On 8/18/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote: terms) it on IANAL, but to me there is a difference between stating the claim *as fact* in an *encyclopaedic article* (which most people, bless their souls, will take to *be* fact), and discussing the claim *as a dubious supposition* on a *discussion page*, where its validity is being questioned. I agree that simply repeating a claim can still be damaging, but by phrasing it in those terms "Is this true? Can anyone back this up?" might be less so? I strongly feel that if we can't discuss the claim openly on talk pages, then our chances of getting a good source for *that specific claim* are greatly reduced. sources that "Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find a good source for it?" ??? Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 8/19/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ok, can you explain how a person can find a source for a claim they have never seen? You seem to be suggesting that the person removing the claim from article is the one who should find a source for it. Sort of a disencentive to remove the claim, no? Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

How about linking to the edit where you removed it? When someone paranoid goes in and removes that from the history, well, then we're screwed, but at least until then someone can figure out what the hell you're talking about.

On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion). It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?

I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion). It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?

I'd be in favor of taking talk pages out of google, but I think it'd meet from resistance by others. It could also be argued that putting parts of Wikipedia under robots.txt constitutes "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" and violates the GFDL.

This page was last modified ##:##, ## month ####. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)

On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Having talk pages in google has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it makes it easier to search for things on talk pages, as Wikipedia's search facilities still kind of suck.

I'd be in favor of taking talk pages out of google, but I think it'd meet from resistance by others. It could also be argued that putting parts of Wikipedia under robots.txt constitutes "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" and violates the GFDL.