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

[geni]

On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> 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.

That would only apply if there was a sentence of less than 2 and a half years.


> 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.

Cleverly implying is not a defence I've run across under UK law. I
know of cases that were lost because the article implied things. If
you want to bring that kind of complication up I suspect you would be
better off arguing about qualified privilege. The press have it to an
extent I suspect we don't.

> Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney

I think we can be pretty sure he isn't a practicing attorney.
Certainly no recent reports place him in the US.

-- 
geni