Wikipedia talk:Libel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Liability for defamatory publications

It might be a good idea to have a Wikipedia page on this, because there's at least as much risk of liability for defamatory publications as for copyright violations here. -- isis 14:48 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

No risk of civil penalties if NPOV adhered to. Criminal penalties are an entirely different thing. Many countries including Canada have laws which make it an offence to spead the truth if the primary purpose of the libel is to injure the reputation of another. It is the threat of lawsuit that provides the libel chill. Fearlessness can be aided by the knowledge that libel suits often blow-up in the face of the litigant. Canada Criminal Code libel sanctions include up to two years in a federal penitentary: truth is no defence.

The Quebec Civil Code (based on the Napoleonic Code) make libels against the dead actionable by their heirs. The Q.C.C. also provides stronger privacy legislation than virtually any jurisdiction, which can serve the same ends as a libel suit. User:Two16

Luckily the server is in the more enlightened (at least on this matter) United States where truth is a defense. But individual contributors do need to make sure that what they write is legal in their country (since they are subject to their contries' laws). There is a similar issue right now on the French Wikipedia where a group of contributors want to limit the contributions of anther Wikipedian based on their view of French law. That is a very wrong approach especially since the contributor making the edits that could possibly be illegal in France is not (if I remember right) subject to French law. Besides, as you rightly point out, there is not risk of libel (at least most in Western Nations) if the contributor follows NPOV. --mav

At least in the (less enlightened) UK, that NPOV shield may have its limits. Consider, for example, the recent case of a major sports star (MSS henceforth) who became the subject of much internet gossip, which claimed MSS had had an extramarital affair. Eventually the mainstream media felt compelled to report the gossip. The tabloid newspapers (veterans of libel litigation) mostly elected to print MSS's name, but the BBC (stodgy conservative monolith) didn't, siting a real risk of libel action. Now, the BBC is a master of the NPOV writing style (internet rumours allege MSS may have had an affair) but still its lawyers felt that even reporting that there was a rumour was itself potentially libelous. -- Finlay McWalter 13:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo that NPOV statements are not actionable defamation in the U.S., there are a great number of statements on the Talk pages that are not NPOV, and most can be traced to their writers, not just to anonymous IPs that would leave Bomis holding the bag. -- isis 05:33 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with the basic idea that WP is under some kind of danger of being sued. Anyone can be sued; but consider the basics - an open source , universally changeable entity - cant fall to Bomis, or JW et al.. simply because its unreasonable to mark them as responsible. Clearly anyone can sue, and this could be costly, but it has no chance of winning - furthermore, what would stop anyone from themselves loggin on and changing incorrect statements? With no good faith effort made on th part of a plaintiff, the idea that they can sue something they themselves bear some responsibility in correcting is bogus. Also, what would they be pointing to as reason for libel? Three and a half minutes after anyone gets wind of something, it could be gone. If someone lets an administrator know, it can completely erased from the record. What might a plaintiff point to? A record of the state of a single page out of over 100k, by which Bomis can reasonably and legally argue that it cannot possibly maintain 100 percent accuracy. Who can? Only papers who stake a reputation on accuracy can be sued, largely because of the source's record of reputation to begin with... but even the Enquirer can be sued, and it often is. Finally, To rule against the WP would be to rule against free speech itself. Rarely would you find an example so clear cut of (selfless) public interest vs. private interest (selfishness). -Stevert

ps. - Is the zh.Wikipedia blocked by the way?-Stevert

reactivate

I have reactivated this page, please feel free to discuss and amend the proposal. Hiding talk 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler article history

(copied from Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#History)

• brian0918 is working on the revision history, removing certain libellous revisions which were inadvertantly restored. I know some people have qualms about deleting history, but this is our policy and it should be carried out the same in this case as any other. Those concerned about the historical record should know that of course all the old revisions are stored in the database so in 100 years when historians want to study this incident, they can. It's just that it would be deeply inappropriate (always) for us to keep revisions of those sort public. Please let brian do his work undisturbed. :-)--Jimbo Wales 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It is very startling to stumble onto a blank history. Article histories and discussion pages often shed more light on the nature of the information in the article. Being able to access that "black box" (in Bruno Latour's sense) is often critical to being able to trust the content -- which seems to be at the heart of the issue at hand.

Specific alterations of article history should be made as transparently as possible, perhaps leaving a notice:

Access to this portion of the page history has been removed by [[User:So and so]] because it violates [[This policy]]. Complete page histories are stored by the Wikimedia Foundation and are available to researchers according to [[This other policy]]. Dystopos 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as it would defuse accusations of censorship, plus legitimate researchers (and media) would know where to turn. Perhaps a special e-mail account or article page can be set up to handle such requests (and obviously vet them to make sure they're legitimate). 23skidoo 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Already covered under verifiability

It seems to me that all the policy we need on this topic would already be covered under our existing verifiability rules.

All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable and backed with sources. This applies to everything from aardvark to zygote, of course, but if anything it's especially true of real-life, current people and organisations, who could easily be harmed by libellous or untrue information. Wikipedia may or may not have a legal responsibility to avoid libel, and we could debate that for aeons, but more importantly we have a moral responsibility to present accurate and verifiable facts to the best of our reasonable ability. That doesn't mean we can never say anything negative, it just means that it must be sourced. These are not new rules or new concepts: this is what Wikipedia was founded upon.

Of course, this excludes those persons and organisations of such extreme obscurity that no published references can be found. Unfortunately, this means that they do not get articles. If the local newspaper failed to report on the awesome fragging of Matrix_D00d_471 in Unreal Tournament last night, then alas, neither will we. If no academic journals have commented on the theory that Jimmy of 3rd-period Remedial English is gay and smells bad, then Wikipedia must pass on being the first to announce the news.

The Seigenthaler situation has been something of a wakeup call for Wikipedia, but it doesn't have to be. One of the longest-standing founding principles of Wikipedia is verifiability. It's time that Wikipedians take verifiability seriously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tried to start a debate on that too: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Verifiability. If I'm honest, I believe there is a huge amount of heads in sand around Wikipedia. People have the attitude, It hasn't happened yet, that means it will never happen. I can't say I follow that line of thinking. That said, I think there needs to be a policy on Libel. Even if, as has been indicated to me, the Wikimedia foundation is protected, I am unclear as to the position of individual editors, even ones who do no more than correct the spelling of a libellous statement. If each person who edits a document is the editor of that published version, editors in the United Kingdom may have real cause for concern. Even if a libellous statement can be sourced and is verifiable, it remains libellous if it is untrue. We get no defence on the grounds of repeating a libel. Had we stated that X called Y gay, for example, we are repeating the libel. It's a tough one, but we need some sort of page on libel, even if it is to explain what libel is and how it affects the editor. We should not have a historical page in a forgotten corner of Wikipedia. Hiding talk 07:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal opinion?

