"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no idea how it would work or even if it could work, but IMO, it
would be better if newsgroups could maintain their own archives and
have a sort of 'librarian' moderator who would weed out those that are
clearly libelous or defamatory. But as I say, that may be impossible.


Look at it another way. Once you start moderating, then you potentially
become responsible for whats left, and also for whats been removed or has
not been removed.

I think that theoretical danger could be removed by a disclaimer to the
effect that 'the views expressed and information given are not the
responsibility of the archivist unless they're clearly his or her own".
In that way, there would be no more danger of misplaced responsibility
or bad advice offered, than there is now.

By leaving it alone, and archiving everything, you dont
have responsibility, since you are just a 'robotic' archiver. I think there
was a very recent court case against google that backed up this POV.

I'd guess that sooner or later, Google is going to be sued for
promoting the spread of libel or misinformation, or both. One case
that was written about some time ago was that of a journalist whose
photograph appeared in a Google article about a gynaecologist accused
of molesting several women.

Do you mean a site that came up in a Google search or in a Google web page??
There is a difference.
Jenny

I forget the details now but the gist of
it was that the journalist whose photograph could well have been
mistaken for that of the accused gyane, may well have had a case
against Google. Of course, much may depend on the laws of the country
in which any such case was brought. However, as I don't ask Google to
archive my posts and, so far as I know, nobody is on record as ever
having asked them to do so, they might find one day that they will be
sued for assisting in the spread of a libel. I'm pretty sure someone
has recently attempted that but I don't recall the outcome.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

JennyC wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

I'd guess that sooner or later, Google is going to be sued for
promoting the spread of libel or misinformation, or both. One case
that was written about some time ago was that of a journalist whose
photograph appeared in a Google article about a gynaecologist accused
of molesting several women.

Do you mean a site that came up in a Google search or in a Google web page??
There is a difference.
Jenny

snip
I typed in Google sued and Google libel (AFAIR) and several hits popped
up. That article about Google being sued was on a site I then clicked
on, among a few others, just out of curiosity. Here's the url which
shows that the original article was on Google news:
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/001346.php
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

In article ,
"JennyC" writes:
|
| Why should it be true on a printed page and not on a virtual one?

No reason, but peer-refereed journals tend to be a bit better than the
average, though nowhere near as much better as they should be.

| I tend to look at at least three sites to judge the validity of the info.
| Jenny :~))

People copy myths. You need at least three independent sources, and it
can be tricky to tell when different references are independent.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Mike Lyle wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Interesting: I've met this before. I wonder if it's as much a
psychological difference as a practical one, since I'm a bookworm by
nature and find books vastly quicker. I do enjoy doing web searches, and
discussing things with people on line, but printed dead trees are my
instinctive first choice. I'm also more inclined to _believe_ what I
read in a reference book

I love reading, and reading a real book is far and away easier than
reading stuff off a screen. However, for the answer to "Surely someone
must know something about XYX" an internet search is easier to start
with. If it points to a book, great!