Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insider information, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take the following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis: Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through the motions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ...
I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in a collusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So sit back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right.
The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but the top players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
1) Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
2) Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
3) But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was not to be ..."
4) Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition, but it's still not a universally held belief.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking notes, but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking notes, but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
If you do, you may want to use "diplomacy" rather than "politics", as perhaps a better analogy... otherwise you run the risk of looking into the internal community politics, which are somewhat crazier!
Fred Bauder
Too clever by half.
A weakness of mine, I will admit. I cut from my original post a *speculation* that the Wikipedia higher-ups have concluded that they're going to get a "section 230" testing lawsuit someday, and better it be Brandt as a plaintiff for the first case, than someone like Seigenthaler.
Negotiation in good faith must seem very simple.
That was pre-emptive point #1:
1) Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here than for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com writes:
Fred Bauder
Too clever by half.
A weakness of mine, I will admit. I cut from my original
post a
*speculation* that the Wikipedia higher-ups have concluded that
they're
going to get a "section 230" testing lawsuit someday, and better
it be
Brandt as a plaintiff for the first case, than someone like
Seigenthaler.
Negotiation in good faith must seem very simple.
That was pre-emptive point #1:
- Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one
sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier
here
than for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way
and
join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all
Wikiality. But
it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
-- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
People have been saying for a long time that Brandt would make a good test case; nothing new or shocking there. Personally, I think we would've been better off with a Seigenthaler suit, as then it'd be easier to position PR-wise (hypocrisy, minor impact, over-reaction, posted by an anon once, etc), as opposed to Brandt, where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision to keep the article was bad - and if it is bad, it basically condemns anyone who ever spoke in favor of something related to keeping it, which is how much of the active community and higher-ups?
Gwern Branwen wrote:
as opposed to Brandt, where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision to keep the article was bad
No, that really is pretty much unthinkable. There is absolutely nothing legally problematic at all in our having a biography about Daniel Brandt. He has been featured in major newspapers on multiple occasions for a variety of different things. His work, and our article about him, is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is designed to protect.
If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he will point it out. He is unblocked now precisely so that he CAN point it out.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com writes:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
as opposed to Brandt, where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the
decision
to keep the article was bad
No, that really is pretty much unthinkable. There is absolutely
nothing
legally problematic at all in our having a biography about
Daniel
Brandt. He has been featured in major newspapers on multiple
occasions
for a variety of different things. His work, and our article
about him,
is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is
designed to
protect.
If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he
will
point it out. He is unblocked now precisely so that he CAN
point it out.
--Jimbo
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler was not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or "non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might agree with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings (perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler was not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or "non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might agree with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings (perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
Does it really matter about the judge? Does Wikipedia not have a right to trial by jury?
I don't think the legal definition of "public figure" and our definition of "notable" have much in common. If the information in our article is all published somewhere, then by definition he is sufficiently public for us to include that information in the article.
On 21/04/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe
In that case it's in the realm of the severely hypothetical. It's possible a meteor could knock out the Florida datacentre, after all.
- d.
In January Wikipedia Review deleted a thread at Daniel Brandt's request where the question of resolving Brandt's problems with Wikipedia by non-litigious means through WP's internal dispute resolution and appeals process was discussed. Here is a link to a restored and unredacted version in full of that thread.
http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/02/brandt-berlets-problem-same.html
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/04/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe
In that case it's in the realm of the severely hypothetical. It's possible a meteor could knock out the Florida datacentre, after all.
We must all remember what the one that hit Yucatan 65 million years ago must have done to the datacentre. ;-)
Ec
On 23/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/04/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe
In that case it's in the realm of the severely hypothetical. It's possible a meteor could knock out the Florida datacentre, after all.
We must all remember what the one that hit Yucatan 65 million years ago must have done to the datacentre. ;-)
Fortunately, the dinosaur DNA was GPLed - as documented in Jurassic Park. "This is Linux! I know this!"
- d.
On 23/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, the dinosaur DNA was GPLed - as documented in Jurassic Park. "This is Linux! I know this!"
That reminds me, I wish our techies would hurry up in implementing the virtual reality interface to Wikipedia. I wonder what RfA, AfD and other contentious areas will look like.