Have the WikiMedia lawyers said that we need a page like this? If not, then this page strikes me as a problem in search of a solution. The foundation's lawyers are paid to be paranoid. If the professionals are not worried, then I don't think we should be attempting to second-guess and emerging and very controversial area of law. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the appropriate approach is wait to address the issue after it becomes a problem. As one of those "legal professionals" who represents a newspaper chain, the policies with respect to libel need to be clearly defined by whomever may be in charge of this site. My initial recommendation would be to require registration before posting. I know this violates Wikipedia's wide open spirit, but it is far better than participating in monthly fundraisers for the legal defense fund. Along with that, I would recommend a box that has to be clicked before an edit can be processed, akin to: "click this box to complete and post edit, indicating that you have read and agree to follow Wikipedia's libel policy [appropriately hyperlinked, of course]." Jtmichcock 00:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we should wait until after we have a problem. I'm arguing that we should wait until the professionals say it's worth worrying about. And I specifically think we should wait for the opinion of the WikiMedia foundation's lawyers who are paid to study the situation as it applies to Wikipedia. They have the expertise needed to correctly evaluate the risks in multinational jurisdictions. They have the expertise to evaluate what it means to be a wiki and how that influences the decisions and risks. I don't mean to demean your expertise but our situation is not an exact match to the risks faced by a newspaper chain.

When Jimbo's lawyers say we need a policy on this topic, then we should develop a policy. Until then, it's instruction creep. It's information overhead that causes other rules, policies and guidelines to get lost in the vast morass of policy pages. Okay, I exaggerate a bit there but instruction creep is a real problem for us. I need to see more than just vague rumblings about potential or theoretical risks before recommending that we take action. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I heartily disagree that we need to hear more than "vague rumblings" before acting proactively (pre-9/11, there were such rumblings about an attack). All it would take is one lawsuit that could bankrupt this website. I will wager that Wikipedia's lawyers have already been vocal about doing what is necessary to be able to identify persons making libelous remarks and placing the onus on the individual user as being held responsible for his libel. Jtmichcock 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Under the CDA, it is pretty clear that in US law the foundation is not in any way responsible for contnet posted by individual users. I see no need for this policy until and unless the foundation's legal advisors reccomend it. It is already our policy 9see the jimbo quote elsewhere on this page) to remove defamatory material from the histrory when it is not verifiable. the real policy here is WP:V. DES ^(talk) 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Already covered

This is already covered under WP:NPOV and WP:V. If there's anons we can't hold responsible, just invoke WP:RPA even if those attacks are against non-users. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. I just added in a host of guidleines, and it is possible that WP:NPOV and WP:V do not prevent a libellous statement being made. Consider the following:

Mr X when interviewed by The daily blah, stated that "Mr Y was a miserly tosser." Mr Y, is however, a noted donator to charity.

Now you can source it and verify what was said, you've presented balance, yet you've still repeated a libel which allows a suit to be issued. I also think it is worth having a page which details both the policy of Wikipedia in dealing with libelous statements, something many of us were unaware we had, but which we do, per Jimbo's statement here, and also something that lays out common mistakes, offers guidance to editors and states the climate. Hiding talk 11:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Truth

Quotations

One shouldn't simply post quoted material which appears defamatory, regardless of how well sourced it is. One must also ensure and provide a source for the truth of a quotation. If the truth can not be established, the quotation should not be added to any article, as the reporting of such a quote would lead to the editor and/or Wikipedia being named alongside the quote's originator in any libel suit.

This is an impossible standard. How can we establish the "truth" of a quotation? We don't aim for truth on WP, we aim for NPOV. You're saying that if we quote George Bush as accusing Saddam Hussein as being part of an "axis of evil", we might get sued by Saddam for libel? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That is ridiculous, and indeed it represents a misunderstanding of the libel law. Libel exists only for the person who "begins" the rumour. Any subsequent person who repeats the rumour cannot be prosecuted. For example, if a newspaper publishes an article saying that you had sex with a pig, and then 10,000 people go around saying that you had sex with a pig, even if 100 other newspapers publish that, then the only person who is guilty is the initial publisher. The only time when 2 parties can both be prosecuted is when there is doubt about who originated the rumour. Sometimes this is the case where a rumour is first spoken and then published. In such a case, it could be perceived that while the person who first spoke it started the rumour, it was only when it was published that it was spread. It is very rare that there exists a case where 2 people from independent sources can be independently sued successfully for libel.

If we have a published statement that we repeat, and state it, as it is, as an "accusation", then we cannot be accused of libel (the case that has been publicised is a good example o this). If, for example, I publish something saying "you were once accused of having sex with a pig" then that is not libel, nor can it ever be libel, even if nobody had ever really accused you of having sex with a pig. It is a false statement, but it is only accusing you of once being accused. Libel only enters in to it when I present the statement as if it were fact. This is why this NBC person would be unsuccessful with a law suit against Wikipedia for libel. Wikipedia only wrote that he was once accused of being a suspect in the JFK assassination. There is nothing libellous in that statement. Indeed, it could well be that a few people once upon a time did suspect him. Indeed, I would say that it is almost certainly true that someone at one stage said to their husband or wife "you know, maybe he's responsible". Hence it cannot be proven to be an untrue statement. Even if it could be, it is not libellous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As critical as I have been of Seigenthaler, to say that he was once suspected of involvement in the RFK assassination is undeniably libelous if no proof is adduced. You can't prove it's false, to be sure, but it is defamatory to say that someone was suspected of a crime whatever ultimately happened, especially if they weren't. And it is recklessly negligent to publish a statement like that with no proof. Daniel Case 03:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

However, if he had in fact been suspected, and a relaible source were cited showing that such suspicion had been aired publicly, to report that would not be defamatory, even if the suspcion was evnetually proved groundless, or dropped for lack of evidence. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I belive that Zordrac's comments above are incorrect. In general repating a libel is itself a libel. Stating that soemone has been accused of a crime when in fact no such accusation has been made is a libel (or it is likely to be one). Saing "John Doe accused Richard Roe of crime X" is probably not a libel if Doe in fact made that accusation, particularly publicly, unless the statement is made in such a way as to imply that the accusation is true, and thus to endorse Doe. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific case

Okay, I would like opinions on this specific case:

• A number of sources asserted that a particular online screen name from a particular web site had been accused of having manipulated an internet web site, which he owned, so as to spy on users in order to help police to capture suspected criminals. But that a number of people criticised that this action, whilst legal, was unethical.
• There are no sources available which state that he didn't do it.
• I wrote in the article in question that the person with this online screen name had been accused of this, 10 years ago.
• The person who belongs to the screen name told 20 of his friends to come and get me, to stop this and clear his name.
• The people who were asked to "get me" wrote about the perspective of it, what they believed had actually happened, and why they personally did not believe that it was true, accepting that it was a well documented accusation that made a big difference.
• The person himself denies doing it, but accepts that it was a widely spread accusation that he cannot prove true or false.
• The person himself has asserted that it did not damage his reputation (one of the candidates for a libel suit) and in fact actually increased it, because he was able to assert that he was being persecuted.
• This was about the 50th such accusation of him hacking, many of them proven and the fact that this one wasn't proven meant that he was actually able to convince some people that the earlier proofs were not true, thus clearing his name.
• When I wrote about it, I presented the sourced evidence, as well as the evidence that led to people believing that it was true, and the evidence that led to people believing that it was false, so as to conform to the neutral point of view.
• This person and his friends have asserted that it is "biased" to present both sides of the argument, and have instead asserted that there is no question that it is not true, and removed all evidence as to why 90% of the public believed that it was true, and then asserted that by only publishing one side of the story, they were being neutral (!)
• The friends were unable to source any evidence backing up their claims that it was not true, yet just "plucked from thin air" why they thought it wasn't true.
• Regardless of it being true or not, it was an incident with historical significance because of the security holes that it exploited. It was very definitely possible, and it was the fears that caused the problems. Even if he was able to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it is false, it was still relevant because of the impact that it had. Hence it needs to be mentioned.

