tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1246833487279258299..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Italian Court excludes Wikipedia and Wikimedia foundation‘s liability in defamation case Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65748783486408069552013-07-09T12:45:05.808+01:002013-07-09T12:45:05.808+01:00The gossip likely relates to the way Mr. Previti f...The gossip likely relates to the way Mr. Previti fulfilled his duties as first legal tutor, then lawyer, of a rich orphan girl and thereby mightily helped to launch the business career of Berlusconi.<br />Google "previti", "arcore" and "casati stampa"<br />Actually something not to be proud of, if true and not a defamation.<br />Or was it something even more defamatory?<br /><br />6 months for dealing with the case, only the first instance I guess, but not bad considering the fame of the Italian Justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85137081481225017402013-07-09T12:28:11.519+01:002013-07-09T12:28:11.519+01:00I note that the court apparently relied (at least ...I note that the court apparently relied (at least in part) on the fact that Mr Previti could have edited the page himself to correct what he claims is defamatory content (something which, I understand, hasn't been ruled on). It would be interesting to hear the Wikimedia Foundation's view on how that, as a ground for defence, rests with its Conflict of Interest policy which states that users must not edit Wikipedia to promote their own interests, and must not write things "unless [they] are certain that a neutral editor would agree that [their] edits improve Wikipedia". In the event that the comments were held to be non-defamatory (and again, correct me if I'm wrong and they already have been!), Wikimedia would be (at least in part) relying on a breach of its policy as a defence!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com