[WikiEN-l] Libel chill

Fri Apr 21 04:29:57 UTC 2006

James D. Forrester wrote:
> Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea,
> but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info
> (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for
> them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you
> can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost
> it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they
> are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that
> it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then
> liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I
> know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the
> way the Real World(tm) works.

The basic problem with {{office}} is that I don't trust Brad Patrick and Danny to decide between
them what's right and wrong. I'm not making a slight on their character. I'm just saying that there
needs to be oversight, when something so important as the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at
stake. In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued, and I fear
that due to their background, a lawyer may be inclined to automatically choose minimisation of risk
over neutrality, even when the risk of a successful lawsuit is very small.

I would like to see review of these "office actions" by a diverse committee, such as the juriwiki-l
mailing list.

-- Tim Starling