From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com
Having an ironclad arbitration scheme and an licencing scheme that deals with issues that are not covered by the GFDL will protect Wikipedia more, not less.
Well, I agree with that! I think we should do whatever we need to do, with legalistic formalism and all the bells and whistles to make sure that if some crank does try to take us to court to get us to let them edit the site willy-nilly that we can just point to Exhibit A (whatever that might be) and the Judge will say "Oh, o.k., well this whole thing is frivolous, good day!"
Leaving it to the hope that some judge will just say, "you can do whatever you want" rather than getting people to acknowledge that from the moment they log on does not seem like a really swift way to solve the issue.
Well, I totally agree with that.
Here are my proposals to change the edit page announcement add warranty disclaimers to the copyright page and create a submission standards page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Annotated_edit_page_announcement_(pro...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights_and_Warranty_Disclaimers_(...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights_and_Warranty_Disclaimers_(...)
These three texts need to be read together, they are meant to function together.
It should be noted that I wrote the section on arbitration prior to the topic being introduced about the Wikiquette committee. It can be changed to be more internal or to reflect subsequent discussions. I have just been too busy to deal with it in the last month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Submission_Standards_(proposal)#Choic...
Most contracts that include arbitration use the AAA, there is no reason not to make it internal and limit it to banning. That can be clarified. Any other comments (and some suggestion that this should either be abandoned or adopted) would be appreciated on the relevant talk pages (or on the Wikilegal-l discussion list if that is more appropriate) .
Alex T. Roshuk (user:Alex756)