Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

mgodwin at wikimedia

May 18, 2008, 3:19 PM

Post #26 of 35 (2089 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Anthony writes:

>> Nah, I've got the opposite defense. I'm broke, plus I live in
>> Florida
>> (home of some of the world's most debtor-friendly asset protection
>> statutes), so there's no sense in anyone suing me in the first place.

This is a great point, and worth keeping in mind with regard to the
following discussion.

> One other point, and then I'm done for the day. What is the
> foundation going to do when the people who would otherwise sue the
> foundation realize they can't do so and turn to the community members
> who implement these "suggestions" and sue them instead? Will it help
> them defend themselves, or will it leave them to fend for themselves?

I'm having difficulty imagining the fact pattern that gives rise to
the scenario you describe here. If the "suggestion" is to remove
defamatory material, and an editor who is not the author of that
material does so, what's the legal theory a plaintiff would use to
reach the editor? There are really only two avenues for possible
liability. First, say the editor is the "author" of the material in
question. That theory falls apart the minute you investigate it.
Second, say the editor breached a duty to ... do what exactly? Remove
libelous material? Oh, wait, that's what he did do, so you can't say
he breached a duty by doing a duty. And so far as I can tell there's
no legal duty on the part of any editor to remove anything.

What's more, the majority of editors are, if not always as judgment-
proof as you, at least not worthy of the investment it takes to mount
a libel lawsuit against. Defamation lawsuits are expensive, and
primarily a game for the rich, aimed at targets that have a lot of
money.

So far as I know, there have been no "suggestions" by the Foundation
to an editor that resulted in the *addition* of defamatory material to
an article, but perhaps I'm missing your point.

--Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kat at mindspillage

May 18, 2008, 3:50 PM

Post #27 of 35 (2102 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia> wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>> In one notable
>> incident, a current member of the board (Erik) was de-sysopped by Jimmy
>> in April 2006 for unprotecting an article that a Foundation
>> representative had protected, though that protection had not been
>> labeled as an official Foundation action.
>
> I did not de-sysop Erik, ever. To the contrary, actually.
>
> Please be careful about making such dramatic claims.
>
> --Jimbo

This is true, but your initial reaction was in favor of taking swift
preventive action. I think we all agree that what happened was an
overreaction that caused more trouble than it prevented, that you
didn't have the full situation in hand when you commented on it, but
you were not against it when it happened. (You were having dinner in
VA with Greg and me that evening.) You may have rethought the
situation soon after, but the immediate reaction caused the sparks.

My take is this: reactions happened two years ago that happen
differently now that crises are no longer managed entirely by someone
running around the office like a chicken with his head cut off
conferring by cell phone with someone who's probably getting on a
plane in five minutes, and now that we've learned from doing ten or
twenty of the infinite number of dumb things we could possibly do.
We'll probably continue to make some poor decisions in tough
situations, but hopefully different ones.

-Kat
pointed here by someone else who got to muck through the aftermath of that...

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat [at] wikimedia * Personal: kat [at] mindspillage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

delirium at hackish

May 18, 2008, 5:22 PM

Post #28 of 35 (2108 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> In one notable
>> incident, a current member of the board (Erik) was de-sysopped by Jimmy
>> in April 2006 for unprotecting an article that a Foundation
>> representative had protected, though that protection had not been
>> labeled as an official Foundation action.
>>
>
> I did not de-sysop Erik, ever. To the contrary, actually.
>
> Please be careful about making such dramatic claims.
>
My mistake; I completely misremembered who did what. Those interested in
the details can get the accurate summary from a contemporary edition of
the Wikipedia signpost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-04-24/Office_actions

In any case, though, Erik *was* blocked and desysopped for undoing a
Foundation action, and people since then (especially with less stature
in the community) have been quite wary of ignoring or undoing Foundation
"suggestions".

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

May 18, 2008, 8:44 PM

Post #29 of 35 (2111 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Delirium wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Delirium wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In one notable
>>> incident, a current member of the board (Erik) was de-sysopped by Jimmy
>>> in April 2006 for unprotecting an article that a Foundation
>>> representative had protected, though that protection had not been
>>> labeled as an official Foundation action.
>>>
>>>
>> I did not de-sysop Erik, ever. To the contrary, actually.
>>
>> Please be careful about making such dramatic claims.
>>
>>
> My mistake; I completely misremembered who did what. Those interested in
> the details can get the accurate summary from a contemporary edition of
> the Wikipedia signpost:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-04-24/Office_actions
>
> In any case, though, Erik *was* blocked and desysopped for undoing a
> Foundation action, and people since then (especially with less stature
> in the community) have been quite wary of ignoring or undoing Foundation
> "suggestions".
>
I would add that incidents like this are part of the reason Mike prefers
the Foundation avoid resorting to "office actions" if possible. As Kat
has indicated, the reaction at the time was symptomatic of the
dysfunctional organization in place then. I think the more professional
office Sue has put in place would have handled the situation quite
differently.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brian.mcneil at wikinewsie

May 19, 2008, 12:15 AM

Post #30 of 35 (2100 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

I have negatively covered the Foundation. There were no repercussions,
although some people might wish I had never started the story.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_fundraiser_highlights_webcomic_communi
ty%27s_frustration_with_Wikipedia_guidelines

Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] lists
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Delirium
Sent: 19 May 2008 02:23
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of
losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> In one notable
>> incident, a current member of the board (Erik) was de-sysopped by Jimmy
>> in April 2006 for unprotecting an article that a Foundation
>> representative had protected, though that protection had not been
>> labeled as an official Foundation action.
>>
>
> I did not de-sysop Erik, ever. To the contrary, actually.
>
> Please be careful about making such dramatic claims.
>
My mistake; I completely misremembered who did what. Those interested in
the details can get the accurate summary from a contemporary edition of
the Wikipedia signpost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-04-24/Office_
actions

In any case, though, Erik *was* blocked and desysopped for undoing a
Foundation action, and people since then (especially with less stature
in the community) have been quite wary of ignoring or undoing Foundation
"suggestions".

