Seth Finkelstein sethf@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:
- 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
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?