I related the incident to Michael Jackson and the child molestation claims. Michael Jackson was found not guilty, and he would hate to see anywhere publish it, as either an accusation or truth. But the reality is that the accusations made an impact. Even if they were only made by a handful of people, if the accusation is suitably notable, then its Wikipedia-worthy. And publishing the accusation as an accusation, rather than a proven fact, means that we have done nothing wrong.

Now, if Michael Jackson got a bunch of his friends to come to Wikipedia (I can't imagine him doing it, but hey) to destroy the page, move the part about child molestation away, and started threatening to sue everyone who had contributed, would we react? Would we tell them that its okay for them to behave like that because Michael Jackson is probably upset about us publishing what he considers to be rumours?

I don't understand why Wikipedia is tolerating this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • If the person acknowledges that the accusation was made and this can be verified, then there is no basis for an assertion of libel. Truth is a defense (at least in the United States) and the article states that there was an accusation, not that the person did it. It may be libel to say that Michael Jackson is a child molester, but no libel if it is stated that Jackson was prosecuted for molestation. Jtmichcock 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think that some people misunderstand the difference between saying "there was an allegation made" as opposed to saying "this allegation is true". There were a lot of other reasons why this wasn't libel, but that's the first one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On Rumours

The proposed policy says "An editor should not add statements regarding rumoured facts about a subject unless the editor is in a position to prove these rumoured facts are true and places such sourced proof within the article". Surely this is somewhat too strict? For instance, until W. Mark Felt announced himself, there were dozens of people who were rumoured to have been 'Deep Throat' and in no case was the rumour substantiated (or could it be). In several cases, the suspicion that they were Deep Throat had an impact on their career. Would it not be better to say that rumoured facts can be added if a significant body of opinion holds that they are true, but that they must be clearly identified as unsubstantiated? David | Talk 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are published articles about a rumor, then Wikipedia can describe the published articles, even if nobody can prove that the rumor is true. --JWSchmidt 12:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. I need something to hang most of my current edit of Jennifer Fitzgerald on. If we could not discuss rumors at all, that article would not exist (and I think it's encyclopedic). Daniel Case 03:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Under US law, no problem. Under UK law, problem. Maybe we need seperate guidance for UK editors and US ones. Although that may not work either, since potentially there may be a responsibility under UK law for a UK editor to remove something which would prove libellous in a UK court. Hiding talk 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If a British editor chooses to use Wikipedia to run afoul of his country's laws, that's not our problem, that's his problem. We shouldn't have policies saying "Saudis can't use Wikipedia to denounce their governments because it's illegal in Saudi Arabia to denounce the government" either. Wikipedia as an entity is only accountable to US law as our servers and supervisory organization (the Foundation) are based in Florida. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay I will deal with this in point form:

1) Wikipedia is physically located in USA (where the machines are held). Henceforth American law is the ONLY relevant law, as far as liability of Wikipedia is concerned. Laws in other countries are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

2) If an individual user, located outside of USA through editing commits an act which is illegal in their individual country/location but is not illegal in USA, then the individual can be prosecuted individually, in which case Wikipedia may be required by law to cooperate (or may not, depending on the circumstances). But this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's liability, and should not be reflected by their rules.

3) Wikipedia is a private business, and hence all laws relating to private businesses apply. They can include or exclude anyone that they like for any reasons that they like, so long as by doing so they are not conflicting with existing laws. For example, they can put in rules telling people not to spread rumours, and enforce that, even though they are not breaking the law in doing so. But they can't ban someone because they are black or from Croatia or for any discriminatory reasons.

To deal with the specific example above, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with reprinting existing rumours, and indeed if these rumours were presented as fact there is no problem whatsoever with also presenting them as fact. If they were presented as rumour, then they should be presented as rumour, and again there is no problem. Wikipedia should, in order to be seen as a good resource, try to encourage people to try to find out if it is a rumour or a fact first before determining whether to present it as a rumour or fact.

Also it should be determined whether the rumour is sufficiently notable. The deep throat rumours above are notable, and hence should be included in the article. But when doing so, careful attention should be paid to WP:NPOV to make sure that it is not presented as fact (or as fiction) if its truth cannot be determined.

Again, going back to Sieg..., the biggest issue there was that it was starting a rumour, and it did not abide by WP:V, in that it did not determine that the rumour already existed. Now, I for one see no problem with what the anon edit did - after all, the likelihood that someone somewhere at one point thought that he was involved is extraordinarily high, and secondly it was presented correctly as a rumour.

