On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
"fundamental issue" does not *necessarily* involve the wider foundation. It *is* a fundamental policy for the English Wikipedia, see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5%3E. However, I agree with you that it might be changed by the consensus of the community, but that is one of the things we are not sure exist (consensus of the community for changing it).
On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
To follow this thread (if not particular post) up...
I don't have a strong opinion either way on BADSITES, but I'd like to agree with whichever arbcom member it was who pointed out that what was really needed was clarifying, not restating, the MONGO case precedent.
The state of confusion over where and when to remove things is the primary problem. We can't just leave it up to people's judgement; the criteria for applying the judgement (both in existing and so-far proposed decision in this new case) are too vague.
On 9/18/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
To follow this thread (if not particular post) up...
I don't have a strong opinion either way on BADSITES, but I'd like to agree with whichever arbcom member it was who pointed out that what was really needed was clarifying, not restating, the MONGO case precedent.
The state of confusion over where and when to remove things is the primary problem. We can't just leave it up to people's judgement; the criteria for applying the judgement (both in existing and so-far proposed decision in this new case) are too vague.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed, the community has actually been fairly consistant in this, albeit with much struggling to get there each time. Clarification could help avoid that struggling. But the actual cases have been decided correctly, as far as I can see. That the process has made sausage making look appealing is the only real problem.
Of course, whether ArbCom endorses the community's view or tries to overrule it is a seperate issue. If it does the latter, we'll no doubt be back here again soon.
Cheers, WilyD
We should, yes, "guard our editors and protect them from harm", or however the saying goes. But at the same time, of course, we have to protect the *project* from harm. And a wrong decision here could really harm the project (not to mention that divisive debates like these are quite harmful, too).
Protecting editors from harm must surely acknowledge the existence of off-wiki attacks. WP:NPA should certainly disallow links which serve to attack, just as it prohibits other, on-wiki attacks.
However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket bans on all links to "attack sites", as the notorious BADSITES policy allegedly attempted to do. It's possible to justify such an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the injured editor.
I believe there are three underlying motivations for enacting absolute bans:
1. We must not condone the activities of the attack sites.
2. We must punish the attack sites.
3. We must shield injured editors from being reminded of the existence of the attack sites.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but numbers 1 and 2 hold no water. The simple, sad fact is that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE AN ATTACK SITE GO AWAY. They exist whether we link to them or not. They exist whether we talk about them or not. There's no way we can punish them. And linking to them does *not* condone them; that's not the way hyperlinks work.
And then there's #3. I'll be accused of being a victim-blamer here, I'm sure, but fear of being called a victim-blamer is how we let ourselves get boxed into extreme, untenable positions, so I'll persevere.
Guarding our editors and protecting them from harm does not mean that an aggrieved editor gets to make absurd demands for protection or redress and have them followed without question. In particular: if an injured editor declares that any reminder of an attack constitutes a continuation of the attack, or makes whatever declaration it is that somehow induces the rest of us to enact blanket bans, we must politely, sensitively, but firmly let the injured editor know that we've done as much as we can, that the attack site continues to exist regardless of whether we mention its name or not, and that the injured editor needs to work through whatever remaining healing issues they have and move on.
We mustn't twist the project into some misshapen repudiation of its former self just because some numnutz at an attack site did something unspeakable. You may not like acknowledging the existence of the numnutz and the attack site, but I really, really hate giving them the power to corrupt our project, or worse, actively assisting and *enabling* them (by launching into misguided knee-jerk reactions) in corrupting our project. So, please, let's not.
On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
blah blah blah
I agree with you entirely.
~Mark Ryan
On 18/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We should, yes, "guard our editors and protect them from harm", or however the saying goes. But at the same time, of course, we have to protect the *project* from harm. And a wrong decision here could really harm the project (not to mention that divisive debates like these are quite harmful, too).
Encyclopaedias do not suffer, only the people placed second in importance to them. (Didn't Marc say something like that earlier?)
