On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote: Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
And how would that differ from any law in other country in the world? I'm sure there are dozens of countries with information- or press-suppression laws more restrictive than the US's. The notion that we should follow all of them seems untenable, and I don't see why we'd follow some but not others.
Not all countries will let you sue in their country even if neither the defendant nor the plaintiff is a resident.
There was a case where Australia let an Australian sue a foreigner in Australia, so Australian defamation law may be relevant when writing about Australian subjects. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56793,00.html
Personally, I don't think armchair international lawering will get us anywhere. Absent a formal request from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to follow non-US law, I suggest we'd focus on building the best encyclopedia possible.
You do that, I'm not a Wikipaedian.
However, I do not see how anything defamatory under British law would ever make a good encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia should be an outside observer of the world, not an active participant in it, and should especially avoid having a negative effect on individuals. If anything, Wikiapedia's BLP standards should be much stricter than British defamation law.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
That's an interesting argument, although I'd personally not go so far as to call it good.
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
Well, I also agree that we should stop people from making personal attacks on-wiki, if that helps. And I'd encourage people not to get into the zero-sum, low-respect mindset that goes with a lot of attacks; I rarely see it help anything.
You can't stop people from making attacks. Wikipaedia can create a supportive environment where they are not so rampant, but they will still happen sometimes, because the life is pain and people get upset.
However, I stand by my view that people should be able to have thoughtful, [[WP:COOL]] discussions about those attacks, referring to source material as necessary. I believe anything else is in the long term counterproductive, harming the very community we are aiming to protect, and undermining a norm that is central to our ability to build a great encyclopedia.
The opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is indifference. Coolness may be perceived as insensitivity. People are in pain....
Transience would be good. A fight between my friends and I, whatever the cause, generally ends in hugs and is forgotten in a day or a week. Leaving the material on-wiki for all eternity solidifies the attack, preventing recovery. Remove it and forget.
But yes I agree completely that people on all sides of some of these disputes feel attacked, and also agree that's part of the problem.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
: )