Therefore, I believe that this whole section is based on the incorrect assumption that Wikipedia did something wrong in that example. I would encourage Sieg... to attempt to sue Wikipedia, which I think he would be woefully unsuccessful in doing, and then we won't have to worry about all of this reaction. If we are to react, react based on Wikipedia actually being sued, not based on fear. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On point 1, that's not strictly true. I think there has to be some understanding of how wikipedia's reputation and reusers are going to suffer if wikipedia or said reusers are hit with a suit in British law. Wikipedia may not choose to contest the suit. It is unclear whether they would be removed from a suit. As to your point regarding individual editors, think on this. It is possible, that I, as a British editor, am liable for all the text in a page if I edit and hit save. Therefore, as I am liable, I must remove anything which may place me at risk of a lawsuit. That potentially places me in conflict with other editors. Therefore there are problems here. I would think, for starters, any reuser is going to withdraw or at least rethink funding if there's a lawsuit in the air. But maybe that's just me. Maybe corporations aren't as skittish as I believe. Hiding talk 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point that you make. I guess I hadn't thought that far through it. Since you would be required to remove it all, then that might conflict with other editors, hence making them liable, and hence Wikipedia as a whole might have to cover the brunt of the problem. That makes this decidedly not simple. Also, the issue of Wikipedia saving history is an issue. I mean, even if you remove the untrue statements, someone could argue that because the untrue statements are in the history, then they are still in the public viewing area, which could be a problem. I am not sure how that kind of thing would be interpreted. As you are stating it, its not black and white. A bit trickier than it looks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside the somewhat fleeting issue of today's news, I find the not our problem outlook problematic. Suppose a resident of China wrote about the incident at Tienanmen Square. What is this encyclopedia's distinction between mundane defamation and legitimate dissent? Durova 07:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." - Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." - Article 19, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Suppose a resident of China did write about Tiananmen Square. He might be imprisoned, even executed. Should we ban all discussion of Tiananmen Square on those grounds? The answer is rather clearly no. We must do what is right insofar as is feasible. If we run afoul of laws that are outside the jurisdictions that govern Wikipedia in the process, so be it. The UK defamation laws are wrongheaded and unjust and we shouldn't obey them just to protect British editors. This is an encyclopedia. Our concerns are to give everyone the sum of human knowledge, not to censor it in order to protect contributors from their country's unjust laws. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Some Britons might take offence at that kind of statement. Did you know that in Australia you are allowed to sue someone for libel even if they committed it internationally? Does that make Australian laws unjust? I am sure that patriotic people from any country would steadfastly support their country's laws. You gotta be careful using words like "unjust" because it might offend someone. I am sure a lot of Chinese people think that their laws are quite fair too. Perhaps we can say that you "believe" that these laws are unjust. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Phil, I'd buy your argument a bit better if we used non-commercial licensed images. Since we don't, I find that view hypocritical and uninformed. If we are going to adopt practises to suit the potential problems a commercial reuser might face, I'd be inclined to argue that the possibility of a commercial reuser being sued in the London courts is a pretty damn big one. And as it goes, could you try and be a bit more objective and a bit less POV. The England and Wales defamation laws, (and please note it is not the UK laws, it is very clearly the England and Wales laws), protect those that are defamed. By comparison the US defamation laws protect those that defame. Still, if Wikipedia isn't going to protect its editors, it should think on its servers situated within the EU, might be advisable to move them fairly sharp. And it is reassuring to know that the community does not care one jot about its own members, but does care about commercial considerations. Quite a hydra being created here. A non-profit communally created encyclopedia? Hiding talk 19:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be right or wrong about English/Welsh law, but insofar as the law of England, Wales, or even North Korea goes, we should, at most, provide guidance to contributors living in those countries. Other than that, our operating policies should be guided by (a) what we can get away with (currently the restrictions of US law; if US law becomes too onerous, find a free country to relocate to) and (b) the principles of free speech and freedom of information. Notice, Hiding, that "excluding anyone from using our content commercially" is not on that list. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm probably being dense, but your last point makes no sense to me. Are you saying that because it is not on your list it means you believe we should exclude anyone from using our content commercially? Hiding talk 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that excluding anyone from using our content commercially is completely irrelevant to the free speech question. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I don't think there's any point going any further, do you. We're obviously on two different sides of the fence here. Hiding talk 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed guidelines

Okay, I removed the guidelines and left pointers to NOR, Verifiability and NPOV instead, as consensus seems to be that guidelines above and beyond those aren't needed, and also that Wikipedia shouldn't be giving legal advice. As to the rest of the page, anybodu have any thoughts? Given recent events, i think it's pretty clear the policy on libel is to remove it, I guess the next step is to work out how we come to a consensus that a statement is libelous. Hiding talk 15:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the thing -- libel is a legal issue and talking about "coming to a consensus" on the issue is somewhat deceptive -- the results of such a consensus would be largely irrelevant to the question. A court wouldn't be interested in hearing that we came to a consensus that something wasn't libellous. If information is NPOV and verifiable (our content policies), we can wait for someone who knows what they are talking about to tell us that the statement is libellous, and by "knows what they are talking about" I mean lawyers acting in a professional capacity. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Okay, I've rewritten the page to reflect the policy as dictated by Jimbo here [1]. I've also defined it as policy because it is the policy, as evinced by the preceding link, see Jimbo's statement: "It has always been our policy to delete libellous revisions". However note, no qualification on how such libel is determined, discovered, reported or removed has been forthcoming. That was the point I was trying to clarify in my comment above but I don't seem to be communicating that fact well. I'll leave it to someone else to work those details out. Hiding talk 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

error in US Law section

The general gist is correct, but the comment on Sec 230 is oversimplified: and dangerous. Section 230 only immunizes BBS's, ISP's and Webmasters TO THE DEGREE THAT THE ALLEGEDLY LIBELOUS STATEMENTS ARE PLACED ON THEIR SYSTEMS UNKNOWINGLY. Very important distinction. In short, once a webmaster recieves notice that a page contains false and defamatory information, he or she may be sued later for a failure to remove it. Yes, unfortunately that may put webpage operators in the editors' seat, the only logical way to avoid liability is when a complaint of defamatory content comes in, the Wiki editor should evaluate its credibility and act accordingly. Nosmo Reyes 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I had forgotten that part. They are required by law to remove it immediately. Live Journal got in to a lot of legal trouble in relation to that kind of thing, and had to change their policies to suit. Live Journal are in constant massive legal trouble and currently hire a number of lawyers on basically a full time basis to deal with legal problems such as this. Wikipedia may end up going the same way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This invalid, dangerous discussion should be deleted and left to lawyers

This is supposed to be a policy causing us to avoid lawsuits, right? How much experience do the contributors have doing this, really? Therefore I move that this entire discussion be deleted and left to people who are qualified. We are well meaning and some of us have read the AP Style Guide with its guidelines for journalists — but we are unqualified. Tempshill 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. At the risk of sounding immodest, I am qualified. In fact, I just got done with a protracted meeting over some libel/disparagement problems that have arisen with a client. I know there are a few more lawyers on board and I believe that they should be encouraged to post here. Jtmichcock 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Even if we have lawyers here, there's no way to prove that they are lawyers. I think that such a topic should be combed over outside of the internet world, by Jimbo Wales' lawyers face to face. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers do have licenses to prove that they are lawyers. Though the Foundation does have its own lawyers who could and probably should be consulted. -- Beland 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Having a license proves that you are a lawyer only to a person who can inspect the license. Unfortunately, it adds no such guarantee to your on-line identity. By design, Wikipedia has no way to authenticate your identity. You can say your a lawyer. You can even post a picture of a license on your user page. The rest of us still have no way to be sure that you're telling the truth. For article editing, this works fine because we establish trust in each other and in our respective areas of expertise through our on-line edits. For this fairly narrow legal issue and policy development, though, I have to agree that we should leave this to the Foundation's own lawyers. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly email my Bar number to anyone who cares to check it out on the website of the Florida Bar. bd2412 T 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is long after the last post on this, but I've been thinking about a related subject. Quite a few Wikipedians, including administrators, bureaucrats, and who knows what else, are high-school kids, university students, and the like. While they have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, they rarely will have been involved in lawsuits, let alone have pockets deep enough to have been sought out to be sued (auto accidents, etc. excepted). What they know is what they've read here or elsewhere. In my wikiexperience, a lot of the potentially troublesome edits are made, or are supported, or are thought of as perfectly fine, by this wonderful crew of juveniles and very young adults. IMHO we need to be VERY strong and specific about libel-related matters, because we can't expect the young people to have much life experience or pre-existing knowledge about the subject. Lou Sander 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Recourse

