On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:41:07AM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
My point is that we should *NOT* be basing our
actions on
speculations of risks that have simply not been demonstrated.
So you're saying Sean actually has to lose his job before you'll
believe he's taking a risk by using WP at work?
No.
The statement under doubt was not whether people might lose their jobs
for reading Wikipedia. It was whether Wikimedia could be found liable
in court for people's losing their jobs for reading Wikipedia; and also
whether posting "not safe for work" notices would ameliorate this
situation.
There's no doubt that people might lose their job for reading Wikipedia
when they should be working. Nudity doesn't even enter into it.
However, I do not think we should believe that Wikimedia would be found
liable for anyone losing their job over Wikipedia content -- or even
that anyone would be likely to sue Wikimedia over such an issue --
unless we hear so from the Board or the Foundation's lawyers.
I have another related concern. People seem to occasionally bring up
these purported legal risks as an attempt to get their way on an issue
of Wikipedia governance or policy. While this is clearly not a
violation of the _letter_ of the [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]] policy,
it seems to me to border on infringement of the _spirit_ of that policy.
In these cases, the contributor is not *themselves* threatening to sue
if they don't get their way. Rather, they are claiming that if they do
not get their way, that *someone else* is likely to sue. This seems to
me to be a "legal threat by proxy" or some such, and it does not seem
like a very honorable way to go about a policy discussion.
--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>