[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...

[doc]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> And as a counter-balance, your approach is flawed.
> 
> Any person who says "this article is Wrong", needs to show why it's wrong, 
> not just say it.  Even the subject.  There is no such thing as "Right" and 
> "Wrong" when dealing with biographies.  That is why hard scientists should 
> not try to stick their toes into biography, they just do not comprehend the 
> distinction between Non-Fiction and Biography.
> 
> Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist.  They 
> don't.  No existence.  They aren't there.  Nowhere.  Ok ...
> 
> Now on to step B.
> 
> 
> Will Johnson
> 
> 
>

Not so.

If I say, "you (wikipedia) have an article about me and it is libellous".

Then, given that we know anyone could have written it, and it may well 
say "Joe is a brothel-keeping cocksucker, who murders children", 
Wikipedia has an obligation to check the article and ensure that it is 
defensible.

If, having done that, Wikipedia cannot see any libel. Then it may ask 
the subject "can you specify what your problem is with the article"

Then the onus is on us to double-check that the material he has a 
problem with is fair, sourced and accurate.

Whilst many shades of grey exist, that isn't an excuse for saying that 
some things are not "wrong".