[WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article

[Oldak Quill]

2009/4/17 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com>:
> 2009/4/17 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>
>
>> Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact
>> that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for
>> his
>> column.
>>
>
> Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it
> from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't
> even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
>
> It would be a good idea to check that some or all of the events never
> actually happened. Note that it could have happened months or even years
> ago; nobody has checked that far back; and we need to make sure that it
> wasn't oversighted or something.

The best thing we can do in this situation, if he is wrong, is to
produce evidence that he is wrong and submit it to the magazine,
requesting a retraction. Claims that malicious vandalism could stay on
a famous sportsperson's page for a week are damaging to us and, I
suspect, without any legitimacy.

I'm not sure why we're discussing legal options. Even if there were
legal avenues open to us, it would be silly to pursue them. Rod Liddle
is respected in some circles and we'd only invite ire for pursuing
him. We should determine if that Spectator article contains untruths
and, if it does, we should ensure that a retraction is issued.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)