[WikiEN-l] Deletions snapped up by commercial organizations

[Wily D]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> tonysidaway at gmail.com writes:
>
>  Yeah,  basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal
>  attacks, etc, that  we have deleted to anyone.  That's republishing and
>  would expose us to  secondary liability if there are legal  problems.>>
>
>
>  -------------------
>  This is a doubtful proposition.
>  The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of
>  issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept.  To wit, I have to know  that
>  what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources  actually
>  state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it  regardless of
>  that knowledge.
>
>  That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
>
>
>  Will
>
I'm sure the foundation's position would be the usual "You're on your
own if you do this", but admins shouldn't be providing copies of
"problematic" articles.  Just things deleted as "non-notable" or
"gibberish" or "spam".

WilyD