On 23/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 23/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, the dinosaur DNA was GPLed - as documented in Jurassic Park. "This is Linux! I know this!"
That reminds me, I wish our techies would hurry up in implementing the virtual reality interface to Wikipedia. I wonder what RfA, AfD and other contentious areas will look like.
The garbage crusher scene in Star Wars.
- d.
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler was not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or "non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might agree with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings (perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
It doesn't matter if he a public figure or not, that seems to have virtually nothing to do with anything as far as I can see.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com writes:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to
believe
that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler
was
not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or "non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might
agree
with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings (perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
It doesn't matter if he a public figure or not, that seems to
have
virtually nothing to do with anything as far as I can see.
--Jimbo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Brandt's argument that there shouldn't be an article on him because he's not public, and thus any such article is harassment, invasion of privacy, and a number of other things, for which the Foundation is guilty by its support of the status quo? It would seem to me to be important whether he's a public figure or not in the judge's reckoning.
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
as opposed to Brandt, where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision to keep the article was bad
No, that really is pretty much unthinkable. There is absolutely nothing legally problematic at all in our having a biography about Daniel Brandt. He has been featured in major newspapers on multiple occasions for a variety of different things. His work, and our article about him, is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is designed to protect.
If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he will point it out. He is unblocked now precisely so that he CAN point it out.
So now that he's reblocked he CAN'T point it out?
Gwern Branwen People have been saying for a long time that Brandt would make a good test case; nothing new or shocking there.
The new aspect would be if *Wikipedia higher-ups* have concluded this, including possible advice from real live lawyers. And that an eventual "section 230" case is likely enough that Wikipedia might as well choose its plaintiff if possible.
Pure conjecture on my part. I could be wrong. Be amused by it if nothing else. We'll see in the fullness of time. My self-interest lies in reducing the pile of how-could-you-DO-this-Jimmy messages I have to plow through if I want to follow the situation.
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Pure conjecture on my part. I could be wrong. Be amused by it if nothing else. We'll see in the fullness of time. My self-interest lies in reducing the pile of how-could-you-DO-this-Jimmy messages I have to plow through if I want to follow the situation.
Well, you are completely and totally wrong. I hope it is helpful to you to know it.
--Jimbo
Seth, please stop trolling. You have not the least clue what you are talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
--Jimbo
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insider information, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take the following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis:
Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through the motions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ...
I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in a collusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So sit back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right.
The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but the top players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace
and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was not to be ..."
Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition,
but it's still not a universally held belief.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking notes, but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
On 21/04/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seth, please stop trolling. You have not the least clue what you are talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
As Jimbo's sockpuppet, I will add that Seth's message is a blatant "let's you and him fight" from the media.
- d.
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seth, please stop trolling. You have not the least clue what you are talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
--Jimbo
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insiderinformation, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take the following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis:
Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through themotions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ...
I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in acollusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So sit back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right.
The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but thetop players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace
and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was not to be ..."
Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition,but it's still not a universally held belief.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking notes, but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making it sound like he hit a nerve...
~~~~
Oh please. Jimbo's always been rather forthright in his comments about things like trolling and people being dumb in general. This is par for the course, why-we-love-him Jimbo, no nerve struck. The clue-by-four was used for some smacking, thats all.
On 4/21/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seth, please stop trolling. You have not the least clue what you are talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
--Jimbo
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insiderinformation, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take
the
following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis:
Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through themotions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable
unclean-hands
vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ...
I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in acollusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So
sit
back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right.
The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but thetop players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace
and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was not to be ..."
Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition,but it's still not a universally held belief.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking
notes,
but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making it sound like he hit a nerve...
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making it sound like he hit a nerve...
He posted outrageous nonsense. I am not sure what else I can say about it.
His theory is that this is all just theater, that my negotations with Brandt are not actually in good faith but just the illusion of good faith as the run up to a lawsuit.
That's just nonsense. It is trolling.
--Jimbo
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making it sound like he hit a nerve...
He posted outrageous nonsense. I am not sure what else I can say about it.
His theory is that this is all just theater, that my negotations with Brandt are not actually in good faith but just the illusion of good faith as the run up to a lawsuit.
That's just nonsense. It is trolling.
--Jimbo
Fair enough. As I may have said, I won't take up his defense any more. ~~~~