Hi,
I don't understand something, what is the reason of this uproar about wikitruth's publication of articles deleted by us. There's even talk of prohibiting admins from reposting content, isn't that completely against the spirit of this project, free dissemination of information? Why should we care if wikitruth is posting copyvio and libel articles on their website? They are gonna get sued, bad for them.
I can't see how reposting of our content will make us legally more liable than we already were. We do not remove illegal content from our servers, we simply hide it from all but a select few. That obviously does entail some legal liability. When that content is reposted for the general public, the extra liability is incurred by wikitruth. We, as always, are still alllowing only those select few to access the content.
If they are okay about attracting lawsuits, good for us. We have deleted those articles only for legal or editorial concerns. No harm done to us if someone else decides to showcase that content. In fact it's good for us since non-admin users can view deleted content without any possibility of harm to the Foundation. Or is there more to this issue than meets the eye? I'll like to know.
On a related note, there is another uproar over secrecy, concerning whether office actions need to be hidden. There is a general perception that the reason office actions are being taken nee dto be hidden from even admins. I do not see why this is so. We are not the CIA, the reasons for actions coming from the top is to protect the Foundation from lawsuits. What's so secret about that. What if every wikipedian knows that corporation A threatened to sue the Foundation and as a result libellous content has been removed from their article by office action untill sources are provided? What's the harm if every office action is advertised on the front page?
I think there's a paranoia about secrecy around. We are an encyclopaedia, it is our goal to provide information. The Wikimedia foundation is a not-for-profit organisation running some innovative websites without any illegal activities (hopefully). What's so secret about that?
Molu
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
On 4/21/06, Molu loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
I can't see how reposting of our content will make us legally more liable than we already were.
Well I don't think this is the way the law is likely to see it. In the famous 1990s Prodigy case, an information provider that policed its forums in much the same way that Wikipedia polices its content was found to be a publisher of information, and thus subject to third party liability for content. Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
This has not been tested in court, but it would be very expensive to test it and Wikipedia probably would prefer to spend more of its money on equipment and technicians than on teams of attorneys.
On 21/04/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
That would all hinge on whether a "Wikipedia administrator" represents Wikipedia in any respect. I don't think they do, not more than any editor does. Taken to its conclusion, you would be saying that user A writes something horrible on Wikipedia, user B (possibly an admin if you like) then publishes that in print in 50 magazines, and user A deletes the horrible remark. Wikipedia is liable for user B's actions?
Steve
On 4/21/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
That would all hinge on whether a "Wikipedia administrator" represents Wikipedia in any respect. I don't think they do, not more than any editor does. Taken to its conclusion, you would be saying that user A writes something horrible on Wikipedia, user B (possibly an admin if you like) then publishes that in print in 50 magazines, and user A deletes the horrible remark. Wikipedia is liable for user B's actions?
Legally liable? I would assume not, since most admins have no formal relationship to the Foundation. It would probably depend on whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of admins who obtain that material.
Having said that, it would still be major egg on our face. "Wikipedia administrators distribute defamatory material" really isn't a beneficial type of headline.
Kirill Lokshin
On 4/21/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
That would all hinge on whether a "Wikipedia administrator" represents Wikipedia in any respect. I don't think they do, not more than any editor does. Taken to its conclusion, you would be saying that user A writes something horrible on Wikipedia, user B (possibly an admin if you like) then publishes that in print in 50 magazines, and user A deletes the horrible remark. Wikipedia is liable for user B's actions?
Legally liable? I would assume not, since most admins have no formal relationship to the Foundation. It would probably depend on whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of admins who obtain that material.
I would think that a) isn't really necessary in the US, because truth is a defense to libel. So as long as it is made clear that "deleted" versions are not necessarily factual articles, but simply a copy of information which used to be in the database, I don't see how there can be a claim of libel.
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
I factually disagree with that. If the material was there for even a few minutes it was published by Wikimedia, but that alone does not determine the case. What happened when Wikimedia became aware that the material was there is far more important.
Ec
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
I factually disagree with that. If the material was there for even a few minutes it was published by Wikimedia, but that alone does not determine the case. What happened when Wikimedia became aware that the material was there is far more important.
Ec
You have a right to your opinion. But I think it's hard to justify that position with the CDA: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Note that I'm not saying the CDA can necessarily be used as a defense by Wikitruth. Going back to your quote: "It would probably depend on whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of admins who obtain that material." I would say the argument is a) they aren't a publisher, but merely provide an interactive computer service.
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]].
Anthony
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]].
Well, almost. The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied. It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA 230, but not always. If someone is trusted with access to sensitive information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth *might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for third party liability.
