QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 23rd March 2008, 3:09pm)
QUOTE(Robert Roberts @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 3:10pm)
I know of one article that has had a sly reference to a living figure winning an award for being a champion pedophile for at least six weeks, I keep checking and it's still there.
For the record, I don't think it's appropriate to know of a flaw this serious and not surface it, somewhere. I don't think running an experiment to see how long it takes before it's found is at all appropriate and I'd appreciate the experiment being terminated by the information being surfaced. I think 6 weeks is plenty damning, there's no need to inflict further damage on the subject of the BLP by letting it stand any longer.
Disclaimer, I meant to speak out, but it slipped away from me. Then,
this post spurred me on. Thank you, whoever you are. (since I know you lurk)
Since those arguing that BLPs on wikipedia are often defamatory claim to care so much about the subjects, it's unethical for them to use a real person as an 'experiment'.
If any wiki editor saw that they would most likely remove it, it's just daft and immature for a start- assuming there isn't really a "champion pedophile" award. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd March 2008, 12:55pm)
With a quarter million BLPs on WIkipedia, it occurs to me that sooner or later, some enterprising law firm will organize a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all those semi-notable people to have their biographies cleaned up or taken down.
That would only need one person, such as Murphy etc, to say that he is seeking others with whom to mount a lawsuit. He could use a webpage as a rallying point. Then others who want their bio removed or something simply sign up with him, publically or privately. Then they can approach a lawyer.
But a lot of this IMHO is just people who are upset with unfavourable coverage in other sources being mentioned on wiki, hence they aren't all flocking to mount real lawsuits, rather than threats of them.
This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: