I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF
did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it
follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it
had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run
in both directions).
Given that concern about disinformation on Wikipedia and elsewhere was less
prominent in public discourse a decade ago, Occam's Razor suggests that the
primary reason for any change in willingness to engage in top-down
intervention was that disinformation was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as
less of problem. In addition, you assert (without any facts offered in
support) that WMF was just as well-positioned to directly intervene in
disinformation problems a decade ago as they may be now, or as they may
soon be. This doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than
prejudgment.
But if moral condemnation based on presumption of a lack of ... some virtue
or other ... floats your boat, who am I to detract from your innocent fun?
Mike
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I
wasn't really
thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual
integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address
"misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than
restricting
itself to deletions required by law.
The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an
example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do
what it has done now, ten years ago.
In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is
a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now
trying to address.
Andreas
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Andreas Kolbe writes:
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article
(now also on
fastcompany.com)
quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues
related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant
departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all
responsibility
for content ....
WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF
disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was
understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made
a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor
community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were
straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions,
typically as required by law.
Mike Godwin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org