This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct, represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]].
Well, almost. The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied. It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA 230, but not always. If someone is trusted with access to sensitive information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth *might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for third party liability.
Frankly, I just don't see it, but maybe I don't know what you mean by "sensitive information". You also don't mention what Wikipedia would be sued for. Negligence? If so, I don't see where the duty of care is.
This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct, represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
I'm not willing to say that there isn't a serious problem. In fact, if Wikitruth is publishing information which violates someone's right to privacy, *that* might be a problem. But in my opinion anything that violates someone's right to privacy shouldn't be available to admins in the first place.
Anthony
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I just don't see it, but maybe I don't know what you mean by "sensitive information". You also don't mention what Wikipedia would be sued for. Negligence? If so, I don't see where the duty of care is.
By "sensitive information" I mean, in this context, information the publication of which would render the publisher liable for a tort.
What would Wikipedia be sued for? Well, in the case of publication of defamatory material, it would be sued for defamation. Once a service provider becomes aware of a specific case of defamatory material on his system, he has a common law duty to take reasonable steps to limit the damage. This is not negated by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which only applies to unwitting publication resulting from the nature of the Internet Service.
Dear everybody,
I am new to this list, but I need your help, as I am currently busy with my B.A.Thesis on Wikipedia's Success Factors. I would very much appreciate your comments and critique on the following:
Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find out if the theory holds true in practice.
The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor Model:
User factors: - Openness - Neutrality - Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -
Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer review
Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach, multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe
All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors
Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
Thank you very much in advance for your time, Hagen
The "infinite reach" is the big thing. Only a tiny fraction the population gets into it, but on a world wide scale that is a few thousand. We are generally not an elite, just people who especially enjoy this pass time. Reasons vary.
Fred
On Apr 23, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Hagen Böttcher wrote:
Dear everybody,
I am new to this list, but I need your help, as I am currently busy with my B.A.Thesis on Wikipedia's Success Factors. I would very much appreciate your comments and critique on the following:
Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find out if the theory holds true in practice.
The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor Model:
User factors: - Openness - Neutrality - Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -
Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer review
Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach, multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe
All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors
Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
Thank you very much in advance for your time, Hagen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/24/06, Hagen Böttcher h.boettcher@iu-bremen.de wrote:
Dear everybody,
I am new to this list, but I need your help, as I am currently busy with my B.A.Thesis on Wikipedia's Success Factors. I would very much appreciate your comments and critique on the following:
Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find out if the theory holds true in practice.
Hi Hagen,
I once wrote an essay on Wikipedia's success factors - you can read this at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_small_scale_study_of_Wikipedia Probably more interesting than the essay itself are the responses I got to my questionnaire, which are available in the appendices to the essay.
Joseph Reagle has written some excellent papers on Wikipedia - the first one here is a historical background to the development of encyclopedias leading to Wikipedia: http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html
There is really plenty written on Wikipedia (and its success) and you can find these from wiki bibliographies, such as: http://bibliography.wikimedia.de/ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Bibliography (you will be able to access far more papers than I can, seeing as you speak German).
For me, the success of Wikipedia is based on its openness, ie. anyone can edit (this is how people get involved, and thereby join the community). But even this can be problematised - putting the focus on Wikipedians, as you are doing, openness could also be viewed as how open we are to criticism from other points of view, and how well we work in a collaborative space. Pretty much any of your factors could be the work of a BA/Master's/PhD dissertation in themselves :-)
You will have to decide how much and in what detail you want to focus on any of these issues, based on your time and words available. All the best with it..
Cormac (User:Cormaggio)
The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor Model:
User factors: - Openness - Neutrality - Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -
Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer review
Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach, multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe
All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors
Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
Thank you very much in advance for your time, Hagen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]].
Well, almost. The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied. It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA 230, but not always. If someone is trusted with access to sensitive information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth *might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for third party liability.
This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct, represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
Very hypothetical. I grant that it's a lawyers job to stretch given ridiculous facts as much as is necessary to satisfy the desires of the claimant. There is always a chance that a ridiculous claim will succeed. No position is ever safe in the courts. In some cases wheel-war logs might be enough to dispel any allegation of admin collusion.
With 800 administrators how can you possibly determine the level of trust that we can put in each. And there have been arguments made that we need more admins. The mantra is that being an admin is no big deal. Once a person is an admin he has the technical ability to put the goatse.cx image on the main page, but we trust him not to do that. An agent acts with the authority of Wikimedia in an external environment; is there any evidence that any ordinary admin is acting on behalf of Wikimedia when he is dealing with the real world? Agency is often linked with employment, but none of our admins are being paid to do that job. Nobody is required to sign an agreement saying that they won't give away secrets or even defining what would be a secret.
