What in the article is actually actionable?
The face that defame his character as being part of what they call a cult. Admitting you are part of an organization is not the same as welcoming the label of "cultist" that the piece slaps on him. Also, it infers that he's out to impact Wikipedia articles, and that he could be working directly for the organization (with all that shady talk about "we don't know his real connection!").
Saying Wikipedians aren't perfect, and saying they are cultists out to exploit the project for propaganda purposes are too entirely different things.
On Feb 7, 2008 2:17 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
Wikipedians always seem to be overly sensitive about journalism which doesn't say wikipedians are perfect. All this talk about libel is very worrying as the article seems to be very adequately sourced.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l