Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:41, 18 January 2010

Revision as of 00:47, 19 January 2010

Line 38:

A posting to an anonymous blog contains a vicious attack on a model. Much of the attack contains statements of opinion, but a few sentences of the posting could be construed as containing assertions of fact. No evidence is provided for the statements, however, and it is generally agreed that they are false. The blog posting is clearly not a reliable source, and at first no Wikipedia editors notice it, so there is no attempt to use it as the basis for any article content.

The model decides to sue the blogger for defamation. Because the blogger is anonymous, her attorney begins by serving a subpoena on the hosting company seeking information that will lead to the blogger's identity. The hosting company takes the position that as a matter of principle, it will not turn over identifying information about subscribers without a court order. The court considers the matter and writes a decision that establishes the standard in that jurisdiction forregarding when this type of subpoena will be enforced. The decision, in order to evaluate whether an intrusion onto the blogger's privacy is warranted, discusses the statements made in the underlying blog post in some detail. The decision receives broad coverage in both the legal and the popular press.

What, if any, steps should Wikipedia take to avoid giving undue publicity to the defamatory and non-notable allegations in the original blog post, in the course of discussing the court case?