I think it would be a safe bet that in the more than 1,000,000 articles that we now have on the English Wikipedia (perhaps 4,000,000) when we combine all the projects defamatory statements continue to exist; they just haven't been identified. We have no control over who can initiate a suit; a determined but penniless nutcase can keep you tied up in expensive court action for years. He may have no realistic chance of winning, but you have no chance of recovering legal costs. Where do you set the risk bar? Surely it can't be set so low that you are at the mercy of the nutcases.
Ec
On 4/23/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
With 800 administrators how can you possibly determine the level of trust that we can put in each.
To a degree I do this for every user.
And there have been arguments made that we need more admins. The mantra is that being an admin is no big deal. Once a person is an admin he has the technical ability to put the goatse.cx image on the main page, but we trust him not to do that.
More correctly I trust them to be able to figure out they will be reverted instantly and blocked for the rest of eternity.
An agent acts with the authority of Wikimedia in an external environment; is there any evidence that any ordinary admin is acting on behalf of Wikimedia when he is dealing with the real world? Agency is often linked with employment, but none of our admins are being paid to do that job. Nobody is required to sign an agreement saying that they won't give away secrets or even defining what would be a secret.
Yet. In practice I suspect most admins have a pretty good idea what they are not meant to talk about. -- geni
On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:15 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider.
Wasn't the CDA ruled unconstitutional back in the 90's?
On 4/21/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:15 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider.
Wasn't the CDA ruled unconstitutional back in the 90's?
Some parts were found unconstitutional. Section 230, the relevant part, has been in use for about a decade now and has not been successfully challenged.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/21/06, Molu loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
I can't see how reposting of our content will make us legally more liable than we already were.
Well I don't think this is the way the law is likely to see it. In the famous 1990s Prodigy case, an information provider that policed its forums in much the same way that Wikipedia polices its content was found to be a publisher of information, and thus subject to third party liability for content. Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of Wikipedia. There is nothing in any description of admins that allows them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project. A Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language. Perhaps you should review the meaning of "agent".
This has not been tested in court, but it would be very expensive to test it and Wikipedia probably would prefer to spend more of its money on equipment and technicians than on teams of attorneys.
We do ourselves as much harm by presuming that there is a legal case there. Sound risk management policies do not require that we stiffle ourselves by allowing for every conceivable far-fetched possibility.
Ec
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of Wikipedia. There is nothing in any description of admins that allows them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project. A Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language. Perhaps you should review the meaning of "agent".
I use the term loosely. If someone entrusted with the ability to see unpublished content then uses that ability to cause it to be published, then the organisation's task of showing that it took reasonable steps to prevent publication is made more difficult, for it most demonstrate that it reasonably believed that this person would not do so. If our admins are chosen through a popularity contest in which their loyalty to the aims and interests of the Foundation, rather than the community, is not examined, I think it would be very difficult to argue that such a belief was reasonable. Basically we let any mutt off the street act as an administrator, irrespective of his views on, or knowledge of liability, copyright, or anything else relevant, or his commitment to act in the interests of the Foundation.
The recent fuss over Office actions demonstrates amply that even quite well established administrators feel that they can challenge and disregard the interests of the Foundation.
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Under the Communications Decency Act which provides a general exemption from third party liability to online information providers, this exemption does not extend to liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of Wikipedia. There is nothing in any description of admins that allows them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project. A Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language. Perhaps you should review the meaning of "agent".
I use the term loosely. If someone entrusted with the ability to see unpublished content then uses that ability to cause it to be published, then the organisation's task of showing that it took reasonable steps to prevent publication is made more difficult, for it most demonstrate that it reasonably believed that this person would not do so. If our admins are chosen through a popularity contest in which their loyalty to the aims and interests of the Foundation, rather than the community, is not examined, I think it would be very difficult to argue that such a belief was reasonable. Basically we let any mutt off the street act as an administrator, irrespective of his views on, or knowledge of liability, copyright, or anything else relevant, or his commitment to act in the interests of the Foundation.
I don't see any reason that Wikimedia has a responsibility to "take reasonable steps to prevent the publication" of libelous information in the first place.
In fact, I think the Foundation would be perfectly within its rights to allow *everyone* to see the content of these allegedly libelous historical versions. In fact, considering the fact that most libelous versions of articles are never deleted in the first place, to argue otherwise would essentially make the entire concept of a wiki a legal impossibility.
Anthony