This page should be clear about what people who find defamatory statements on our site can do about it. I assume the advice would be to either 1.) remove the offending statements immediately themselves, 2.) leave a note on the talk page and tag the article as biased or factually incorrect, or 3.) contact our designated agent? Is the latter the best option if you also want offensive revisions removed? -- Beland 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree entirely with you and your suggestions. However, during discussions I have had on the mailing list with people I think are from the foundation, with regards this issue it appears to me they would rather keep an arm's length from the content of Wikipedia, and that they are in fact not responsible for the material displayed. Of course I could be completely misrepresenting such a position. I would suggest you take it up with Jimbo. The best guidance I can find so far would be Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error, which suggests number 1. part of number 2. and in respect of number 3. suggests contacting the help desk. It occurs to me that as Wikipedia grows we as editors & admins going to become even more responsible for content fixing and that if the help desk and the community are being presented as the deciders of a solution to such problems then we had better look at organising ourselves better so that of someone does post notice that they find something libellous at the help desk, it isn't laughed off the board, even partially. Hiding talk 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% that some sort of recourse should be simply stated very near the top of this policy for the sake of non-Wikipedians who do find libellous material about themselves, but don't know anything about how Wikipedia works. I'll even suggest some wording (I'm also sure that others can come up with better wording). Some of this is taken from above, some from the proposed policy on "Biographies of living people"

If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, please do the following:

1. Remove the offending material by editing the main article page. (Go to the article, then click "edit this page," delete the offending material and click "SAVE PAGE." In the "Edit summary" write "libellous material removed")

2. On the talk page, briefly state why you believe the material is libellous (Click "Discussion" then "Edit this page" and type your comments at the bottom of the page). This should generally include a statement that there is no reputable source for the material. If a reputable source has reported the material, and a Wikipedia editor cites it in a form similar to ' The New York Times stated "material you consider libelous here." ' then your complaint might best be handled through the reputable source, not with Wikipedia.

3. Send a brief explanatory e-mail to: board@wikimedia.org info-en@wikipedia.org (English-language Wikipedia) info-de@wikipedia.org (German-language Wikipedia) danny@wikia.com 69.253.195.228 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening the door for WP censorship

If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, please do the following: Remove the offending material by editing the main article page. (Go to the article, then click "edit this page," delete the offending material and click "SAVE PAGE." In the "Edit summary" write "libellous material removed")

Are we really all in consensus that primary sources should be encouraged to remove material from articles about them that they don't like? Does no one see a problem with this? Are we so afraid of legal action that we will undertake pre-emptive manual chilling of content?

An accusation of libel is fundamentally an Accuracy dispute. Its only distinction is that the person disputing it is the person who it describes, and may lead to legal action. Take out the personal and the legal, and it is just a regular old content issue. Addressing such disputed content ought to follow the existing conventions for disputed content, which typically involves moving the disputed claim to the Talk page, and then going through the WP:DR process. A template such as Template:Libel might help as well.

Circumventing this proven process out of fear is not good WikiPolicy.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bit strong. I pretty much copied it from Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error, which is what a libellous statement would be. However, what do you suggest we advise people who find libellous statements in their articles should do? Should they not edit them to remove the statement? The first thing that many people pointed out in the Siegenthaler affair was that he should have just removed the offending text. If the remoived point is well sourced and other editors of that page stand behind those sourcxes, they are welcome to add it back in and contact the subject explaining why. There is no censorship, it will still fall into the WP:DR process, but we have enabled the subject to take part in it. A similar thing happened at John Byrne, where he basically blanked the article, and eventually protested to Jimbo, who upheld the blanking and asked only for sourced material to be added back. I can't see any reason that this guideline amounts to pre-emptive chilling of content. We allow someone to remove content if they dispute the accuracy, which we already do, and we ask for an edit summary which will enable us to understand that removal. I'm not quite clear how that differs from any other wiki experience. Hiding talk 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my problem with a deletion and edit comment is that it will have limited attention. If libel scrutiny grows in significance at WP, I'd advocate that we ensure that the process of addressing libel be easily available to more than just the contributors of the article. In the Siegenthaler case, the article had fallen into stewardlessness. Siegenthaler himself could have removed it, but who would have noticed? I think the fact that a libel accusation involves personal interest on the part of the accuser compels the situation to have a bit more visibility. It would become too easy for a primary source to pull information that is in fact true. The less well-known the fact is, the easier it will be to do this. So, I'd advocate for talk page discussion and/or a categorizing template, to add visibility to the issue. This is in line with what I've seen as convention for POV and factual disputes; you add {{::Template:POV}} or {{::Template:Disputed}} to the article, and bring up the dispute on the talk page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the sentiment of "if a false statement is written about you, you should remove it yourself!" My issue isn't so much the "censorship" issue - although I do see that being an issue (read: Daniel Brandt {no offense to Daniel, but I do see this as a possible issue}). My issue is that very few people have the time to dedicate to watching that article to make sure their revision isn't removed. It's much easier, and much more effective, to contact Wikipedia as Siegenthaler did - because that ensures that the information is removed and STAYS removed. As Penny Arcade so gracefully put it, few people "have time to babysit the internet". I agree --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, rather than go the template route, which would be rather complicated for someone who could potentially be a new user, we just leave it at posting a message to the help desk mailing list. If a page is under watched, as in Siegenthaler, then a talk page message is likely to be missed. Hiding talk 10:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"If a page is under watched, then a talk page message is likely to be missed." Fair enough. Though a {{::Template:Libel}} could auto-catgorize into a Category:Pages accused of containing libel which would increase visibility.

FTR I don't oppose manual deletion from the article as long as the deleted content is moved to the talk page -- or some other easily visible location -- for review. Whether or not the PIQ removes it or it gets removed by e.g. a Libel Committee, it should be retained for review, and identified as disputed, until the question is settled somehow. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your concept here. The only place that can actually determine a libel is a court. So are you suggesting we keep the contentious statement until we are sued and lose? If editors are convinced a statement is verifiable using reputed sources it remains, otherwise it should be removed. It should not be debated on the talk page, since it is unsourced and unverified, it should be removed, and the policy on libel is that it is removed from the edit history. If someone disputes a statement in their bio and it cannot be sourced or verified, why should we keep it? If it can be sourced and verified, then the person in question will have to take it further by other means, either contacting the foundation or a lawyer. Current policy is already that unsourced information should be removed, I can't see why we should have a different standard when it comes to people crying libel, that is pushing too far in the opposite direction. Either a statement can be sourced and verified or it is removed. I don't agree with a libel template because to my mind the last thing we want to do is encourage people to start slapping templates accusing wikipedia of libel all over the place. We already have processes in place to deal with almost all of this stuff, there's no need to start more. And again, a category would still have to be flicked through, since it doesn't flag on a watch list, so it would likely become unwatched too. Let's leave it that it gets flagged through the help desk and then the community can decide if it is sourced it remains, if it is unsourced or unverifiable it has no place in Wikipedia. Hiding talk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My concept here is that the less visible you make the disputed content, the less chance it has for sourcing and verification. The less chance for sourcing and verification, the greater chance for primary-source censorship. I advocate a mechanism by which such disputed content can be put in a pool for those who enjoy source-hunting to go at them. Much like what is done for WP:PUI or WP:CV et al. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how the guidance as it currently stands, to contact the help desk, nullifies this approach. Those people who enjoy sourcing material, I would submit, are already members of the help desk mailing list, so it seems the easiest, least confusing and most direct method of dealing with any assertion by a subject. However, I'd point out that unsourced material is already subject to removal at an editor's discretion, so again I don't see that option as an obstacle being created. Hiding talk 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where can I report problem edits?

