On 11/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Maybe, but one thing I noticed recently is that [[Section 230]] of the CDA doesn't say that a service provider *isn't* a publisher, it says they won't "be treated as" a publisher. That's a subtle but perhaps significant difference.
That's a very significant difference. It doesn't say "a provider which is not a publisher", it just says "a provider". Based on that, I would say the WMF is the publisher of Wikipedia, but it isn't liable as publisher for user generated content.
The risk there is in trying to be everything and nothing at the same time. The safest approach remains in keeping the publishing and ISP functions as far apart as possible.
It's not really a choice we can make. The WMF is what it is. If that is a publisher, then so be it. If it isn't, then great. We can't decide.