Jimmy Wales wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
I for one would not like to see him (you Jim) as
an individual to be
the target of a libel lawsuit for sanctioning a ban on someone,
under the premise of 'defamation of character'
Despite our openness, this is a private club entry to which is subject
to my personal whims. There is nothing about a ban in and of itself
which should be interpreted by anyone as a statement about anyone's
character.
Sometimes the fear of lawsuits is completely out of proportion to the
circumstances. There is nothing defamatory about saying that you can't
get along with somebody. With many of these people the archives would
also show the defamatory claims that they had made against other
Wikipedians. Seeking equity in the courts often depends on entering
with clean hands. That sword too has two edges.
It's lamentable that many people avoid doing things because of their
often erroneous perception of the law. Perhaps guided by a paranoia
about even having to appear in court they quickly interpret the law to
their own disadvantage. I also believe that for a large part of the
population the term "law" is equivalent to what the more sophisticated
would call "criminal law". It focuses on punishment and the fear of
punishment.
Maybe you guys
can talk about formeruser Isis as a case precedent,
if youre not doing so already, and explain to us some of your
thinking on the matter when you're ready.
Isis was not banned, Isis chose to leave after coming to what she saw
as irreconcilable differences with another user. Isis did threaten to
sue that user, but nothing came of it.
Isis was probably more aware of legal issues than most Wikipedians. All
she had to do was sleep on it before realizing that such a suit would be
a dumb idea.
Ec