George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So state it as much as you want. The WMF is a publisher. Under Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher, but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
The section 230 that would seem to matter here?
The WMF has all sorts of roles, depending on who you are, how you look at it, and what your perspective is (and what day of the month it is, etc). Referring to legal issues, one has to remain domain specific when using specific terms in a legal sense.
It's also quite unsettled what Section 230 protections consist of to begin with. Some U.S. courts have applied them *extremely* broadly. One still-current Circuit Court precedent, which is binding in the distrct Wikimedia servers are located, is _Batzel v. Smith_ (9th Circuit, 2003), which holds that a blogger who reposts material emailed to him, even though he chooses which emails to republish, is entitled to Section 230 protection by virtue of the mere fact that the material he publishes originates ultimately with his "users", and is not something he personally authored. It's hard to imagine any Wikimedia Foundation activity w.r.t. Wikipedia that doesn't meet at least the _Batzel_ standard, apart from Wikimedia Foundation employees literally inserting original content into Wikipedia articles while on the clock. If the ultimate source of the content is elsewhere, regardless of what editorial or publishing decisions are made in the middle, it's Section-230-protected under _Batzel_. Of course, _Batzel_ might be wrong and overturned in the future, which is the risk of relying too much on law in this as-yet-unsettled area...
-Mark