Wikipedia talk:Libel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Libel page.
Archives: Index, 1
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] Talk pages

As a dynamic entity, the Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia, and the talk pages represent a second dimension of wikipedia. There is no rule that says "an online encyclopedia cannot contain pages wherin which authors communicate information related to articles." The distinction of talk pages is that they are not articles, and therefore, have no claim of being encyclopedic.

If there is no policy to this effect yet, then there ought be. This is a simple disclaimer. A ruling to limit these, under the context of libel, would mean a court could either dictate the conditions upon how a wikiweb-based encyclopedia must operate, or limit free speech itself. Both of these are unlikely and unpractical, for a number of reasons.

Unlike the recent rulings against Napster, mp3.com, and others, Wikipedia is not a repository of information protected under copyright.

The above was working out some more material for the page. I think its redundant, and should go on the disclaimer page.
The general disclaimer should address three main areas. The Gnu license - no liability for accuracy - Talk pages are not encyclopedic. I thought this was already being done. -Stevert

[edit] Inconsistent with WP:OVERSIGHT

This policy instructs the user to email libel complaints to info-en@wikipedia.org while WP:OVERSIGHT lists the proper address as oversight-l@wikipedia.org. Can someone who understands the process please address this? Ronnotel 11:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiding. Ronnotel 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, info-en is the proper address. The info-en team is better equipped to evaluate and deal with reports of libelous content, and since all info-en members are admins, they are able to delete such content themselves when warranted and/or refer it to oversight-l. Bear in mind that most libelous content is merely deleted and not oversighted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we just remove libel deemed to be of a US bias?

Otherwise, why would a contributor to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard say thus:

"Only US jurisdiction applies on en.wikipedia.org -- not Swedish. To say otherwise means the extreme -- you consent to enforce Islamic law (as specified by Iran), etc. an(sic) all US wikipedia servers, and so forth."

? Does anyone have a definitive and empowered answer on this (check out the page quoted for a full look at the context - the poster is not an admin)? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Because every country has different laws, there is no right answer to this. As a British editor, I have been led to believe during discussions with other wikipedians that I should remove anything which may see me prosecuted under British libel law when I edit a page. But that doesn't stop other editors with different laws from adding them back in, and editors shouldn't edit an article simply to remove the material because it doesn't comply with their local laws.
  • This is based on the fact that it appears to be the case that by editing an article and saving it, you may become the publisher or disseminator of any libel contained in an article. So if I edit an article to expand a section, I should remove anything that may get me into trouble, but I should not revert someone else re-adding it. But, I am not a lawyer. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • One factor - not the definitive answer here - is that the servers for the English Wikipedia are in Florida. As far as I know (I'm not a lawyer, but this makes sense), a U.S. hosted site can't be sued for violated the laws of another country with respect to libel, just as a book publisher in the United States can't be sued in the U.K. unless the book is officially sold there by the publisher.
    • In short - Wikipedia can't be sued except under U.S. libel law. An editor, on the other hand, might be able to be sued in his/her native country, for what he/she writes on Wikipedia, depending on the laws of that country, although the likelihood of that is probably very small.
    • So - if you see a violation of U.S. libel law, remove it. If you see a violation of libel law of another country, on the Enlish Wikipedia, you can ignore it unless you were the one that posted it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually that intepretation is incorrect. Wikipedia can be sued for libelling people according to the laws of where someone lives in certain countries. For more information see Gutnick v Dow Jones and Defamation#Australian law. In reality of course, the chance of wikipedia being sued in Florida, in England or in Australia is slim even if technically possible. However you definitely should NOT be ignoring libel unless you are perfectly sure it is not violating policy (in the vast majority of cases it is) Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British libel law?

The first external link is described as "The BBC viewpoint, based on British libel law". As far as I know, there is no such thing. The linked document specifically mentions English law. It is my understanding that the situation is different under Scots law, though no doubt the same advice holds good. My suggestion is that the line should be changed to "The BBC viewpoint, based on English law of libel" .... dave souza, talk 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

The correct link to the project page for core Wikipedia policy on "verifiability" is WP:V, not Verifiability (as previously linked). I corrected that misleading reference link. --NYScholar 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)