Criticism of Wikipaedia and its community as a whole should not only be allowed, but actively be encouraged. What other alternative is there to personal criticism, which often involves attacks? Also, criticism of Wikipaedia and its community as a whole is more likely to be constructive rather than destructive than personal criticism. The Wikipaedia community needs to be reminded that it is not the centre of the universe, or even the centre of the internet.
The Wikipaedia community can handle it. Individuals, however, do need to be protected, and the Wikipaedia community varies from not doing enough to protect those individuals, to encouraging the attacks, to engaging in attacks of its own.
Protecting editors from harm must surely acknowledge the existence of off-wiki attacks. WP:NPA should certainly disallow links which serve to attack, just as it prohibits other, on-wiki attacks.
Definitely. Also note that in the United Kingdom, this may be a legal issue. In the UK, links to defamatory material may be considered to be participating in the defamation, and in the UK, the definition of defamation is rather broad.
However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket bans on all links to "attack sites", as the notorious BADSITES policy allegedly attempted to do. It's possible to justify such an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the injured editor.
It may protect the project from defamation suites in the United Kingdom, and in any case, Wikipaedia's lack of concern for its own editors lowers my opinion of the whole project. I'm probably not the only one.
I believe there are three underlying motivations for enacting absolute bans:
- We must not condone the activities of the attack sites.
Or at least, don't condone the attacks. They are probably doing other things too.
- We must punish the attack sites.
No. That will just escalate the cross-site flame wars, encouraging further attacks on individual Wikipaedians.
Also, just because someone contributes to a user-contributed website, which engages in attacks, as most user- contributed websites do, does not mean that person deserves to be called a holocaust denier, which some contributors to such websites have complained of.
Rather, Wikipaedians in high-level positions on Wikipaedia should offer to act as representatives for those attacked, to ask for attacks to be removed from the websites. In order for this to work, Wikipaedia should seek better relations with websites which regularly publish attacks against individual Wikipaedians.
- We must shield injured editors from being reminded of the existence of the attack sites.
Definitely.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but numbers 1 and 2 hold no water. The simple, sad fact is that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE AN ATTACK SITE GO AWAY. They exist whether we link to them or not. They exist whether we talk about them or not. There's no way we can punish them. And linking to them does *not* condone them; that's not the way hyperlinks work.
Yes, there are things the Wikipaedia community can do. Build better relations with them. Ask for them to take things down. And hyperlinks do count as distribution in some jurisdictions, such as the UK.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 18/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket bans on all links to "attack sites"... It's possible to justify such an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the injured editor.
...Wikipaedia's lack of concern for its own editors lowers my opinion of the whole project.
You see, this is the part that really sticks in my craw. If something gets proposed that is claimed to "protect an editor from harm", and if I disagree with it, I'm automatically accused of having a "lack of concern".
Not at all: I might be (I am) *very* concerned, but merely in disagreement on the usefulness or appropriateness of that particular proposed remedy.
The apparent "you're either with us or against us" mentality is as shortsighted and divisive here as it is anywhere else.
On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
...Wikipaedia's lack of concern for its own editors lowers my opinion of the whole project.
You see, this is the part that really sticks in my craw. If something gets proposed that is claimed to "protect an editor from harm", and if I disagree with it, I'm automatically accused of having a "lack of concern".
Firstly, note that I said Wikipaedia, not Steve. Wikipaedia's culture encourages a lack of concern for its own editors. Whenever people go on about how some measure to protect editors would, in some inexplicable way, hurt the project, it shows callousness inherent in the system.
Encyclopaedias do not suffer. People do.
Not at all: I might be (I am) *very* concerned, but merely in disagreement on the usefulness or appropriateness of that particular proposed remedy.
Removing links to psychologically damaging material protects people from psychological damage, to some extent. And it inna a sanction. Yippee!
Not as good as sending a representative over to ask for the material to be removed or whatever, but still.
