Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

2009/9/21 Andrew Turvey : > - "WereSpielChequers" wrote: >> I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our >> site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably >> Wikimedia in the US is the publisher > I understand that the Foundation claim that they are n

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

- "WereSpielChequers" wrote: > > I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our > site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably > Wikimedia in the US is the publisher I understand that the Foundation claim that they are not the publisher of Wikipe

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

2009/9/17 WereSpielChequers : > I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our > site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably > Wikimedia in the US is the publisher,  But what happens if you mark an > article as patrolled or an edit as flagged without check

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

At 17:32 +0100 17/9/09, Sam Blacketer wrote: >On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton ><thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >2009/9/17 Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net>: >> Plan to update libel law for web: >> >>

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably Wikimedia in the US is the publisher, But what happens if you mark an article as patrolled or an edit as flagged without checking that an earlier revision elsewhere

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

2009/9/17 Sam Blacketer : > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> >> 2009/9/17 Michael Peel : >> > Plan to update libel law for web: >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm >> >> Does anyone know what this means? >> >> "Publishers of online archives and blogs might also

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/9/17 Michael Peel : > > Plan to update libel law for web: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm > > Does anyone know what this means? > > "Publishers of online archives and blogs might also be given a defence > of qualified privi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

2009/9/17 Michael Peel : > Plan to update libel law for web: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm Does anyone know what this means? "Publishers of online archives and blogs might also be given a defence of qualified privilege - that a piece is fair and accurate and published without malice

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet

Indeed - I think this is definitely something we should craft a carefully-worded reply to - could be very useful in the long run? It says we have until 16 December to reply... James > Hi all, > > The following might be of interest: > > Defamation on the internet: Ministry of Justice seeks your vi