[WikiEN-l] UK libel law and reusers

Tue Dec 13 19:14:36 UTC 2005

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 12/9/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> 
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/8/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Okay then, let me try another tack which has occurred to me given the
>>>>Wikipedia stance on "fair use".
>>>>
>>>>How is a commercial reuser going to feel when it is issued with a writ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably not very good.  What do you suggest we do about this?
>>
>>Remove libel.  As I responded to Kim, the next question is which libel
>>laws we have to wrry about.  In which countries are suits likely to be
>>brought?  Australia and the United Kingdom look likely candidates, any
>>others?
>>
> 
> We already do remove libel.
> 
> As for which libel laws we have to worry about, assuming by "we" you
> mean the foundation, none, we don't have to worry about any libel
> laws.  We should remove libel because it's false information, and we
> don't keep false information in the encyclopedia.  To the extent that
> any country defines true information as libel, we should ignore it.

Are we not going round in circles here?  I ask you how a reuser is going 
to feel when a writ is asked, you say not good and ask me what we should 
do, I tell you and then you reiterate the position that the foundation 
does not have to worry about libel.  You've already ceded that yes, 
there are reasons for the foundation to worry.  And no country that I 
know of defines true infomation as libel.  The problem is this: 
recently, two British newspapers stated Robbie Williams was gay.  Had 
Wikipedia repeated those claims, even in terms which made it clear we 
were just repeating allegations made by two British newspapers, 
Wikipedia would have opened itself and its reusers up to being named in 
the very succesful suit Williams just won.  It may well have been true 
that two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams was gay, but he wasn't 
gay and repeating false information isn't a defence in the United 
Kingdom.  Otherwise the case against the two newspapers would have 
collapsed, since they only repeated allegations from an at the time due 
to be published book.

As to who I mean when I say "we", I mean, us as individual editors, the 
foundation and the community, since I am unclear what the separation 
between the three is.  There is some small part of me that is hoping a 
suit is launched, because that seems to be the only thing that will 
actually get some clarification on these issues from people on Wikipedia.

The foundation apparently refused to use images that cause Wikipedia no 
problem because they impact on reusers, yet we also seem to refuse to 
take into account the impact on such reusers of the ability of the 
information to stand up to viable legal challenges.

Still, I think as an individual editor I'm not so bothered anymore.  I 
would simply seek to have my name removed from any suit by arguing that 
I am not responsible for the fact that a website chooses to publish my 
solicited submission without any editing or verification.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 13/12/05