On 1/4/08, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are many, many different professions with
affirmative reporting
requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of 'threat'
because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A
warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but
please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying
information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now,
thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just
go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this
case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO)
*and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki
incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility
is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is
that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as
prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
I am pretty sure that isn't what Mike Godwin wrote. If pressed
I am willing to go through the postings Mike made and analyze
in depth the passage you are clearly misparaphrasing here, but
in general, as a lawyer, this is not the way they generally phrase
things. In general if lawyers thought two different viewpoints
were impossible on a matter...
In any case, on wikipedia, policy would trump law in this case,
as the NLT policy is not about law, which is excercised in court
not on wikipedia, but is about civility, and as such I would much
more (though not much more ;) trust a ruling by the arbcom
that supported your misreading of what Mike Godwin said, than
I would trust the foundations legal counsel. We operate on
tradition on wikipedia.
For examples of some professions who must report
information in
various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school
administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors,
essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class
obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to
adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement
issue.
Nathan
If this were really what we were going to do, I would be mortally
dissapointed. I feel fairly certain that the arbcom would never let
content be gamed using nebulous assertions of having to report
somebody.
The whole reason for the NLT in the first place (to give a bit of historical
backround) was for people like that one Canadian chap, who would
claim that his freedom of speech was being endangered by people not
allowing his opinions win the day in content discussions, and "warned"
people that the whole site might be brought in contact with the law,
if he were not allowed to excercise his free speech, by overwriting
other patient editors emendments to his political screeds.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]