Specifically, I think someone better qualified than I needs to look at the recent edits on Time (magazine), Quad/Graphics and Time Warner by User:24.240.35.49 -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns that can't be sorted with the usual editing procedure then you can also email using the address linked on the contact page -- sannse (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template

I've removed the {{libel}} template. It is a serious problem if we find libellous material and don't deal with it. The correct thing to do, is to remove the text until it can be verified, sourced, put into neutral language and replaced (or forgotten never to be seen again if that's more appropriate. Just tagging it is a Bad Thing. I speak as one of those that deals with the angry emails from people reading that they are actually monstrous, murdering child molesters and not an average headmaster! -- sannse (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge to WP:LIVING / WP:BLP

I think we should. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I always saw this as more a direction to subjects as much as to editors. I'd also note this is policy and WP:LIVING is only a guideline. I think the purposes of the pages differ: this page states the policy on libel, WP:LIVING states how editors should achieve it. Hiding Talk 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Libel underlies BLP. It's one of the paramount reasons for BLP. Also, BLP covers living people, AOE (If it every gets going) will cover buissiness. Libel covers all: Any potentially libelous information anywhere, about any one or thing is fair game for removal. Also, SB makes a good point, BLP deals with how to write about someone alive make a good articel about them, not only how to avoid libeling them. 68.39.174.238 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep seeing attempts at merging with WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL in its final form will encompass more than living persons...perhaps to entities and defamation in other articles. Also, the seriousness of this policy makes it a wikimedia foundation "superpolicy" candidate. Issues here affect all wikiprojects. Also, I see this policy evolving into a lawyer-vetted legalese policy full of definitions and legal terms and harder to read compared to BLP policies and others. It may also need a related disclaimer. Electrawn 14:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How to remove material from Page History?

This page says:

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history.

Could anyone discuss the practical issues of how to (and who may) edit a page history. I suspect its an admin only task but this is not apparent from the page as it stands. Some practical instructions would be helpful. --SteveMcCluskey 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to give some "practical instructions", any better? 68.39.174.238 05:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes of August 30, 2006

I've reverted the recent changes to this policy. They were far-reaching, and had not been discussed. My revert has nothing to do with the merit of the changes, but only with the procedure. As this is a WP policy, we must be very cautious in making changes, ensuring that a true consensus exists, and that the changes do not clash with other policies or the fundamental principals of WP. This policy now overlaps with WP:Living, and the two policies must support each other without unnecessary redundancy. My personal opinion is that 'practical advice' on spotting libel might better go into a guideline. -- Donald Albury 11:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of it wasn't a change. The core policy is still the same in both revisions: We can't be libeling people; if we do, the libel must be removed. Actually, alot of the addition is to synchronize this with BLP, which states much of the same thing: If you find libel or potential libel, remove it @ once. As for the rest of it, I'm willing to show that all of it was either derived from other, fully accepted policies, pages, or reputable sites. 68.39.174.238 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, massive rewrites of policy pages without full prior discussion on the talk page do not sit well with me and many other editors. Policy pages need to be as stable as we can keep them. I saw your edits as changing the tone and scope of the policy, and they left me unsure as to what you may have changed at its core. It is far better to carefully examine all parts of a proposed change, and be sure that a broad consensus does exist for the changes. Wait until other editors have had a change to comment on the changes you want. -- Donald Albury 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Since it was reverted above (And I don't want to revert war over it), I'm going to present a suggested addition below and show my reasoning for it and rationale bheind it. The entire thing can be seen here here.

I have since moved these revisions into a brainstorming subpage for active editing and seperate discussion. That way things can stick a little better without altering the policy page. They are removed from this talk page. Electrawn 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Wikipedia's approach to libel should not be more restrictive than that recommended by the Associated Press Style and Libel Manual (ISBN 0201339854}. Libel policy needs to be written by someone who understands New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Lately, we've been seeing pressure from different directions to adopt a more "business-friendly" policy of not saying bad things about businesses, even if they can be verified. That's fundamentally wrong for Wikipedia. See the "unexpected consequences" box in WP:VAIN. It's a form of editor intimidation to adopt a "libel policy" more restrictive than that required by US law. --John Nagle 04:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a change in the permittivity of the policy, I'd suggest bringing it up in a new section here or here, since that's where this change is coming from (As sortof a harmonization). 68.39.174.238 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not having an account makes it hard to have credibility in forming policy, especially a core one. Electrawn 05:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a good change, it should be understandable regardless of if I'm an IP, an AOLer, an administrator or a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales. 68.39.174.238 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

policy

Is this really official policy? It seems sorta half baked. This isn't really an actionable policy, it hardly says anything. Fresheneesz 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you, and believe this page should be merged to WP:BLP. >Radiant< 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: 1) I think there needs to be a proper discussion of libel somewhere, so our (mostly pretty young) editors can understand the seriousness of it, the different definitions and levels of proof in different jurisdictions, etc. IMHO, every editor should avoid ANYTHING possibly libelous (under the widest definition} as he or she avoids Avian flu. 2) It's hard to keep all the policies, etc. straight, unless you spend full time doing it. I'd definitely be in favor of "libel" being a topic under WP:BLP, rather than in a kind of weak article of its own. Lou Sander 23:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it libellous to report on the details of a court ruling regarding a libellous comment?

OK, here's the scoop.

In the Federation of Expellees article, we have the following text:

In February 2004, the Federation sued the German journalist Gabriele Lesser for alleged defamations. The questioned article was published 2003-09-19, in the daily Kieler Nachrichten. The district court of Hamburg ruled against the repetition of a certain wording by Lesser but in favour of another, which made Lesser welcome the verdict.

It seems clear to me that we could report the wording approved by the court. My question is: Can we repeat the wording that was prohibited by the district court of Hamburg? After all, the court presumably ruled "You cannot say that X is true but you can say that Y is true." If we were to say "X is true", that presumably would be libellous. We could say "Y is true" and avoid the charge of libel, at least with respect to German law.

However, my question is: are we allowed to say "the district court of Hamburg ruled that it is libellous to publish that X is true"?

Presumably this is a matter of public record and it seems to me that, as long as we do not assert that X is true but only report that the district court found the statement "X is true" to be libellous, we should be OK.

Thought?

--Richard 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

merge and brainstorm page

I've removed the merge tag. I think this page follows WP:KISS. I'm not sure what the complaints are about it being actionable are, it quite clearly is actionable. We remove libellous edits from the history. I Think we need a separate page from the living people page to detail our policy to people who believe they've been libelled and don't want to wade through such a long page. It's become widely used and asserts the position effectively. I appreciate the two users weren't on Wikipedia when this became germane, but this is the policy as Jimmy enunciated it.

