[WikiEN-l] Using Wikipedia to out pseudonymous Erwin James, Guardian writ...

[Oldak Quill]

2009/4/24  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
> It is my opinion that you cannot defame a person by telling the  truth.
> This, like libel, is simply a way to try to use a hammer.
>
> "You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks."
>
> Simply using newspaper archives does not constitute original  research.
> So there must be more to your story than is apparent.

I believe Erwin James had chosen to remain pseudonymous. The users of
the message board had used newspaper archives to identify someone who
had been in the French Foreign Legion and who had been imprisoned in
the year that Erwin James had. At the time, the basis of identifying
him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of
imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an old
newspaper article containing similar details about a named man who had
committed a crime. Since no independent connection had been made
between the pseudonym and his legal name, it did constitute original
research. It is only now that Erwin James has identified himself in a
national newspaper that it no longer constitutes original research.

If the message board users had made a misidentification, which was
possible, it would have been defamatory. In my original post, perhaps
I should have said "possible defamation". Several of the guesses made
on the board about the crimes of the pseudonymous author, prior to him
being identified, are untrue and may constitute libel. If these had
been added to the article, it would have been defamatory.

Apologies if I wasn't initially clear about the circumstances.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)