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 19, 2008, 1:47 AM

Post #31 of 35 (2084 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> As I explicitly said, it doesn't matter if you actually demand it or
>> not, just saying there are legal concerns is effectively a demand for
>> its removal.
>>
> No, it is not.

It is hard to avoid the impression that every word spoken by the pope is
/ex cathedra/. You and Mike in particular will frequently want to
comment as ordinary editors, but it is hard to avoid arguments like "but
Jimbo wrote in June 2003 that ...." You may have no memory of what you
wrote then, and may even have changed views since, but for someone who
is trying to push a point of view it is an irrefutable argument to be
exploited.

Much as I would decry it, there remains a level of deference to
authority within the projects that is not easily overcome. Much of what
you say is treated as a demand irrespective of whether you intended it
that way.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

george.herbert at gmail

May 19, 2008, 11:20 PM

Post #32 of 35 (2089 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> As I explicitly said, it doesn't matter if you actually demand it or
>>> not, just saying there are legal concerns is effectively a demand for
>>> its removal.
>>>
>> No, it is not.
>
> It is hard to avoid the impression that every word spoken by the pope is
> /ex cathedra/. You and Mike in particular will frequently want to
> comment as ordinary editors, but it is hard to avoid arguments like "but
> Jimbo wrote in June 2003 that ...." You may have no memory of what you
> wrote then, and may even have changed views since, but for someone who
> is trying to push a point of view it is an irrefutable argument to be
> exploited.
>
> Much as I would decry it, there remains a level of deference to
> authority within the projects that is not easily overcome. Much of what
> you say is treated as a demand irrespective of whether you intended it
> that way.

Both Mike and Jimmy have tried to be clear when they're communicating
an official position. There have been problems with this in the past
(the events leading to Erik's short desysopping, for example, among
others), but I think in general everyone's more aware of this now.
The bulk of administrators and I hope all the Stewards are aware of
the issues and won't sanction when there's no clear "the Foundation
OFFICE hat was on".

Unfortunately, this sort of situation can sometimes lead to a negative
feedback loop. Jimmy tries to communicate in a neutral manner without
overusing authority, and then once in a while has to drop an official
action hammer on someone. Some will perceive this as arbitrary hand
of god behavior and treat everything else Jimmy says more
deferentially as you note. Which was the opposite of the initial
intent.

I think that as a general rule, that can be combated by attempting to
get to know Jimmy if you have to deal with him - and, generalizing,
get to know the people in the "power structure" as it is both in the
community and Foundation.

Familiarity usually breeds some mutual respect and lessens the
tendency to overreact in stress situations. A great deal of potential
problems are headed off because someone does send a private email to
someone else, or ask on IRC, or knows someone from posts to wikien-L
or the foundation list.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert [at] gmail

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 20, 2008, 10:46 AM

Post #33 of 35 (2091 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Both Mike and Jimmy have tried to be clear when they're communicating
>> an official position. There have been problems with this in the past
>> (the events leading to Erik's short desysopping, for example, among
>> others), but I think in general everyone's more aware of this now.
>> The bulk of administrators and I hope all the Stewards are aware of
>> the issues and won't sanction when there's no clear "the Foundation
>> OFFICE hat was on".
>>
> I think, when Mike is giving legal advice, it's natural to assume he's
> doing that in an official capacity, regardless of what headgear he may
> be wearing.
That requires distinguishing between legal advice, and a lawyer's opinion.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 20, 2008, 12:58 PM

Post #34 of 35 (2080 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

On 20/05/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> Both Mike and Jimmy have tried to be clear when they're communicating
> >> an official position. There have been problems with this in the past
> >> (the events leading to Erik's short desysopping, for example, among
> >> others), but I think in general everyone's more aware of this now.
> >> The bulk of administrators and I hope all the Stewards are aware of
> >> the issues and won't sanction when there's no clear "the Foundation
> >> OFFICE hat was on".
> >>
> > I think, when Mike is giving legal advice, it's natural to assume he's
> > doing that in an official capacity, regardless of what headgear he may
> > be wearing.
>
> That requires distinguishing between legal advice, and a lawyer's opinion.

A lawyer's opinion on a legal matter related to their employment would
generally be considered legal advice.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

May 20, 2008, 9:16 PM

Post #35 of 35 (2080 views)
Permalink

Re: Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act [In reply to]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 20/05/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> >> Both Mike and Jimmy have tried to be clear when they're communicating
>> >> an official position. There have been problems with this in the past
>> >> (the events leading to Erik's short desysopping, for example, among
>> >> others), but I think in general everyone's more aware of this now.
>> >> The bulk of administrators and I hope all the Stewards are aware of
>> >> the issues and won't sanction when there's no clear "the Foundation
>> >> OFFICE hat was on".
>> >>
>> > I think, when Mike is giving legal advice, it's natural to assume he's
>> > doing that in an official capacity, regardless of what headgear he may
>> > be wearing.
>>
>> That requires distinguishing between legal advice, and a lawyer's opinion.
>>
>
> A lawyer's opinion on a legal matter related to their employment would
> generally be considered legal advice.
>
With respect to the lawyer's client, this is true, but that only shifts
us to the question of identifying the client.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads