[WikiEN-l] Libel law

Thu Dec 8 23:38:27 UTC 2005

G'day Anthony,

> Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no
> place in Wikipedia.  This has nothing to do with UK law, though.  If
> we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia
> *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there
> is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.

On the other hand, we shouldn't publish stuff just because it's true, 
either (this is the cue for the "you deletionist vandal!" crowd to start 
making a ruckus on this issue, too).  In Australia, one can defend 
against a defamation suit if a) the information is true, *and* b) it's 
in the public interest for the information to be published.

Truth in an of itself is not a defence, neither is "important if true". 
   This additional burden presumably makes Australian law as nightmarish 
and evil as UK law (they hate freedom!), but is something I think it 
would do us no harm to heed.  We should not be publishing defamatory 
information just because it's true, even if we really really dislike the 
subject.  The truth of a statement is not sufficient for its inclusion 
in an encyclopaedia.

(Admittedly, WP:NOR can cover most instances of this, since if the 
information is verifiable, someone else will have already made the call).

> If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should
> Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation?  I think we can all
> agree that it absolutely should not.

Good point.

<snip />

Cheers,

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/195 - Release Date: 8/12/2005