The brainstorming page is an admirable attempt to rewrite this policy, but if you look through the history of this page, you'll see such an approach was rejected because it may cause us legal problems. This is best used as a front page for our policy, WP:BLP is built from this, but does not supercede it. We shouldn't overcomplicate things. Hiding Talk 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is NOT built from this. It is completely different. WAS 4.250 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That it is something different does not negate the fact. WP:V was built from WP:NOR, but is something different. If they were the same, they wouldn't be built. Hiding Talk 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is based on the morality issues of dealing with living people. This policy is based on the legal issues concerning libel including libeling corporations. The have different inspirations, different motivations, different histories, different authors, different subject matters, different structures, different implementations, different implications. There are no facts supporting your assertion that BLP was built from this other than some people's confusion. From the very beginning, the essense of BLP was "special sensitivity for living people". We care, not becayse of the law, but because caring is what is right and moral. Legal liability is important; but it is a different issue. Don't conflate the two. WAS 4.250 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

This policy is confusing and is generating requests for deletion of revisions to info-en. What should be clarified is that it is not and never has been our policy to delete routine vandalism from the page history, nor do we delete material from the page history on suspicion that it might be libellous. It is necessary to approach this issue with due caution because if we set about removing every revision from the page database where someone scrawled "JOE IS A <expletive>," we would have little time for anything else and would end up without a useful page history. We do delete potentially libellous material on advice from counsel and in other clear cases, but we don't want to encourage vacuous requests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises

Moving link to proposed policy Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises from policy page to here. That's an ongoing discussion, and there's considerable objection. --John Nagle 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge with BLP

This seems like it should be merged into WP:BLP and possibly have stuff spread onto other major policies too. It just seems redundant, as the BLP policy covers Libel too. Anyone think so? ViperSnake151 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• This page is fine. It is short, to the point and is needed as a standalone. BLP goes a lot further than this page, and contains a tremendous amount of information that is not of fast import to new users who may have a legitimate issue. Furthermore, libel is not a problem limited only to biographical articles, and a merge would muddy that fact. I strong;ly oppose a merge because there is no need. There is no problem here to solve. Hiding T 09:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

we currently have 40 odd policy pages. That is a problem.Geni 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Per User:MBisanz/GP it is closed to 55 policy pages and literally hundreds of guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it rather depends on your definition of problem, and of solution. I think leaving this page as is, short, succinct and useful, is more beneficial to Wikipedia than merging it somewhere where it will get lost. Who, after all, counts how many policies when they go looking for one? Where else, after all, would you expect to see a policy on how we deal with libel but at Wikipedia:Libel? Which name in a category is going to leave the uniformed reader arriving at the best target? As I have said before, libel affects more articles than BLP, so how would a merge to there be of benefit? Hiding T 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear in it's opening sentance that is applies to any Wikipedia page. How can you apply to more pages than that.Geni 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP excludes libel about companies or other legal entities who can be libelled (see for example McLibel). As Hiding says, where else would you expect people to find the libel policy but here? Redirecting Wikipedia:Libel to WP:BLP would suggest that only BLPs can be libelled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in BLP limits it to natural persons.Geni 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be renamed to Wikipedia:Articles about legal persons. It's not only restrictive in its name (biography; living) but its content, for example "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.", and there are numerous instances of that. It even has a little section indicating that it's not meant to be interpreted to apply directly to deceased persons, and as I'm sure you're aware there have been numerous examples where editors have decided that it doesn't. What should we do, rename BLP to incorporate companies and products? Add a little section on legal persons? In its current form you can't seriously maintain that it applies to more than living natural persons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

<ec>Um...what? "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person" and "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages" pretty clearly make the opposite case. I really think people are looking for problems that don't actually exist here. Hiding T 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP exists more for ethical than legal reasons. While U.S. law courts may treat people and companies the same in certain circumstances, they are not the same thing. Part of the weight that is given to BLP stems from the fact that it only concerns living people, and not to any of the other myriad topics on Wikipedia. Extending it weakens it. For those reasons I'd oppose merging this into WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When Jimbo speaks the policy...

...how will we know it? The citation to the Wikipedia policy is to Mr Whales' statement here. When he says, "This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration", is that referring to only its paragraph, or also the apparent prescription that all "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" should be "removed aggressively"? Lumenos (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: How will I know this, "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" from say, speculation that isn't random, or pseudo information that has no source mentioned, but which the author knows where they heard it. :) Could someone explain how we are to derive from this, the legitimate use of the "citation needed" tag, if there is such a thing? Lumenos (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added the legal policy sidebar per WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Policy_templates; feel free to revert and discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording of last sentences

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

I don't like the bolded words in these statements. I think it should be, "It should be a high priority for contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete such material when it has been identified.". Editors should not be told that to do and it is not their responsibility to do anything. This is volunteer project. Plus, I think it is premature and dangerous to call information that may be written by anonymous IP edits "libel". It is no different than graffiti or vandalism and should be treated as such unless a court says otherwise. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

why you keep reverting my post?

Everybody know that Michael Jackson was gay why you keep reverting my post?it's all over the news.i cited many news source.User talk:Felisberto|talk]]19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've properly headered your question, I presume this is what you meant to do. I assume that you are talking about this edit which was reverted. Firstly, this isn't really the place to take this up - this is only a talk page for discussing Wikipedia's policy on libel. The fact that your edit was reverted was not in any way libelous, and the message you recieved from Uncle Dick was not designed to be percieved as offensive, it is simply a standard message that is sent out to all Wikipedia users if an edit they have made is reverted. Secondly, I hardly think it's just to say that everyone knew Michael Jackson was gay - there has been much speculation about his sexuality, and even if it was an allegation printed in a book, it does not definitively prove that Jackson was homosexual. Finally, you say you have cited reliable sources, and whilst the Telegraph is fairly reliable, The Sun is generally considered to be unreliable for all it's speculation. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

trying to delete an image of an alleged prostitute

An image captioned "German Prostitute" and showing an identifiable female is, so far, being kept. We disagree on whether the Foundation has her consent; I say it has to be sent to the Foundation and be explicit, not implied from her maybe being an editor. We also disagree on whether it's sufficient to wait until she herself requests deletion, especially if she's not an editor and doesn't know of the picture. Names mismatch. A second deletion request is now pending for a few more days. Please take a look at Deletion_requests/File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg and scroll to the second request. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Yeah. What if its a talk page? Like if a person who posting slander against you on several talk pages or emailing them privately? 119.224.89.153 (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to have a successful lawsuit against someone for Libel (in all countries with civil laws regarding libel) you must prove certain elements of libel by a preponderance of the evidence. You must prove that the Defendant intended to cause you harm by creating, publishing, or distributing false written statements about you. You must prove that these statements have caused you harm. You must prove that these statements have caused you to lose a quantifiable amount of money, property, or income ability. You must prove that the aforementioned written statement(s) by the Defendant are false statements that are not merely the opinion of the Defendant and that these statements were 'false statements represented, published, and distributed as facts'. The following is an absolute defense to Libel and if any of the following are true in your case can cause you to be counter-sued successfully, in all countries with civil laws regarding libel,: 1) If the Statements are true, they are by definition not libelous. 2) If there was no tortious injury (if the Statements did not cause you to lose any money, property, or income ability) 3) If the Statements were opinions. 4) If the Statements were not distributed (i.e. They were sent to you privately through email, mail, etc.) 5) (U.S. only) If the Statements are protected Satire. 6) (U.S. only) If the Statements are so outrageous that no reasonable person could reasonably believe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingQueenPrince (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