I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts the project, but even if it does, any project which cares about some minor damage that might befall it more than the well-being of its people is doing plenty to hurt itself without any help.
'The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete, but so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognise the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete.' -- The Twilight Zone
The apparent "you're either with us or against us" mentality is as shortsighted and divisive here as it is anywhere else.
How many websites manage to spread out their flame wars across multiple websites, many with high Google pageranks?
Wikipaedia is the only one I can think of.
Also, note that I am not a Wikipaedian, so I am not sure who is this us of whom you speak.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts the project...
But, of course, we aren't talking about removing the odd link here and there. We're talking about a policy which makes it normal to set up prior restraint against entire sites, to declare that no link to any page on those site may ever be made for any reason, without exception. (And for good measure, some seem to want to make the list of so-banned sites secret.)
Don't you love it how Gmail gets conversations out of order to the extent that it puts the replies before the original emails?
~Mark Ryan
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts the project...
But, of course, we aren't talking about removing the odd link here and there. We're talking about a policy which makes it normal to set up prior restraint against entire sites, to declare that no link to any page on those site may ever be made for any reason, without exception. (And for good measure, some seem to want to make the list of so-banned sites secret.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts the project...
But, of course, we aren't talking about removing the odd link here and there. We're talking about a policy which makes it normal to set up prior restraint against entire sites, to declare that no link to any page on those site may ever be made for any reason, without exception.
If the material in question - be it a privacy violation, defamation or hurtful - is on the front page of the website or easily findable from the front page, then this makes sense. Linking to the material is assisting in its dissemination, and may further the harm done by it in two ways - increasing exposure of the material and reminding the person hurt by it of said material. These things are all-or-nothing. Number of people who read the material does matter. How long it stays up also matters.
In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of or repeating defamation has been considered defamation itself. Refusal to take down the material does, in the UK at least, foil any innocent dissemination defence.
This article gives some good pointers: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
The author of that article, Don Burleson, co-authored the book 'Web Stalkers: Protect yourself from Internet Criminals & Psychopaths'.
True, it would be better for a representative to talk the website into taking down the material altogether. However, note that some material, for example that which may hurt a person's feelings but is otherwise legal and fine, may be bad for inclusion in Wikipaedia, but not things Wikipaedia can insist other websites to censor. One person I talked to suggested that it was alright to edit Wikipaedia and not make off-wiki attacks, or to not edit Wikipaedia and make off-wiki attacks (free speech and all), but that doing both was poisonous.
Technology enables this sort of thing. Things that would help: * Allow and encourage Tor. * Hide the parts of Wikipaedia where signatures appear (basically, everything but the actual encyclopaedia) from Google. * Provide an option for autoconfirmed users to hide their contributions history from non-admins. (For an added twist, you could allow admins to do this only if they forfeit their ability to see the contributions histories of those who choose to be hidden.) Since this would be optional, it would cause no GFDL problem. * Blank, delete and oversight first, privately ask questions later.
Also, Wikipaedia itself could try not setting such a bad example by ruthlessly attacking people....
(And for good measure, some seem to want to make the list of so-banned sites secret.)
This reminds me of WebSENSE, a company which provides blocking software. In July 2002, WebSENSE started providing daily porn links which they blocked but which their competitors, SurfControl and SmartFilter, did not. Anyone -- including students at schools using SurfControl or SmartFilter - could view this list simply by agreeing that they were over the age of 18. SurfControl and SmartFilter did not block WebSENSE's website. They did, however, add the links to their own blocking databases within about 24 hours. After 5 months, WebSENSE took down their list, with an explanation that their competitors simply blocked the links they provided immediately.
http://peacefire.org/censorware/WebSENSE/#porn_lists
Yes, given that people might look at Wikipaedia's blacklist, it should probably be secret, or if that is not allowed under its licence, at least hidden from Google.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of... defamation has been considered defamation itself.
