You can't bind family members. Also I don't see a whistleblower exemption. Did I overlook it?
----- Original Message ----
From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:21:53 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility
Hello,
Some time ago, the board received a new draft of its future "board
statement of responsibility".
This follows the document presented to the board in April, which was
opposed by Kat and I.
I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise
that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with
attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks
ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to
provide your input.
I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far
exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document
represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the
organization and individual board members.
In particularly, it includes
* a non-disparagement agreement (with widely different appreciations on
what disparagement is)
* a very much extended conflict of interest agreement, which would
require a board member to get authorization to do certain activities (as
opposed to merely informing the board and not voting on resolutions when
there is a perceived or real conflict)
It does not include
* a statement of understanding from the board member, regarding mission
and values
Your feedback is welcome, on these three points, or others (present or
missing). I would like in particular to read opinions of candidates to
the board on such matters.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statement
Best
Florence
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liability only extends until they are made aware of it, right?
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:28:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
The issue in short form (without taking any sides on it) is that your
student newspaper, if it writes something illegal, is liable as an
organization. Wikimedia, however, is protected under the CDA as long
as it acts as a provider, and not an editor. Wikileaks is implying
that by pulling the story they are acting as an editor. Mike Godwin is
saying otherwise. So, that's why this is controversial: because the
issue at hand is involving the potential liability of the foundation.
-Dan
On May 18, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for
> a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with
> something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting
> of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same
> power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to
> lawsuits.
> Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank
> everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their
> vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ryan <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in
> danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of
>> the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping
>> Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this
>> not
>> about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
>>
>> Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn
>> at
>> all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact
>> that I
>> disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting
>> quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally
>> unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF.
>> (Doesn't
>> Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only
>> apply
>> if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
>>
>
> I've seen the deleted article. I don't feel comfortable discussing
> specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and
> on a
> purely personal note, it was a horribly written article). I would
> hope that
> administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to
> remove any articles that looked like that.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous
> stories that
> criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example). When I first
> heard about
> this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized
> why it was
> deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
>
> --
> [[User:Ral315]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark writes:
> It's certainly possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened
> because I have absolutely no idea) that the articles were being
> developed by someone who interviewed people who work for the
> Foundation, and that person was forbidden to submit the articles, or
> told to remove some things.
So far as I can determine, the articles were accessible by anyone in
the world who was capable of using "Recent changes."
So whatever happened, happened "post-publication" as far as the law
goes.
I'll note that Wikileaks is wrong to assert that the Foundation
removed the stories. (And Slashdot is wrong to repeat this
assertion.) If that had been our method of operation, I could have
removed the stories myself. Instead, we went to great lengths to
explain what our legal concerns were, privately, to representatives of
the community.
My view continues to be that the Foundation should almost never engage
in direct editing or removal of project content, except (as in DMCA
takedown notices) when we are required to do so by law.
Anything else should normally entail engagement of community members.
--Mike
\
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 84
> ********************************************
I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to lawsuits.
Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ryan <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of
> the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping
> Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not
> about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
>
> Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn at
> all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact that I
> disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting
> quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally
> unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF. (Doesn't
> Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only apply
> if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
>
I've seen the deleted article. I don't feel comfortable discussing
specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and on a
purely personal note, it was a horribly written article). I would hope that
administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to
remove any articles that looked like that.
The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous stories that
criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example). When I first heard about
this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized why it was
deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Todd writes:
> I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of
> the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping
> Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not
> about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
The Foundation has no interest in preventing Wikinews from publishing
a story critical of WMF. If you are under the impression the stories
were censored because they were critical of WMF, then you have your
facts wrong. Anyone who says this is simply mistaken.
> "Asserting your concerns privately", from a position of authority, is
> just a roundabout way of not having the "official stamp" on an
> official action. If the concerns had been brought up PUBLICLY, and a
> regular community discussion held (I don't know the exact way Wikinews
> handles deletion discussions, I'm sure they have some procedure), and
> the community agreed, then we can say it's a community action.
Unfortunately for your point, not all legal concerns can be discussed
with you in advance in public. If you think about it, you will see why.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
>> It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal
>> criticism
>> or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board
>> members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the
>> ones who ultimately will interpret this provision.
>
> What recourse does the board have against a board member that violates
> this agreement? Expulsion from the board?
There are other legal remedies as well, including (for example)
enjoining the publication of confidential information.
> A majority of the board
> already has the right to remove any board member, with or without
> cause.
Right. And this agreement goes further in outlining what might be
cause. (For example, if a Board member refuses to participate in Board
meetings or fulfill other Board requirements, that might be cause.)
