Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
BozMo On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one > day because it was a "bad day for > vandalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167>." > It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit > accusing<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167>Leiberman > of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen > Degeneres Show. > > You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a > high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, > right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours. > > This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile > subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure > subjects? > > We already know the answer to > that<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy>. > Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection. > > Cool Hand Luke > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that >> Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act >> effectively enough against libel?>> >> >> >> --------------------- >> The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. >> I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel" >> >> Yes I deny that. >> But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or >> rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and >> hyperbole >> :) >> >> Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, >> but >> *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some >> scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to >> persist for a >> significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are >> only >> libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by >> the >> speaker. >> >> Will Johnson >> >> >> **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and >> favorite sites in one place. Try it now. >> ( >> http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010 >> ) >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
