Quoting Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
I don't
see whats so bad about "public trials"- transparency is a
good thing.
It's not just that it's public. It's that it's virtually uncontrolled
as to what nonsense people can post about others on it. It's that the
entire transcript (of virtually everything, from the evidence
gathering through the questioning through the deliberations through
the decision) is made public on the web, on a page which shows up very
highly in the search engines, released under a free license which
others are encouraged to mirror.
Well, we have engaged in courtesy blanking of RfArs before. And if
someone acts
like a jerk enough such that the RfAr is damaging to them, I don't have much
sympathy.
It's that much of it is incorrect
and/or misleading and/or libelous.
Libelous is a concern but I don't recall seeing much in the way of libel, and
unless you think a large fraction of the findings of fact are libelous then I
fail to see any serious issue.
I think it's pretty clearly bad.
But my comment was to imagine if Myspace did it. There's a tendency
to think of Wikipedia like an MMORPG, which I think blinds us to some
extent from how obviously bad some of the policies are.
Frankly, I've never understood this comparison to an MMOPRG and don't
see how it
is relevant here. Our greatest strength is transparency. There are occasions
where we need to sacrifice but I don't see a compelling reason to do so for
routine matters like ArbCom proceedings.
The rest
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with, but the liability concern
for the
Foundation if it does this sort of thing is serious. This would need to
be very
carefully thought out.
What exactly is the liability concern? The idea that the WMF is
somehow escaping liability by running its website in a way completely
different from every other major website doesn't strike me as logical.
The Foundation isn't in general liable for content on Wikipedia and the allied
projects because it is put their by volunteers. Hosts of content(that
isn't the
technical term and I don't remember the correct term off the top of my
head) are
generally
protected if they take basic steps and respond quickly to requests to remove
highly problematic content. If the Foundation got more involved in the
projects
it could easily become more liable for libel or copyright issues.
And it's even more clearly unethical. I'm
reminded of the situation
where a group of EMTs let someone drown because they were afraid of
the liability they'd incur if they had tried to save him. A more
extreme case? I guess. I don't think anyone has died as a direct
result of Wikipedia yet. But that's what this line of reasoning
reminds me of.
Excuse me? I fail to see the connection. The Foundation is more valuable than
making a few people uncomfortable because of what happens when you
google their
name (especially when again it is in the case of RfArs generally their own
fault). Let's not forget that the English Wikipedia is one of the most visited
websites on the internet even before we start getting to the other projects.
And the Foundation runs on a tiny budget. The Foundation must be protected for
damage to the Foundation can easily become damage to humanity's ability to
access free information.