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 in the article has excess bile?
Can we lobby to make sure that we as volunteers are protected in those circumstances providing we are editing in good faith? WereSpielChequers 2009/9/17 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>: > 2009/9/17 Sam Blacketer <[email protected]>: >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> 2009/9/17 Michael Peel <[email protected]>: >>> > 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 - against an offending article after a year >>> time limit has expired." >>> >>> If it is fair, accurate and malice-free, then it isn't libellous >>> anyway, and doesn't need correcting. >> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