whether Victoria Gillick lost or won

This litigation as cited confuses me. I'm not a lawyer but am somewhat familiar with how U.S. law works, and the U.S. is largely rooted in common law originating in the U.K. Reading both the BBC page and the Telegraph article, I wonder if the case went up a couple of times. The years seem spread out and I'm hesitant to assume the BBC simply got it wrong. Maybe we can't sort it out, but then if we want to cite the BBC page for other content we have the problem of what to say about Victoria's case, as we probably should say something. An alternative is to stop citing the BBC page for any content and find another source for advice like that of the BBC's. Comments? Nick Levinson (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) (Added why this topic/section is relevant by adding a linking phrase: 05:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

We could just remove it? Doesn't seem a necessary link. Egg Centric (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Libel cases are complicated. What happened was that Gillick sued Brook Advisory Centres over one of its leaflets which she read as implying that she bore moral responsibilty for a rise in teenage conception rates in the late 1980s. Brook contended that the leaflet obviously did not bear this meaning, and won an interlocutory hearing declaring that they did not. Gillick appealed and overturned this ruling: see Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1263] (23 July 2001). The case then proceeded to trial; when it concluded on 13 March 2002, the Judge found that the words did not actually contain any defamatory meaning, and found for the defendants with costs awarded against Gillick: see [2002] All ER (D) 174. Gillick again appealed and on 12 December 2002 agreed to accept £5,000 damages from Brook. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article asserts statement is slander; RfC

There is an RfC that may interest some readers of this page, as it involves a discussion as to whether to state as fact in the lede of an article that a person is "x", when that person has said that such a statement is slander. It is currently taking place here. The subject is a living person.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No response to e-mail

I think the e-mail address in this article should be removed because I used it and got no response. Has anyone else had similar or different experience? Weburbia (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I finally got a response one month after writing the email. Weburbia (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New RfC about Categorization of persons

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons: "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity?" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of the scope

Looking at the current revision of the rule it is difficult to tell for sure whether it is applicable to all languages or only to the English Wikipedia. So, shouldn't WP:LIBEL be clarified with regard to its scope? For example: This rule is global and mandatory for all language editions of Wikipedia, see WP:CONEXCEPT. | Xerocracy (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Determining global policy is beyond our authority. You'd need to approach meta or the Foundation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Did it here: meta:Wikimedia Forum#WP:LIBEL — is it a global rule? Looks like the primary authority for the non-English adaptations of WP:LIBEL is not this page but the global meta:Terms of use. | Xerocracy (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Wow, I'm looking at the history of this article and there's a severe edit war going on. Probably the most severe on Wikipedia. Wethar555 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jurisdictions

I expected to see something here about which jurisdiction(s) is/are relevant for libel purposes. Is there a reason this is missing? Grover cleveland (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

responsibility of all contributors to ensure material is not defamatory?

The sentence

"It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory."

is problematic. I think it is better worded as

"It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure the material they post on Wikipedia is not defamatory."

which makes it clear that culpability for defamation lies solely with the defamer, and that editors in general are not operating under a legal burden to remove defamatory material. I think (hope) the new wording is what was intended but the current sentence can clearly be read to mean that all contributors have an obligation to remove defamatory material, which is absurd for a number of reasons, foremost being it implies they must read every article they edit in its entirety and that the have the ability and background to spot the defamatory material. I'm well aware (since I help write it) that editors should or ought remove contentious material immediately (in the sense of having an ethical obligation) but it is different to assert they must do so, and altogether different to imply the have legal obligation to do so.

Under the current wording and a non-charitable but perfectly valid interpretation of it, a lawyer for a defamed person could seek damages from any editor he/she wishes, with intervening editors between a defamatory edit but before its removal at particular risk after the original defamer. The lawyer would argue that by using the site you have agreed to the Terms of Use which states that you must abide by "applicable community policies", which would include this policy, and this policy says you "must ensure material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". If an editor didn't remove the material, they failed to ensure this. This is short deductive argument that shows the current wording has a problem. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Examples needed

Can this page please explain what counts as defamation or libel about someone? It does not go into detail. Isn't this like making bad claims like 'the person is a liar' or 'the person killed someone' or whatever?

I received a warning because I said someone did modeling (nude) which I do not consider to be a bad thing so I did not think it would count as degrading.

Also, I think there should be a distinction between creating defamation/libel (ie the word comes from a Wikipedian, they present a statement as truth) and merely discussing external sources who do defaming.

Like for example if I were to say "Barack Obama drowned fifty felines" that would be libelous, but if some guy said that on some blog and I say "Blogger X claimed Barack Obama drowned fifty felines" would that still be libel or just reporting on libelers?

To give an example of what I mean, if you check out Defamation#Cases involving libel it says:

The U.S. Supreme Court overruled a State court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticized Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists

This description introduces this idea:

Alabama officials mistreated student civil rights activists.

Here's the issue: does a statement on Wikipedia have to be tried and declared NOT libelous by the Supreme Court for us to include it on Wikipedia? Or does sourcing bypass that?

How do we determine when a statement passes into this boundary? Not every single tidbit is necessarily sourced. It may not specifically say "Mario wears a red hat" but it may be self-evident from pictures so people include that. But what if someone thought it defamed someone to wear red hats, then we remove it? Ranze (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• The OP has been topic banned for 12 months due to ongoing exploration of the above issues, and no further discussion is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

question

Isn't labeling a research as pseudoscientific without providing adequately strong and notable citations a libel? In other words, if an article is not about a person, WP:BLP does not apply, but it may be about a persons work, is it or is it not libel to state something like above without good sourcing? I am facing issue that stating something is not commonly regarded as pseudo-scientific requires exceptional sources and the opposite statement suffices backing of a crappy source. 212.200.65.108 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about a particular article and material at that article. Please provide more information.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Article about acupuncture. There are quite reputable sources and meta studies from top medical journals, already cited in the article, talking about health benefits being better than placebo. This by itself is saying there is something to it, and yet few editors do not want to provide decent source for the claim that it is 'generally perceived as pseudoscience'. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

but my question is also in general, can libel be interpreted for this kind of things or not? 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in this instance. If it were libel, it would defame all currently practicing acupuncturists, which is silly. Wikipedia operates by its own guidelines for science and fringe science. The proper place for this discussion is at the article Talk page, not here. I'd stay there and not post further on this subject here. Also, I would make no accusations of libel at the acupuncture Talk page as you would be getting perilously close to legal threats, which could result in your being blocked based on WP:NLT.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not quite that silly. This is precisely why I am asking for strong references when such strong words are used. Editors asking for WP:MEDRS don't feel obliged to use the same high quality sources when criticizing. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)