Wikipedia:Libel/2006 revision

''This is a summarization of the changes below, which I will discuss there. The policy template is unchanged.''

""

I have no idea, so I left it.

Libel refers to written accusations against living or ongoing people or entities that are false and, if believed, cause significant damage to their reputations and peoples' perceptions of them. Because of its capability to harm, libel is grounds for legal action in Florida and the United States, the jurisdictions applying to the Wikimedia Foundation. Because of the legal danger, danger to OUR (Wikipedia's) reputation, and falseness, libel should not appear anywhere on any Wikimedia servers, Wikipedia included.

The definition is mainly to explain quickly what it is (libel), and why it's bad for us (And hence, why there's this policy here about it): The legal risk from it (Generally unquestioned), the fact that it's false and hence not legitimate for encyclopedia articels which need to be truthful, and finally that libel that gets out into the mainstream as a result of us is severely damaging to our reputation.

Note that "libel" in this case means libel against someone or thing by information on Wikipedia. Noteworthy libel that can be written in an encyclopedic manner (Most importantly, fully complying with Cite sources, Verifiability, Reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) and correctly identified as such is legitimate (For example, blood libel).

''This could've been written better. Basically I didn't want someone to AfD/CSD a page that described historically famous or newsworthy libel as a result of misunderstanding this policy.''

Is it libel?
If you find something you suspect is libelous, anywhere, on any page of Wikipedia, but aren't sure, this list may help you determine quickly if it is potentially libelous:

1. Is it false?
 * If you know or find a trustworthy source that directly contradicts the suspiscious statement or outright repudiates it, it should be immediately removed as false information which has no place in an encyclopedia or if relevant, explained as false with sourcing.

2. Is it unsourced, or badly sourced?
 * An accusation or flat statement concerning a person, especially one that would be libel if false, should have a source to back it up. "Poor" sourcing such as original research (Personal account, rumors, etc) or blatantly untrustworthy sources is also a bad sign. See Reliable sources for more on this.

3. If someone who hadn't seen the suspected information elsewhere, and didn't know otherwise, saw it and believed it, would the subjects reputation be seriously damaged in their mind?
 * If this criterion and one or both of the above are true, it's almost certainly libelous and should be removed at once. See below for steps to take.

A very strong indicator is when you read or see something that gives you a very strong negative feeling about some subject(s)... but doesn't provide a link for more information (or gives you an extremely suspect one). In such a case, criteria 2 and 3 of the above have been fulfilled and it's grounds for removal.

''As mentioned above, this might go to a guideline or something. However my intention was to let someone who thought they had found libel to go to one page (This one, appropriately) and get all the info needed to decide if it were, in fact, libelous, and how to deal with it. I think a few other pages dealing with "problems", such as vandalism, have been restructured because the existing method for newbies or passers-by to report or fully deal with whatever problems they found required jumping through so many hoops that most of them would give up (WP:VIP -> WP:AIV for example). Hopefully, after reading this page, someone could know: what libel (roughly) was, why it was bad, how to find it, and what to do with it. The last paragraph I've found to be a dead giveaway to malicious or defamatory writing.''

What to do?
These steps can be followed by anyone who suspects they have found libelous information, regardless of the subject(s). If you are personally libeled, you can skip immediately to the "If it's you..." section below, however you may wish to read and/or follow steps 1 and 2 as well.

1. Remove it from circulation immediately.
 * Drop whatever else you're doing on Wikimedia, you can take a few seconds. If it's text on a page, edit the page and blank all libelous parts of it (Be sure to use an edit summary like "Removing likely libel" so people don't mistake it for page blanking vandalism). If the page is protected, explain the situation on Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. If it's an image or sound file, remove all links that point to it (You can tell by going to the information page and looking under "What links here").

2. If you are unsure if it truely is libelous, ask for help.
 * The Administrators noticeboard may be able to help. Post a link to the suspected information or describe its location ("On the page about Jimmy Wales, before I deleted it") if you're unsure how to do it exactly and state your concerns about how it may be libel. If others agree, they will deal with it appropriately (If it's text by removing the revisions from the page history, if it's media by deleting it).

3. Inform the person responsible.
 * If you can determine who added the text or uploaded the media and you're confident that it's libel, you should go to their user page's talk page and tell them what you've done. A template for made for giving such warnings is Template:defwarn and can be placed by pasting this text into a new section of their userpage: . Since they may have added the information in good faith, you should avoid potentially uncivil remarks.

If it's you...
If you find something on Wikipedia that you believe libels you, you can send an Email to the info team by clicking on [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org these words]. Be sure to describe exactly what you think is libel, and explain the error so it can be corrected.

''Everything in part one came from WP:BLP and the template Template:blp, which both state that such text should be removed. The images I derived from the same idea, however I'm not sure if there've been libelous images beforehand that were dealt with differently. If so, then I'm willing to change it to the better method.''

''Steps two and three came from the long established template Template:defwarn, used to warn people for posting defamation, which also suggests reporting libel to ANI. The last sentence was new. Since the warning template really makes it out to be a big breach (By size as well as bolding), I thought it might be appropriate to remind warn-ers against making things worse for the user being warned.''

''The final bit is a direct carryover from the current version of the page. The "click on these words" bit was me trying to make it as usable as possible for someone who may not be entirely used to webpages or Wikipedia but has found some libel on them around here.''

Who'se at fault?
While Wikimedia could be sued for publicly hosting libel, the original submitter is legally responsible and can (also) be sued for libel added to Wikipedia. As a result, every person who adds something to Wikipedia (Text, picture, sound recording) should be sure that their addition wont fall foul of this. Users who repeatedly add something determined to be libel after being told as much will be blocked for knowing vandalism, disruption, and libel.

''Definately a bad heading name, in retrospect, I'm open to better ones. The content is almost all from the original (now current) page here, some comes from BLP/WP:-(.''

How to avoid it
It's hard to libel inanimate, reputationless object like aluminium, Pluto (planet) or a monarch butterfly. Libel is a great concern when dealing with two categories: living people and going companies. If your working with information about members of one or both of these categories, you should be wary. If you're dealing with a negative aspect of a person or company, you're in prime libel territory. You should be sure you can definatively repudiate any challenges to its truthfulness (Checklist questions 1 and 2).

Remember, bad information about someone isn't libel if it's true and provable. When either one of those conditions isn't met, the likelyhood of it being libel increases dramatically.

''This could go to BLP, LIBEL, or another, yet unnamed page. Personally I think it's a good semi-summary of where the greatest risk is. The last bit is from libel, which states that in the United States, truth of a statement is defense from libel, and WP:V.''