[WikiEN-l] Joseph Farah: Another dissatisfied customer

[Andrew Cates]

Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to
understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory
accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile
certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.

BozMo

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<failure.to.communicate at gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one
> day because it was a "bad day for
> vandalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167>."
> It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit
> accusing<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167>Leiberman
> of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen
> Degeneres Show.
>
> You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a
> high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted,
> right?  Well, you would be wrong.  It was not corrected for over five hours.
>
> This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile
> subjects.  How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure
> subjects?
>
> We already know the answer to
> that<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy>.
> Let's fix this already.  We need BLP semi-protection.
>
> Cool Hand Luke
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> larsen.thomas.h at 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=emlcntaolcom00000010
>> )
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>