QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 9:53pm)
Anyways, Wikipedia is liable for damages that result from incorrect, defamatory information that is added onto it, i'm sure you all know of the main cases involved with that like the Seigenthaler case. However, Wikipedia is not liable for collecting publically available information from sources. It is the sources themselves, I would suppose, that are liable, but not a collector of such.
Google up "section 230". Wikipedia is not liable for anything under current US law. Hasn't this been explained to you already?
Individual editors, with bizarre names like "Silver seren" and "SlimVirgin" are responsible. However, these people seek to hide their meat-space identity, and are probably judgment-proof in any case.
This latter bit probably explains why you aren't offering any indemnities: no money to put your mouth to.
QUOTE
(Oh, and Elisa Gabbert seems to be up for deletion.)
"Watergate is proof the system works."
Silver seren, it's pretty damn clear you have no idea what you are supporting with your continued participation There and your naive apologetics Here. The Gabbert article should never have been allowed to be created in the first place. People who edit BLP's should be known to the foundation, if not the general editing public. The likes of Fred Bauder should not have any place at the project, let alone one of authority.