Talk:Libel case against Wikimedia Foundation dismissed

''' This page and its corresponding article fall under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Taking material from this page requires attribution to Wikinews.''' 

OR
I got the deleted edits through an anonymous source who recovered every one of them and sent them to me in e-mails. This person, under fear of retribution, does not want to be named AT all in any way whatsoever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen a number of the emails pertaining to deleted Wikipedia content. It comes from a source I place trust in, and I do not believe material I have seen has been misrepresented. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the there is now also OR from the document on Wikileaks showing the release of the content. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Title
It may not be the best idea to re-state as fact the allegation that is at the heart of the matter in the title. Perhaps, "Literary agent sues Wikimedia for being named among the worst" or something along those lines. --SVTCobra 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes are one-sided
All the quotes from documents or elsewhere are pretty one-sided against this Bauer person. Is there any chance of getting some quotes from the actual suit filed? I know that at least Brianmc has been using some law-equivalent of lexis-nexis. --SVTCobra 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one at WMF can talk while the case is in process. As to paperwork, I am not sure on that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But most any Wikinews contributor could contact the plantiff or her representative, because they are not from Wikimedia, and most don't even serve on a committee or anything similar. Correct? --  Zanimum - (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiJargon
Just remember before you publish that you'll have to explain any "WikiJargon" used in quotes. I see Mike has referred to w:WP:OFFICE, so I'd suggest adding a sentence along the lines of "WP:OFFICE refers to certain actions taken on Wikimedia sites by Wikimedia officers, usually related to legal matters. Such actions, unlike most others, cannot be overturned by community consensus, and are generally considered a 'last resort'." Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅: In regards to office actions. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted
Per consultation with Mike Godwin I have temporarily deleted the article page. It was either me or someone in the office would have had to do it.

When the case is closed - which Mike is confident will be soon - it can be restored, updated, and published. Once protected/archived I'd also suggest it be used as a source for Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What a load of..... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: case result notification
Please DO NOT publish this until we have independent sources. Apparently the dismissal is not on the records and in public yet. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Sorry, I don't have an account here.

NielsenHayden.com is not defunct, though I believe they've changed their blogging platform in the last year or so. Absolute Write is the site that was taken offline, allegedly after Bauer went after the hosting company. NielsenHayden.com did carry the story about the site going down, which you can find at. I don't have any axe to grind; I just want to correct the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.229.24 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though at the time, it was offline. Made a note that its back up. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that paragraph is still incorrect. As the other IP pointed out, the website that was temporarily taken offline after a complaint by Bauer was Absolute Write, not neilsenhayden.com, per the second source listed on this article (Strauss). Making Light (on neilsenhayden.com) reported on this incident and others, but was not taken offline. Thanks.

Charges only dropped against WikiMedia
I think it needs to be made clears that the charges have only been dropped versus the Wikimedia foundations (and possibly other sites in a similar situation, like YouTube. No reports make any actual mentions of them.). Charges against e.g. the SFWa still stand. Circeus (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)