Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)sethf.com> writes:
Fred Bauder
Too clever by half.
A weakness of mine, I will admit. I cut from my original
post a
*speculation* that the Wikipedia higher-ups have
concluded that
they're
going to get a "section 230" testing lawsuit
someday, and better
it be
Brandt as a plaintiff for the first case, than someone
like
Seigenthaler.
Negotiation in good faith must seem very simple.
That was pre-emptive point #1:
1) Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one
sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him
(Jimbo) happier
here
than for Brandt to see the glorious light of the
Wikipedia-way
and
join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of
all
Wikiality. But
it's not going to happen, and that's bloody
obvious.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
http://sethf.com/Infothought
People have been saying for a long time that Brandt would make a
good test case; nothing new or shocking there. Personally, I think
we would've been better off with a Seigenthaler suit, as then it'd
be easier to position PR-wise (hypocrisy, minor impact,
over-reaction, posted by an anon once, etc), as opposed to Brandt,
where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision
to keep the article was bad - and if it is bad, it basically
condemns anyone who ever spoke in favor of something related to
keeping it, which is how much of the active community and
higher-ups?
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.