In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
--------------------- The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)