[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Erik Moeller]

On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> Failure to do so
> is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board
> is made aware of the situation.

It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I
think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous.
Brandt does not dispute the accuracy of the information in it; his
core argument is that it presents him in a "false light". At the same
time, he acknowledges that the distribution of publications about his
activities results in a natural bias on the kinds of activities which
he was involved in. This makes the entire argument meaningless; there
is no evidence whatsoever of an attempt to deliberately give a false
impression of who Brandt is and what he is doing. If such claims held
any water, virtually any publication about Brandt's work would be
similarly defamatory.

> Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that
> the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside
> interference

Not at all. If I actually saw any evidence that Brandt was being
deliberately harmed through his article, I would be much more
concerned about the legal implications. However, as far as I can tell,
all that people have tried to do is write a neutral, well-sourced
biography. That is what Wikipedia is for.

Brandt has to figure out what he wants. If he believes he has a moral
or legal case because of the text of his biography, he has completely
lost touch with reality; this text has been more diligently researched
than probably anything that has ever been written about him in his
life. If he, on the other hand, argues that _any_ Wikipedia article
could _potentially_ contain something negative, he has similarly no
legal case (so could any discussion forum, including the ones he posts
to); however, I would agree that he has a limited _moral_ case.
Wikipedia should do its best to protect the integrity of articles
about living persons. We are not a random web forum and should hold
our articles to a higher standard.

If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing
any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify
strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he
should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against
Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual
users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who
mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a
long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is
more satisfying.
-- 
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic