On 12/7/05, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel
>suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
>remove it completely from the edit history?
>
>
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to
hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made
by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does
that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list -
the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no
legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not
Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may
be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be
interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own
country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is
precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the
"Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States
naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That
the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those
implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and
more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the
same world as the rest of us.
Ec