. Keep in mind we're not dealing with the general case of an individual stating their opinion about the purported health benefits of echinacea in a blog, but the case of a blog being used to insert information about living persons into Wikipedia.
This would still be pretty much covered by [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]] much as I dislike that ruling.
Is that your considered legal opinion? Do you think decisions made by the California Supreme Court regarding a specific individual re-publishing a specific claim apply to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia foundation, and any Wikipedia editor who might insert defamatory material found in a blog into a Wikipedia biography? Did you read Justice Moreno's concurring opinion?
Jay.