On 5/4/07, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day Todd,
On 5/3/07, Stephen Bain
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on
the speed of light
without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an
article- on the United States without putting in its population as of
the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they
are not comprehensive or complete.
Your analogies are poor. An accurate analogy for this situation would
be, for example, an article on legal proceedings where the names of
some of the parties have been suppressed by the court. A perfectly
comprehensive article could be written about the legal proceedings
without the need to break the law and use the names.
I think any rational court would realize that its "suppression" is
meaningless once a link to the real names hits everything from Digg to
Slashdot to blogs to the New York Times.
Let's push Stephen's analogy. Suppose you wanted to write about a child
abuse case where the Supreme Court had ordered the victims' names
suppressed.
Would you include the names of the victims? What if you found a forum
post where a schoolmate of the victims had posted the names already?
--
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/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It depends. One forum, or a few, absolutely not. In that case, the
names of the victims are still semi-secret, even if they can be found
with some digging. (In that case, I probably would, given my own
personal ethics, not publish the names of the child(ren) involved even
if -no- court order were in place.)
On the other hand, if the names of the children were so damn famous
they'd become news stories of their own, and there were hundreds of
thousands of places including mainstream news you could find them,
yes, absolutely, I would. In that case, the secret's out of the bag
long since, and it's never going back in. I am, in that case, doing no
harm to anyone by publishing those names. Nor am I violating the court
order that mandates the names remain secret-they're -already- not
secret in any way whether I publish too or not. In that case, for me
to hold back and suppress the names is no longer responsible, it is
silly. And here, it is -silly-.
Now, of course, in this case, we're not talking about some poor,
innocent, abused child. We're talking about thugs (and thugs in fancy
suits who know how to write legal papers are still thugs, a SLAPP or
the threat thereof is every bit the equivalent of a gun in the face),
who decided they could push people around, using a law that has not an
ounce of constitutional merit to begin with. Now, in most cases,
they'd be right, and I'd sure not be up for saying "HEY! Next time
someone breaks an encryption key, let's let 'em publish it on
Wikipedia first!" That's not in keeping with our place or our mission,
and it would likely land us in a hell of a lot of trouble, just to do
something we shouldn't be doing anyway (being a first publisher). It
-is-, however, our place and mission to note topics of genuine
noteworthiness, and not to suppress any details because someone might
not like them. And if we cave -this- time, mark it, everyone in the
world with a lawyer and a dislike for anything on Wikipedia will note
it.
You think our legal "issues" are bad now, wait until everyone reads
the "WIKIPEDIA CAVES TO SLAPP THREAT" across the headlines. If we
can't deal with one squad of nicely-dressed thugs, I certainly don't
know how we're going to deal with the thousand me-toos. Right now, we
can nip that in the bud, just by saying "Hey, you can't just make a
whisper about legal action and have us take down anything you don't
like." Or we can say "Hey, send us a letter from a lawyer (or don't
even bother doing that, just make it sound like you -might- send a
letter from a lawyer), and anything you dislike, regardless of how
true or well-sourced it is, is gone -posthaste-."
I know which project I would rather work on. What about you?
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.