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
~Mark
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
The way I look at it, all non-US law is relevant only to editors working in those jurisdictions. If Britain or Venezuela or China believes that the public can't handle certain material, that is interesting, but not relevant to how we run Wikipedia.
What might be relevant is the spirit behind the law. If the law gets made because of some particular harm that we think is worse than impeding honest discussion or the free flow of factual information, then we should take a look at altering our course. But the law itself is the business of the citizens under its jurisdiction, and not our collective problem.
William
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
"Wikipedia" doesn't need to concern itself with it. Its editors, on a personal level, might find it appropriate to.
If you're in the habit of writing things that would be considered defamatory by a foreign legal system that also considers that by writing them you're *in* their jurisdiction, it's probably worth being aware of it. (In much the same way as if what you're writing is libellous in the jurisdiction you're sitting in, you'd better be aware of what you're doing... just with somewhat less urgency in this case)
Sure, they can't throw you in jail. But you can still get sued over it, and rightly or wrongly, you can quickly lose a case that you would quickly win at home. And that can be rather annoying to future travel plans.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
"Wikipedia" doesn't need to concern itself with it. Its editors, on a personal level, might find it appropriate to.
I agree completely. Sorry if I gave a different impression; I thought it was being used as an argument for changing policies or norms, rather than as a personal caution.
William
On 20/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
"Wikipedia" doesn't need to concern itself with it. Its editors, on a personal level, might find it appropriate to.
If Wikipaedia wants to ensure that it has a defence under British law, in case anyone should try to sue it there, it needs to meet the criteria of innocent dissemination in the United Kingdom.
The relevant part of Defamation Act 1996:
(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that— (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
The full Act: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm
In the case of Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, Godfrey asked Demon Internet Limited to take down a defamatory statement, and they refused. As such, it was ruled Demon Internet Limited failed Sections 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c) and was responsible for publishing the material to each customer who downloaded the material after the take-down request. http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
"Wikipedia" doesn't need to concern itself with it. Its editors, on a personal level, might find it appropriate to.
If Wikipaedia wants to ensure that it has a defence under British law, in case anyone should try to sue it there, it needs to meet the criteria of innocent dissemination in the United Kingdom.
Which, in most cases - and certainly in most cases where it would likely be significant - we do.
I would like to drop into this conversation two small details which may be germane to some tangents of this discussion, before I have to see yet another wildly inventive interpretation of the good old defamation law.
- it is probably impossible to sue for defamation *of an anonymous individual*, and rather tricky for a pseudonymous one who successfuly maintains limited privacy.
(I would be v. interested to know of any caselaw - journalists under pen-names slanging each other in the thirties? seems plausible, but a quick flick through a relevant book didn't produce anything)
- anyone can essentially be sued for defamation with internet publication, *but* the plaintiff needs to have standing to do so; they need to show that they had some reputation to be damaged *in the United Kingdom*. This likely means that unless you're a moderately public figure, bringing a case as a foreigner won't get very far.
(The logic runs: if you have no reputation, it cannot be harmed, therefore anything which would lower your reputation founders on the fact that no-one would care)
Just dropping those in before we all get too carried away!
Well, yes, the material in question would have to be defamatory by UK law before it would matter whether it was innocently disseminated or not, at least for the legal purposes. I can't find any case law on defamation and pen-names either, for any country.
However, note that most article-space biographies are of non- pseudonymous individuals. Additionally, some editors and some banned users are known by their real name.
BLP currently doesn't say anything about protecting real names more than pseudonyms, which would imply that even if the law does not, BLP should protect pseudonyms from defamation. Perhaps they can't sue, but it should still be done for ethical reasons.
Also note that no one is anonymous on Wikipaedia, unless you want to allow non-logged-in edits through Tor/other proxies. IP addresses are a kind of pseudonym, albeit one that does not map 1:1 to human beings.
On 21/09/2007, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
If Wikipaedia wants to ensure that it has a defence under British law, in case anyone should try to sue it there, it needs to meet the criteria of innocent dissemination in the United Kingdom.
