G'day geni,
The foundation does not need legal bills. If we can
dodge legal fights
we should do so.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we should *always* dodge legal fights if
that option is available to us. A better philosophy would be: pick your
battles.
There are battles that we will win, battles we should win, and battles
we won't win. There are fights we must have, fights we should have, and
fights that aren't worth having. At the moment, as many participants
here and on-wiki have pointed out, this is a battle we should win;
however, it's not a fight we should have.
Ultimately, publishing the key may be worthwhile, or it may not. Either
way, it's not something we need to do now. It's not something anti-IP
zealots can help by spamming, or indeed by doing anything that doesn't
involve not being a zealot for at least a few seconds.
This is a problem --- or rather, a type of problem --- that we have
encountered before on Wikipedia, many times. I would venture to suggest
the problem is not unique to us, either. We see it on AfD. We see it
with BLP issues. We see it in arguments about fair use. We probably
see it in places I haven't been known to lurk, but I wouldn't know, not
having lurked there.
Wikipedia attracts people who believe in Freedom. That's a Good Thing.
I'm bang alongside Freedom all the way, baby. But the minute anyone
suggests to such people that we should be responsible with our use of
that Freedom --- whether it's "we don't need to risk a lawsuit just yet"
or even just "let's approach our editorial decisions by what's best for
this article" --- they run into a wall. On that wall is written, in
letter fifteen feet high, "Fuck you! We're the greatest encyclopaedia
in the world, and nobody is going to tell *us* what to publish!
Freedom, baby, yeah!"
Who remembers the [[autofellatio]] image? Now, on Wikipedia there are
people who believe that we are a family encyclopaedia and who will
actively seek to censor sexuality-related topics, and who certainly
don't want their favourite reference source graphically displaying men
sucking their own penises (penii?). There is also a somewhat larger
group of people who believe we are Defenders of Freedom, and if we shock
a few wowsers, so much the better, and who cares if it's editorially
necessary. But here's a shock: *neither* group are correct. The only
group who matter are those who say: does this improve the article, and
is this in the interests of the encyclopaedia? That's a question
neither group was interested in answering then, or in similar arguments
(lolicon).
Similar camps, with similar splits, occur in all these issues: the
freedom-lovers and the wowsers, and neither group can be fully trusted.
We aren't going to knuckle down to the interests of pressure groups,
but neither are we going to tempt lawsuits. We are going to do what's
best for each individual article, and for the encyclopaedia as a whole.
If your ideology gets in the way of that, well: fuck you, too[0].
Is your interest in Wikipedia because you want to see it curtailed,
censored, emasculated? Is your interest in Wikipedia because you want
to fight the censors and see our encyclopaedia as the best battleground
available to you? If you aren't here because you genuinely want to help
build the world's greatest reference work, then that's fine --- we tend
to take contributions from anyone, nutcase or no. But you'll have to
excuse us if we don't knuckle down to your ideology, and I don't care
whether it's pro- or anti-Freedom. Grow the fuck up and let us get on
with our work without your constant fighting.
[0] I don't mean you, geni. I'm on a tear here.
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
