On 18 January 2012 16:40, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 January 2012 19:32, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2012, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip
I was rather concerned by people thinking we need to allow "emergency
access" - what kind of emergencies are going to mean people need
Wikipedia? And is everyone having such an emergency going to have read
the FAQ and know how to get around the blackout?
Speaking as one of the closers of the "RFC", some of the things we
were thinking of were a DMCA notice, Legal needing to get something
taken down right now or some other OFFICE-type action, removal of an
obvious copyright violation, information that needed to be suppressed,
or just something that went wrong from the technical end of things and
needed fixing right away. Remember this has sort of been put together
with baling wire and sealing wax, and we wanted to make sure to leave
a door open for unforeseen situations where it was possible to take
immediate action if required.
If the whole site is down, you don't really need to worry about
takedown orders...
Even if there was a need for an OFFICE action, people in the office
are just a short walk away from the ops team that can do whatever
needs doing.
Actually, you do need to worry about takedown orders - the site is *not*
shut down, it's accessible through Mobile and through very simple, easily
discoverable methods. It's just not editable. And the ops team is included
in the "emergency" provisions. You don't think we haven't already had
significant screaming about the tiny number of edits and actions that have
taken place in the last 17 hours? Trust me on this...some people on this
list may think that their actions are divorced from "the community", but
"the community" doesn't see it that way at all. The back door is for you
folks to do your work with the smallest number of pitchfork and torch marks
possible.
Risker/Anne