Login | Register For Free | Help	Search this list this category for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation Re: Controversial content software status   Index | Next | Previous | View Flat

jayen466 at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 9:39 PM Views: 750 Permalink Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to] On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote: > On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > >> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any >> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's >> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the >> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 >> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. >> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of >> community >> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive >> this, >> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs >> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in >> cases of content dispute. >> >> >> This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of > staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it > assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into > question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a > properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must > act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by > some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may > or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed > of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management > will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts. Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this last year, is ludicrous. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Subject User Time Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 1, 2012, 8:49 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 3, 2012, 8:44 PM     Re: Controversial content software status keegan.wiki at gmail Mar 3, 2012, 8:50 PM     Re: Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 4, 2012, 3:10 PM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 4, 2012, 5:00 PM     Re: Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 4, 2012, 7:04 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 4, 2012, 9:03 PM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 4, 2012, 11:32 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 12:07 AM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 9:07 AM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 9:49 AM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 10:21 AM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 11:50 AM     Re: Controversial content software status tobias.oelgarte at googlemail Mar 5, 2012, 4:33 PM         Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 9:25 PM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 4:41 PM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 4:57 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayvdb at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 4:58 PM     Re: Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 5, 2012, 5:01 PM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 5:06 PM     Re: Controversial content software status nawrich at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 5:20 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayvdb at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 5:29 PM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 5:32 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 9:14 PM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 11:06 PM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 5, 2012, 11:23 PM     Re: Controversial content software status putevod at mccme Mar 6, 2012, 8:20 AM     Re: Controversial content software status kat at mindspillage Mar 6, 2012, 6:30 PM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 8:05 AM     Re: Controversial content software status werespielchequers at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 8:40 AM     Re: Controversial content software status julianadacostajose at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 9:02 AM     Re: Controversial content software status phoebe.wiki at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 9:27 AM     Re: Controversial content software status julianadacostajose at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 9:52 AM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 10:13 AM     Re: Controversial content software status michaeldavid86 at comcast Mar 7, 2012, 10:29 AM         Re: Controversial content software status andreengels at gmail Mar 8, 2012, 5:26 AM     Re: Controversial content software status delirium at hackish Mar 7, 2012, 1:00 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 2:41 PM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 3:03 PM     Re: Controversial content software status morton.thomas at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 3:08 PM         Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 3:15 PM     Re: Controversial content software status morton.thomas at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 3:29 PM         Re: Controversial content software status saintonge at telus Mar 8, 2012, 3:01 AM             Re: Controversial content software status morton.thomas at googlemail Mar 8, 2012, 3:23 AM     Re: Controversial content software status tobias.oelgarte at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 3:46 PM         Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 4:53 PM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 4:56 PM     Re: Controversial content software status tobias.oelgarte at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 5:20 PM     Re: Controversial content software status julianadacostajose at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 6:42 PM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 9:24 PM     Re: Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 7, 2012, 9:40 PM         Re: Controversial content software status z at mzmcbride Mar 7, 2012, 9:45 PM         Re: Controversial content software status putevod at mccme Mar 7, 2012, 11:37 PM     Re: Controversial content software status morton.thomas at googlemail Mar 7, 2012, 11:13 PM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 11:13 PM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 7, 2012, 11:40 PM     Re: Controversial content software status de10011 at gmail Mar 8, 2012, 2:20 AM     Re: Controversial content software status nawrich at gmail Mar 8, 2012, 6:44 AM     Re: Controversial content software status cimonavaro at gmail Mar 8, 2012, 8:18 PM     Re: Controversial content software status nawrich at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 5:52 AM     Re: Controversial content software status dgerard at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 6:31 AM     Re: Controversial content software status nawrich at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 7:11 AM     Re: Controversial content software status coldchrist at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 7:15 AM     Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 9:48 AM     Re: Controversial content software status saintonge at telus Mar 9, 2012, 5:50 PM     Re: Controversial content software status saintonge at telus Mar 9, 2012, 6:16 PM         Re: Controversial content software status jayen466 at gmail Mar 9, 2012, 9:39 PM     Re: Controversial content software status saintonge at telus Mar 13, 2012, 12:23 AM         Re: Controversial content software status gerard.meijssen at gmail Mar 14, 2012, 3:34 PM

Index | Next | Previous | View Flat   Wikipedia     Foundation     Wikitech     WikiMania     Mediawiki     Mediawiki-announce     Mediawiki-CVS

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 

Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.