Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 304:
:::For an overview of some of the issues see chapter 3 of [http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/journalistica/article/download/3832/5100 Caution! You are now exercising editorial control]. I note, by way of example, that an Italian court has handed down suspended jail sentences to US based Google executives, although it is understood that that case is under appeal, see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8533695.stm Google bosses convicted in Italy]. [[User:FrankFlanagan|FrankFlanagan]] ([[User talk:FrankFlanagan|talk]]) 21:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::* Surely this is a fundamental issue which needs a clear answer. Would it really be advisable for any editor based in Europe to ok a pending change, with the risk of personal legal consequences if it turns out to be well-crafted but malign? (Possibly even more so in the UK, with its parade of well-heeled libel-shoppers parading through the London courts.) [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 20:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*For a current court case regarding Wikipedia edits, see [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/04/whats-the-difference-between-stating-facts-or-opinion-online-wikipedia-contributor-faces-defamation-.html]. --'''
**A very strong argument in favour of making ''absolutely sure'' opinions are clearly stated ''as'' opinions of a particular source, rather then the current practice of "anything goes" on many articles. Particularly ones which attract POV editors at all, including political, religious, economic etc. articles. Where doubt exists, use direct quotations from the source on anything contentious. The case given was, of course, egregious. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
| |||