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

[Fred Bauder]

>
> Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really
> interesting
> that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the
> claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is
> sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some
> point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to
> tell the British
> government that
> they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today
> so moving
> on...)
> Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the
> results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di
> Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the
> imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a
> lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.

That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.

I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can
identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this
matter could be so characterized.

Fred