> What recourse does the board have against a *former* board member that
> violates this agreement?
As I said, above, injunction is a remedy.
> As stands the agreement is far too ambiguous. At least fix up the
> ambiguities so it says what you claim it means, and get back to us.
> One thing that I'd insist upon personally is that the agreement makes
> it clear that it does not restrict sharing of non-confidential
> *information*, but merely certain means of sharing that
> non-confidential information. Maybe that line (slightly tweaked)
> could even be included.
It doesn't seem ambiguous to me, but if you want to suggest some
wordsmithing, feel free to take a stab at it.
> Of course, I personally wouldn't enter into a confidentiality
> agreement without adequate consideration, but I guess I can see how
> others might disagree with me on that point.
It depends on what you count as "adequate consideration." The fact
that the draft tries to prevent service on the Board from becoming a
suicide pact is couched in terms of mutual promises, and it is a
longstanding feature of contract law that in an exchange of promises,
each promise is consideration for the other.
> I'm not trying to help you, Mike, as you haven't presented me with a
> problem worthy of my help.
Thank you for your e-mail.
> But that does bring up another point. General principles apply to
> everyone. If personal attacks are the only things you're trying to
> restrict from the non-disparagement clause, why limit the restriction
> to only certain people?
It's not, actually. Employees have already signed such an agreement.
And I was bound to nondisparagement of the Foundation even before I
signed, as a function of my legal duties.
> Do you think it's OK, for instance, for Sue
> Gardner to personally attack Danny Wool, calling him a "disgruntled
> former employee" on CNET? Would you consider that a personal attack?
> Was it ethical because you think Danny attacked someone first, or
> because Danny wasn't a current employee, or because he wasn't high
> enough in the organization before leaving?
I think that in a properly constructed professional relationship,
Danny's attacks after he resigned wouldn't have occurred, and Sue
wouldn't have felt compelled to respond to them. The fact that our
employment and post-employment agreements were not adequately
professionalized until after Danny chose to depart is one of the
issues that we have already addressed. I do of course think there is
an ethical obligation to establish a framework in which, going
forward, the Foundation and its employees and Board undertake to treat
one another professionally, as all well-run companies do.
> Am I now
> attacking Sue? I did mention her name, after all. I *am*
> *criticizing* her actions. Is it wrong for us to even be discussing
> this? Should we engage in cryptic allusions via hypothetical
> situations which certain people know how to decode and others don't?
So far as I can tell, you're not attacking anyone, although you are
conflating (1) ethical questions with (2) questions about Board
obligations and (3) questions about employer-employee relationships.
(This may help Florence, as you say you are trying to do, but I think
mixing up three subject areas probably is less helpful than you
imagine.)
> I'm "chilled" from contributing on this list because I
> know if I say certain things I'm going to get this barrage of public
> personal attacks calling me a troll and asking me to leave.
Please understand me when I say I feel your pain.
> I'm all for developing a set of principles, as a community, for
> reducing the personal attacks. But I think you're going about this
> all wrong. If you want my help, then let's throw out the
> non-disparagement clause in the current agreement, and work together
> as a community to come up with a set of general principles that we
> *all* can agree on and that we can apply to *everyone*.
I'm sorry to have given you the impression that the goal of the Board
draft agreement is to fix the personal-attack issue for the community
at large. I think it is much narrower than that, and meant to apply
only to Board members, in response to their request for a
comprehensive agreement.
--Mike
(Resent with correct subject header)
George writes:
> POST-publication control, such as removing libelous or offensive or
> questionable content, has been held to be protected under CDA and
> other legal theories.
>
> I think WikiLeaks are confused.
It's pretty clear that Wikileaks's analysis didn't come from a lawyer
familiar with CDA caselaw.
--Mike
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70738
Does anybody know are they planning to make "a reliable fork" (like
Citizendium) or they are going online like Britannica (maybe with
MediaWiki)?
Thomas writes:
> Expressing disagreement with someone involves saying, in some form or
> other "I think you are wrong." That is criticism, and it's of a
> person, thus it's personal criticism. Perhaps we're using different
> definitions of "criticise"? (In addition to different spellings ;))
I think it's more likely that we're using different definitions of
"personal."
If you believe I'm using the wrong definition of "personal" or
"criticize," please be assured that I don't take it as a personal
criticism.
--Mike
George writes:
> POST-publication control, such as removing libelous or offensive or
> questionable content, has been held to be protected under CDA and
> other legal theories.
>
> I think WikiLeaks are confused.
It's pretty clear that Wikileaks's analysis didn't come from a lawyer
familiar with CDA caselaw.
--Mike