the problem with that is that the WMF helps itself get not sued by asserting
the opposite, that they dont have control over it. Thats what all the
earlier talk about section 230 was about. The Foundation is not responsible
for the content in most cases, hence it's (untested) common carrier status.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote:
My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
"By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions
on
Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on
Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an
admin
be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as
part
of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the
point
of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under
their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the
Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see
fit.
This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a
statement
on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may
also,
at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further
assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then
the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not
representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for
any legal issues that arrise."
Probably would need to be shortened, but that's the jist of what I would
think of.
-Cascadia
"Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8@mail.gmail.com...
I
specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could
be
taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant
being
laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations
where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear
it".
Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it
stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though -
the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to
have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l