On 1/4/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There are many, many different professions with affirmative reporting requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of 'threat' because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now, thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO) *and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
I am pretty sure that isn't what Mike Godwin wrote. If pressed I am willing to go through the postings Mike made and analyze in depth the passage you are clearly misparaphrasing here, but in general, as a lawyer, this is not the way they generally phrase things. In general if lawyers thought two different viewpoints were impossible on a matter...
In any case, on wikipedia, policy would trump law in this case, as the NLT policy is not about law, which is excercised in court not on wikipedia, but is about civility, and as such I would much more (though not much more ;) trust a ruling by the arbcom that supported your misreading of what Mike Godwin said, than I would trust the foundations legal counsel. We operate on tradition on wikipedia.
For examples of some professions who must report information in various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement issue. Nathan
If this were really what we were going to do, I would be mortally dissapointed. I feel fairly certain that the arbcom would never let content be gamed using nebulous assertions of having to report somebody.
The whole reason for the NLT in the first place (to give a bit of historical backround) was for people like that one Canadian chap, who would claim that his freedom of speech was being endangered by people not allowing his opinions win the day in content discussions, and "warned" people that the whole site might be brought in contact with the law, if he were not allowed to excercise his free speech, by overwriting other patient editors emendments to his political screeds.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]