The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about
content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about
process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's
mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a
non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different,
but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk
of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is
generally thought
to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting").
Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of
these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the
Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and thus
contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that
evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about
people being part of the trouble
because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were
thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o
coordinated admins?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com