Kat Walsh wrote:
If deleting something illegal is "out of
process", process is broken
and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result
should be the same.)
You misunderstand, then. Illegal things *should* be deleted - they should
*not* be ruled illegal by one - or many - administrators with no legal
background, little legal background, or a legal background not verified by
No one's realistically going to bitch and moan long term about Office
actions designed to protect itself from legal ramifications in this case.
But if you think people are going to go along with User: Joe Admin's case
for why it's illegal, forget it - oust them from their position of power
immediately for acting out of line.
Look, I'm no fan of the DMCA anti-circumvention
rules; neither, I
suspect, are most of us. But Wikipedia is not a venue for unrestricted
free speech or for copyfight activism through civil disobedience;
that's just not what we do. We're a venue to create an encyclopedia
under a free content license, as an alternative to the content only
available within the current heavy-handed and wasteful system of
copyright, and we're actively trying to encourage more content be
created with the same freedoms -- which people on all sides of these
disputes should be able to support.
And, once again, we cut off our nose to spite our face in the name of
"free content," a noble goal that we'll never completely achieve based on
realistic limitations. Yeah, we're already being assholes and going after
"List of" articles with important identifying images. Let's see that
"heavy handed and wasteful system" hurt us when we start quoting people
using the same fair use parameters.
Hosting illegal content doesn't help us do that.
I call bullshit on this one. There is plenty of legitimate argument for
the hosting of "illegal content" in the name of information and education.
We don't host illegal content because it's illegal, not because it serves
no encyclopedic purpose.
Doing so would only
give fodder to the people who want to accuse us of being bad citizens
or socially irresponsible
I thought we were here to "create an encyclopedia under a free content
license," not worry about our social responsibility or perception.
The community deletes things it believes to be illegal
and always has,
though it strikes more of a nerve in some cases than others.
And never consistently, and never with much logic as much as feeling and
the oomph of the same people who don't get it.
If you can read this, I'm not at home.