On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded > "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against > an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like > that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an > editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word > printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be > ludicrous to even contemplate. > Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up > for a name, it > doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a > person reaches > more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned > recently, > there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we > don't > necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper > publisher > would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an > aggrieved BLP > subject. > > So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being > forced to post a > statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. > I also think > that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a > BLP subject > if they see one. > > I would have no problem with a "Right of Reply" rule. It would not override well-documented information that is already on the page, but merely explain how the subject differs. It could also help to fill holes in non-controversial areas.
It's not a question of standing behind an article, but of recognizing that sources can be wrong. By presenting it right it would also give the public image of listening to a subject's concerns. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
