[WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist

Tue Dec 6 01:29:35 UTC 2005

> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org 
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of JAY JG
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 02:32
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist
> 
> >From: "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay at bigpond.com>
> >
> >
> >If a person had admitted guilt, then there is no problem. We may 
> >describe them as a criminal. But if they maintained their 
> innocence and 
> >were found guilty instead of pleading guilty, then we should use 
> >conventional phrasing to indicate this, by describing someone as a 
> >convicted rapist, rather than a rapist.
> 
> People also falsely confess to crimes; there have been many 
> famous cases of this which have actually been later 
> overturned (and one must assume even more cases which have 
> not been overturned).  If we start trying to second guess 
> legal systems, then all we'll be left with is original 
> research to determine if someone is a criminal.

Concur. Despite the evidence, Wikipedians are not private dicks. 

I note that the media in general seems to have little trouble in using
whatever form of words best suits the case, and it should be no hardship for
us to follow suit. Perhaps we could call someone a "confessed criminal" if
they claim they did something but there was no official finding of guilt? If
the confession is a matter of public record, but we have some doubt that
they actually shot John Kennedy, then this phrasing should keep us out of
trouble.

Peter (Skyring)