[WikiEN-l] Saucy Sources, reliable and re : libel.

[Fred Bauder]

Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the
UK, take this warning very seriously.

"Attribution

It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a
controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for
example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah
blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this
article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is
recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability. The
main problem with the use of references is that while the sources
themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather
than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so
clever. Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney
is a felon, that somehow slipped through the cracks, find a source.
Likewise, if you think a European lawyer is not qualified or permitted to
practice in the UK, find a source, don't just quote some report that hints
around that he's not. Fred Bauder 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"

Fred


> Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano) -
> and a sticking point in article work.
>
> The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer
> mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk
> pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the
> article subject.
>
> This presents problems.
>
> BADSOURCES anyone?
>
>
> <runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the
> world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and
> 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l