This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Libel page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
Some suggested source material to provide guidance on the development of this article (and related policy) include:
~ Penlite ( talk) 09:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a few hundred Criticism sections in biographies of living people. Would these sections typically be considered libelous? Jarble ( talk) 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
We point people here from the WP:OS page as a way of establishing whether content requires oversight. We don't actually then help with that decision - this page then redirects again to the defamation article for a definition. We clearly need a better definition than pointing to a 12,000 word article, which is in article space and not WP space nonetheless. As a starter to get people's thoughts, I propose we add the following. We could also add some examples of libelous content.
Wikipedia treats libel (otherwise known as defamation) as any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation. Content which is found to be defamatory should be escalated for suppression. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.
Best, Darren-M talk 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion on IRC, amending to:
Any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation, is likely to be libel (otherwise known as defamation). Such content should be reported for suppression immediately. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.
Darren-M talk 23:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve deleted the addendum in the External links section attached to the BBC guidance on Libel, which stated "Note that Victoria Gillick actually lost her libel case, the reverse of what this claims", with
a 2000 newspaper article as source. While true, its certainly not the whole truth:
She won her appeal in 2002, which what the BBC guidance (written in 2004) reflects.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that a misleading comment has been sitting here on a legal policy page for the last 9 years, despite
the discussion at the time telling the full story.
The BBC advice is clear enough, and (I suggest) if anyone really wants to know the ins and outs of the Gillick case (over and above the general point that a person is libelled if a publication "Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society") they can always read
our article
(s) on the subject.
Swanny18 (
talk)
22:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Our article on defamation notes that, "In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation." However, Wikipedia should not remove such "defamation" if it is true, verifiable, and in conformity with the BLP policy. ( t · c) buidhe 12:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Libel page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
Some suggested source material to provide guidance on the development of this article (and related policy) include:
~ Penlite ( talk) 09:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a few hundred Criticism sections in biographies of living people. Would these sections typically be considered libelous? Jarble ( talk) 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
We point people here from the WP:OS page as a way of establishing whether content requires oversight. We don't actually then help with that decision - this page then redirects again to the defamation article for a definition. We clearly need a better definition than pointing to a 12,000 word article, which is in article space and not WP space nonetheless. As a starter to get people's thoughts, I propose we add the following. We could also add some examples of libelous content.
Wikipedia treats libel (otherwise known as defamation) as any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation. Content which is found to be defamatory should be escalated for suppression. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.
Best, Darren-M talk 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion on IRC, amending to:
Any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation, is likely to be libel (otherwise known as defamation). Such content should be reported for suppression immediately. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.
Darren-M talk 23:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve deleted the addendum in the External links section attached to the BBC guidance on Libel, which stated "Note that Victoria Gillick actually lost her libel case, the reverse of what this claims", with
a 2000 newspaper article as source. While true, its certainly not the whole truth:
She won her appeal in 2002, which what the BBC guidance (written in 2004) reflects.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that a misleading comment has been sitting here on a legal policy page for the last 9 years, despite
the discussion at the time telling the full story.
The BBC advice is clear enough, and (I suggest) if anyone really wants to know the ins and outs of the Gillick case (over and above the general point that a person is libelled if a publication "Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society") they can always read
our article
(s) on the subject.
Swanny18 (
talk)
22:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Our article on defamation notes that, "In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation." However, Wikipedia should not remove such "defamation" if it is true, verifiable, and in conformity with the BLP policy. ( t · c) buidhe 12:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)