Which, in most cases - and certainly in most cases where it would likely be significant - we do.
I would like to drop into this conversation two small details which may be germane to some tangents of this discussion, before I have to see yet another wildly inventive interpretation of the good old defamation law.
- it is probably impossible to sue for defamation *of an anonymous
individual*, and rather tricky for a pseudonymous one who successfuly maintains limited privacy.
(I would be v. interested to know of any caselaw - journalists under pen-names slanging each other in the thirties? seems plausible, but a quick flick through a relevant book didn't produce anything)
- anyone can essentially be sued for defamation with internet
publication, *but* the plaintiff needs to have standing to do so; they need to show that they had some reputation to be damaged *in the United Kingdom*. This likely means that unless you're a moderately public figure, bringing a case as a foreigner won't get very far.
(The logic runs: if you have no reputation, it cannot be harmed, therefore anything which would lower your reputation founders on the fact that no-one would care)
Just dropping those in before we all get too carried away!
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of... defamation has been considered defamation itself.
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and
Read the article I linked: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
(b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
Regardless of where the site is hosted, information on the internet is published worldwide, and the United States is not the only country in the world. Some countries countries do not limit the plantiff to filing suit only if the defendant resides there.
For example, in the United Kingdom, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant need reside there, and material published on the internet is considered to be published in the UK. http://www.globaljournalist.org/magazine/2004-2/libel-tourism.html
Australia has allowed an Australian businessman to sue a United States website in Australia. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/12/56793
Also, y'all should be aware that in order for Wikipaedia to qualify as an innocent disseminater under the United Kingdom's Defamation Act 1996, the following criteria must be met:
(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that— (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
The full text of the Defamation Act 1996 can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm
Note that the third criteria is not met if Wikipaedia is informed of the defamatory material, asked to remove it, and fails to do so.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not threatening to sue y'all, just letting you know....
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of... defamation has been considered defamation itself.
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks),
Read the article I linked: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean your interpretation of that article was incorrect; I meant that the laws (or court precedents or whatever) themselves are wrong.
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Read the article I linked: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean your interpretation of that article was incorrect; I meant that the laws (or court precedents or whatever) themselves are wrong.
Okay then, glad to clear it up. Really, the legal thing isn't a moral argument, I'm just pointing out that assuming it is in Wikipaedia's best interest to avoid getting sued in the UK, it is probably in Wikipaedia's best interest to follow British defamation law.
They do have a point though - by linking to something, you are helping to publish it.
Oh good fucking lord. This isn't a battle for the community or any sort of thing. The badsites people look at it as a way to protect editors without harming any actual debate. And they're right. None of there sites matter as a matter of course to the pedia. The other side views it as a way to reduce openness. Both are right and most of us just want the whole damn thing to go away. None of this matters. Either way it's a minor decision. No one should be this worked up over it. Go take a damn wiki break.
On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law
against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
I agree with you, Dan. NPA is a principal, and code of conduct, adopted and followed by an individual. This individual is a part of a community that adopts this principal and code as an ethic - which is a part of what defines that community. That community can change it. But an important part of its identity changes with it.
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote
Now, I'm not kidding...
What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages? The issues have been debated heavily there.
An Arbcom debate should not be there to establish or design policy. It is about applying principles and policy to the particular situation of the disputing parties. Using an Arbcom decision to create policy amounts to rule by obiter.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free- spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo topics for discussion?
Well said.
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth" remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site" without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
I have no problem with NPA being fundamental. This debate comes down to how we define "personal attack."
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the legislature or referendum; that's simply false.
If we were really talking about selling liquor we would be dealing with the mindset that brought about the 18th amendment.
NPA is a policy adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked, altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
I agree with Marc that NPA is more a principle than a policy. When you try to turn principles into policy it becomes one giant game of whack-a-mole.
Ec