The Telstra spokesman said Wikipedia had recognised the "defamatory and innaccurate'' information on the page and had taken steps to stop the comments, including appointing an administrator to oversee the content of the page.

This is where the copyleft movement lose it: they are so worried about their loss of freedoms that they do not see the harm. They quite happily put up an analysis that says "Ha, you can't do this, go away you nasty man." without answering the question of how the harmed individual does get satisfaction. They want a one way street.

Please. I've been watching this page all day as well as the newspaper reports, and have been biting my tongue. Let me just say that the oversighted edits referred to in the letter and in the newspaper had nothing to do with Mr. Trujillo's business or political affairs whatsoever. It was more of a blatant and highly personalized attack upon his character. Oversight policy and privacy policy means I cannot say more than that, and cannot divulge the contents, which I saw and personally removed. The Telegraph article is more accurate when they refer to "highly defamatory, false and offensive personal comments" - Alison ❤ 05:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The press is suggesting that Mr. Trujillo must have done something to get Wikipedia to take down legitimate criticism of him. This is absolutely false. Mr. Trujillo's attorneys made a serious of justified complaints about an IP number inserting vicious libel against him, complaints which we dealt with appropriately and effectively. There has been absolutely no effort by those attorneys to remove legitimate criticism; indeed, nothing of the sort was even discussed.

It is sad to see a media so irresponsible as to make it seem that Wikipedia would cave to a few lawyers letters objecting to legitimate criticism. It is even sadder to see Mr. Trujillo attacked by that same irresponsible media for something that he did not do.

This article should be a good article. It should detail Mr. Trujillo's career in a neutral and responsible fashion. It should contain both accomplishments and appropriate mention of legitimate criticism. The libel, which was disgusting lies put forward by an anonymous ip number who I hope Mr. Trujillo tracks down and punishes for their attacks, had nothing to do with his business work but was just a juvenile insult.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo on the talk page:

Isn't it lovely how the article about Jimmy Wales is magically prevented from anonymous IP number attacks, but for some strange reason, that courtesy is not extended to 99% of the other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia?

On another note - this was a political attack. Whatever that means. It seems to have been that. I doubt the libelist will be found.

I notice some ... "familiar" names in the "comments" section, too Fair point indeed, Greg.

The attack that I oversighted was not political or business-related in any way, and I happen to know that the legal letter related to those attacks only, and not to any of the business-zOMG-scandal! stuff that is in the history. So the papers got it wrong in that respect and since then, the original storybreaker has come out with this statement.