mgodwin at wikimedia
May 18, 2008, 3:29 PM
Post #1 of 1
(466 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
|
|
Todd Allen writes:
> On that, I would agree. However, when it -is- WMF taking an official
> action, it should be clearly marked as such. If it is not, it should
> be made absolutely, 100% clear that this is "Mike Godwin, the editor"
> not "Mike Godwin, the WMF representative" putting forth the position.
My closet has room for more than two hats. I understand you would
prefer that I wear only a black hat or a white hat, but the real world
has a knack for thumbing its nose at us when we try to impose binary
categories.
> What should be studiously avoided (ESPECIALLY in cases where the
> material at issue is critical of WMF) is some grey area between the
> two.
I agree it should be avoided, if possible, and if avoiding it does not
entail legal risks. It should be noted that one of the stories that
was removed was not at all critical of WMF, so far as I know. The
other one was absolutely legally actionable, but not because it was
critical of WMF. If we followed your rule, then you'd have given
defamers a great "gotcha" card to play -- all they have to get us into
an editorial fight is make sure they accompany whatever libel they
post about someone else with a criticism of WMF. Then if WMF uses an
OFFICE action to remove libelous material, they can cry "censorship!"
and trigger a flame war on the lists.
Yes, yes, that would be far more productive than simply contacting an
editor and explaining what is urgently wrong with an article.
--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
