Wikipedia:No libel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Libel. (Discuss)

The Wikipedia:no legal threats policy is absolutely unenforceable without a parallel requirement to avoid statements that give rise to legitimate concerns.

Slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large by adding instances of it to the speedy deletions page. The process is similar to dealing with copyvio cases.

Not every objectionable statement is libel. Bona fide disagreements as to the identity of a person, speculation about their motives or assumed motives for a given action, the actual attributed opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however. Statements that can be quoted and attributed to third parties within the text of the article, and which are verifiable from the third parties, place the burden of proof on those who are correctly quoted, rather than on the individual or entity who just quotes them. Avoid paraphrases or inexact quotes or relying on memory when making contentious observations or assertions - and be ready to provide sources or withdraw comments if challenged.

Most cases of libel on Wikipedia do indeed arise from disagreements about the identity of a person, their motives, or what opinions third parties state of them. Very often, a certain mythological version of these things is agreed on as being "true for Wikipedia purposes" and gets repeated, though it contains falsehoods. A common tactic of dedicated libellers is to "warn" users that they might be confused with someone else, and "by way of information", their warning embeds multiple false or unprovable (perhaps commonly believed) statements. If this is held to be an attempt to get these statements on the public record, it is dangerous in the extreme.

Also, some have used promises of pending legal action as a bludgeon to get their POV enshrined in an article. This is frowned on.