Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's remarkably inconsistent of you. You
begin by complaining about
excessive secrecy then contradict yourself by supporting a piece of
totalitarian trash that would impose just that, notably in forbidding
people who have received information requests from letting anyone know
that they have received such requests. When it comes to circumventing
laws the U.S. Patriot Act is fair game.
Personally I think the wikimedia
projects are quite valuable and useful in undercutting the
justifications used for the activation of the totalitarian trash
embodied in the Patriot Act. Thus, IMHO, any contemplated acts of civil
disobedience likely to bring swift and accurate reprisals from the
powers that be in the U.S. are best done elsewhere away from wikimedia
sponsored projects. This is true whether you, I or others are good
little wikimedians just wishing to avoid trouble at any price or all out
patriots just itching to score some effective points on the
totalitarians currently in charge.
Effective resistance is more a matter of opportunity than
premeditation. If I have not been served with a gag order I can't
resist it. I am not one of those who would avoid trouble at any price,
but manipulating circumstances for the sole purpose of spurring the
patriotism police into action is still trolling.
If you are a U.S. voter I will point out that it is
likely to be more
effective voting representatives into office who will take out the
totalitarian trash rather than resisting smart missiles launched by the
U.S. military from hundreds of miles away or secret warrants or
decisions made out of view of the public, allegedly for the benefit of
the U.S. public.
Good luck!
If you are not a U.S. citizen, I should point out that
large social
systems with lots of momentum often take large aggregate inputs and time
to change course. A choice to actively resist U.S.G. totalitarian trash
may be a life or death altering decision that is effectively irrevocable
for the next few decades or centuries.
Those of us outside the US see these things more clearly. It's easier
to see the whole forest when you're standing outside of it.
I suggest the community members present on the
Foundation-L mailing list
consider a placebo vote regarding whether the Wikimedia Foundation
should issue an apology to Eric and reimburse him for the long distance
calls necessary to recover his editing priveleges.
"Placebo vote" sounds like an interesting concept. I interpret such a
vote as one designed to make people feel good without accomplishing
anything. :-)
If it makes Eric aware that he is still a valued member of the larger
local community of participants even after an alleged or actual error or
two then it will have accomplished quite a bit. There is no "edit
boldly" or initiative without an occasional mistake. This could
probably be supported by reference to Murphy's law, thermodynamic
maximization of entropy, original sin, or something if I were not
feeling so lazy at the moment.
Perhaps "vote of confidence" might have been a better term. Entropy in
a volunteer organization becomes manifest when it substitutes rules for
principles.
People unfamilar with law as
it is practiced in the United States have a tendency towards gullibility
when a well educated lawyer in a crisp three piece suit getting paid big
bucks gives them free advice. ... It turns out that a lawyer
representing his client is apparently free (of consequences) to give
others poor legal advice (lie or attempt to deceive people other than
his client regarding matters of law) if it serves the interests of their
official paying client or some other similar self serving mumbo jumbo.
There is an element of institutionalized chutzpah to it all. Lawyers
play a large role in writing laws. And what lawyer turned judge would
recuse himself for conflict of interest in a case that attacks the
privileges of his profession?
It's fascinating to observe how otherwise normal rebels who regularly
confront elitism in the professions will still pusilanimously pepper
their comments with "IANAL".
Drat! I forgot to ask whether his firm does business
with Bomis or
Wikia or other businesses owned, operated or invested in by members of
the stacked Board. Maybe next time.
Hmm ... also forgot to ask whether he volunteers time as an editor at
any Wikimedia projects or operates any investigatory sock puppets. ....
Maybe the time after the next time minus negative three or four?
I think that I would prefer an approach that does not make one lawyer a
scapegoat for his entire industry.
I guess what I should have or could have asked is: In
your
professional opinion, would it reduce current or future legal
liabilities and/or expenses if different guidelines (from the apparently
nonexistent ones or the ones currently in use) regarding conflicts of
interest or potential conflicts of interest were developed and
implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation?
Is this really the stuff for lawyers' opinions? In all fairness to
lawyers people who ask them questions are more often looking for
certainty instead of mere opinion. A relatively honest lawyer after due
research may tell them that a certain course of action has a 99% chance
of not leading to a lawsuit, but the client is not satisfied with the 1%
risk so he rejects the more profitable course of action out of fear. It
really comes down to people making decisions and accepting the
responsibility and consequences of those decisions without looking for
someone else (like a lawyer) to blame when things go sour.
I am often
highly critical of the current management format, but I can
also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of
such a model.
I also would be skeptical of a "pure" "democracy" of one sock
puppet one
vote. I doubt it is even feasible to set up such a structure up as a
U.S. liability limited non profit or for profit corporation. It is my
understanding that U.S. law requires specific accountable points of
contact when filing for the legal priveleges granted to regulated legal
organizations. However, there is a wide range of lattitude left to the
individual registered organization in the U.S. regarding how they
"manage" their own affairs within the constraints of the law. The
dichotomy of our current and past discussion alternating between
unilateral bandwidthianism (the guy with control of the centralized
editing bandwidth makes the rules) and total chaos (one sock puppet one
vote) barely scratches the surface of the range of possibilities
available in the good old USA.
U.S. corporate structures are governed by state law. It says something
when a state like Delaware has corporate headquarters completely out of
proportion to its population. Voting in profit corporations is
democratically on a one share one vote basis; you can buy as many
sockpuppets as you can afford. I don't really have a solution to
suggest about how Wikimedia should be run. In the early days there were
many sceptics who could not imagine such a scheme as viable, and look
where it ranks now within the top 20 websites in the world. Wikiholics
(even just American ones) are not typical of their ambient populations.
It's a gang of people with insanely strong individual POVs trying to
bring NPOV to the world. Go figure!
Ec