A separate, but related issue to the Daniel Brandt thread.
It's common enough sense that Wikipedia is going to get sued someday. And I know we've been preparing financially for that.
But with the rise of Brandt, Wikipedia Review, and whatever is going to come after them in this progression, the fact of the matter is that admins and regular editors are in danger too. Not just legal danger (As I assume the Foundation would use its legal resources to protect an admin who was sued), but personal danger.
Our photos, names, and cities are being published. People are stalking us. Eventually, something bad is going to happen.
When it does, there should be a fund to help - whether its helping with the medical bills of someone who's physically attacked, helping with the legal bills of someone who's trying to stop a stalker, or helping defray the costs of someone who's fired because of harassment at their workplace, Wikipedia needs to be able to help the volunteers who are put in danger by helping Wikipedia.
I believe that we should, as soon as possible, start a special fundraiser to build this fund, and after that should devote a regular portion of the Foundation budget to it.
Supporting Wikipedia is acquiring a high price. Simply put, Wikipedia needs the ability to support us.
-Phil
On 6/11/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
A separate, but related issue to the Daniel Brandt thread.
It's common enough sense that Wikipedia is going to get sued someday. And I know we've been preparing financially for that.
But with the rise of Brandt, Wikipedia Review, and whatever is going to come after them in this progression, the fact of the matter is that admins and regular editors are in danger too. Not just legal danger (As I assume the Foundation would use its legal resources to protect an admin who was sued), but personal danger.
Our photos, names, and cities are being published. People are stalking us. Eventually, something bad is going to happen.
When it does, there should be a fund to help - whether its helping with the medical bills of someone who's physically attacked, helping with the legal bills of someone who's trying to stop a stalker, or helping defray the costs of someone who's fired because of harassment at their workplace, Wikipedia needs to be able to help the volunteers who are put in danger by helping Wikipedia.
I believe that we should, as soon as possible, start a special fundraiser to build this fund, and after that should devote a regular portion of the Foundation budget to it.
Supporting Wikipedia is acquiring a high price. Simply put, Wikipedia needs the ability to support us.
-Phil
Now this is an idea I can get behind. Wikimedia really should defend it's users, a user fund would be a good way to do this.
How much money are we talking though? As we all know, wikimedia ain't the richest organisation in the world, we are barely scraping by. And a solid legal defense can be very expensive.
--Oskar
On 6/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How much money are we talking though? As we all know, wikimedia ain't the richest organisation in the world, we are barely scraping by. And a solid legal defense can be very expensive.
The legal fees in question would probably simply amount to someone going through the paperwork to get a restraining order etc, small time stuff.
This fund sounds like a nice idea in theory, but it would need a lot of scoping first - exactly who is covered, to what extent, at whose discretion, for what period of time, etc. You're basically talking about Wikipedia becoming an unfunded insurance policy. Perhaps the people who are covered by it would have to chip in, say $20 a year or so?
Steve
Do trolls get insurance, too? Who do we define as a troll? Who is worthy of this kind of protection?
On 6/11/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How much money are we talking though? As we all know, wikimedia ain't the richest organisation in the world, we are barely scraping by. And a solid legal defense can be very expensive.
The legal fees in question would probably simply amount to someone going through the paperwork to get a restraining order etc, small time stuff.
This fund sounds like a nice idea in theory, but it would need a lot of scoping first - exactly who is covered, to what extent, at whose discretion, for what period of time, etc. You're basically talking about Wikipedia becoming an unfunded insurance policy. Perhaps the people who are covered by it would have to chip in, say $20 a year or so?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jun 11, 2006, at 8:25 PM, mboverload wrote:
Do trolls get insurance, too? Who do we define as a troll? Who is worthy of this kind of protection?
I would assume someone would administer the fund and choose which cases to use money on, much like any fund along these lines. Presumably the Foundation, in this case, unless there's a reason the fund needs to be maintained independently.
-Phil
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How much money are we talking though? As we all know, wikimedia ain't the richest organisation in the world, we are barely scraping by. And a solid legal defense can be very expensive.
The legal fees in question would probably simply amount to someone going through the paperwork to get a restraining order etc, small time stuff.
This fund sounds like a nice idea in theory, but it would need a lot of scoping first - exactly who is covered, to what extent, at whose discretion, for what period of time, etc. You're basically talking about Wikipedia becoming an unfunded insurance policy. Perhaps the people who are covered by it would have to chip in, say $20 a year or so?
The serious nutcases don't pay attention to restraining orders..
$20.00 a year would be cheap compared to the cost of private medical insurance, which can easily be 100 times that much.
Ec
On 6/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
$20.00 a year would be cheap compared to the cost of private medical insurance, which can easily be 100 times that much.
On the other hand "we" would theoretically only protect against a very specific type of accident under specific circumstances.
The whole idea is a bit dubious, and would probably work best if editors just formed an "association of Wikipedians" amongst themselves that had nothing to do with the foundation. They could chip in as much as they liked, and then spend it helping each other out of Wikipedia-caused mishaps. If you're not a member, you'd get no coverage.
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
$20.00 a year would be cheap compared to the cost of private medical insurance, which can easily be 100 times that much.
On the other hand "we" would theoretically only protect against a very specific type of accident under specific circumstances.
The whole idea is a bit dubious, and would probably work best if editors just formed an "association of Wikipedians" amongst themselves that had nothing to do with the foundation. They could chip in as much as they liked, and then spend it helping each other out of Wikipedia-caused mishaps. If you're not a member, you'd get no coverage.
I think that if such a fund/system is made, it really should be handled by the foundation though. Plus, that association sounds too much like the (perhaps stereotypical) american healthcare system to me. If a person does not belong to that association and something happens, then just too bad so sad?
Garion
On 6/12/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if such a fund/system is made, it really should be handled by the foundation though. Plus, that association sounds too much like the (perhaps stereotypical) american healthcare system to me. If a person does not belong to that association and something happens, then just too bad so sad?
Um, it may sound like an american healthcare system, but it sounds a lot like thousands of similar associations around the world. I was actually thinking of something like a union, or a players' association for various sports.
And yes, if you don't contribute to a fund, you can't really expect it to look after you. Wikipedia is a slightly special case as serious editors are putting in a lot of time and effort for nothing, so maybe that could be taken into account.
Steve
More valuable than a few dollars would be finding some free-speech-friendly attorneys and organizations, and making friends with them proactively and before a particular problem blows up to crisis proportions.
EFF? ACLU? Wikipedia editors who are attorneys already?
Phil Sandifer wrote:
It's common enough sense that Wikipedia is going to get sued someday. And I know we've been preparing financially for that.
How big is the contingency fund for this?
But with the rise of Brandt, Wikipedia Review, and whatever is going to come after them in this progression, the fact of the matter is that admins and regular editors are in danger too. Not just legal danger (As I assume the Foundation would use its legal resources to protect an admin who was sued), but personal danger.
Don't count on it..
When it does, there should be a fund to help - whether its helping with the medical bills of someone who's physically attacked, helping with the legal bills of someone who's trying to stop a stalker, or helping defray the costs of someone who's fired because of harassment at their workplace, Wikipedia needs to be able to help the volunteers who are put in danger by helping Wikipedia.
This should perhaps be left to the national chapters. Legal costs vary considerably from one country to another. Some countries have better protection available against wrongful dismissal. Medical costs can be excessive in a country that does not have a properly funded public medical insurance system.
Ec