Absent Erik's irregular "State of the Wiki" reports on Wikinews we have a number of developments that are going to need input from the wider WMF community, potentially including Mike Godwin's input or that of board members on formulation of policies. I will apologise in advance in case I waffle or ramble.
The first issue I'd like to bring up is embargoed stories, we've had two within the space of about a week. The first was the technology pioneers one, the latest is the newest leak of the manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Standard_Operating_Procedure_changes_at_Camp_De lta%2C_Guantanamo_Bay).
In both cases work was carried out in secret with static web pages updated, invite-only IRC channels, and emails flying about. This isn't exactly what we're meant to be doing, but if a source says they'll tell us something provided we don't publish it before a specific time we have to either respect their wishes or decline the offer. We lose credibility, stories, and relevance if we decline these sort of chances.
My first thought on this was that a private wiki is required, embargoed.wikinews.org or similar. Yet, the story up on Slashdot at the moment, and accusations of a Cabal-esque secret mailing list would not be mitigated by opening another private channel for communication and cooperation. I cannot think of alternatives that would meet the needs of these situations unfortunately.
Among the issues we need to deal are things like translation. Our Camp Delta story is (when I last looked) up in 5 languages. The only mainstream media also covering the story is the Washington Post, but more will follow as the U.S. wakes up and the papers come out. We were first, but I believe we could have had more language coverage and a more in-depth article had we had a familiar (i.e. wiki) collaborative space. I am trying to chase up an Arabic translator to get the story on ar.wikinews.org, and am in contact with former Guantanamo chaplain James Yee who I hope to get to take a look at their translation of the rules as well as answer some questions.
Moving on from that, and on to a related item; one that has probably been asked by 1 in 5 of every new Wikinewsies that sticks around. "Why aren't we listed on Google News?" The simple answer is we have no editorial control. With an "anyone can edit" approach we fail some of the criteria Google applies when approving or declining potential sources. We are forced to use a poor man's workaround which is republishing stories on a blog which Google have approved. So, for our Gitmo story the blog is listed (http://www.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff http://www.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enBE176BE229&h l=en&q=guantanamo+bay+camp+delta&ie=UTF-8 &rlz=1B3GGGL_enBE176BE229&hl=en&q=guantanamo+bay+camp+delta&ie=UTF-8) but as soon as other sources come up it will slip into obscurity. Actually having the genuine Wikinews listed would not have us in that situation.
I have proposed one solution, and Angela has countered with another. Angela's suggestion is the Foundation set up blog.wikinews.org and Wikinews use that, but my reaction is whilst that address would be given a more prominent Google listing it would still have all the technical issues associated with updates, particularly when dealing with stories such as the Virginia Tech shootings or London Bombings.
My proposal is the Wikinews adopt flagged revisions and create a policy to select those who may flag revisions. Thus, those with the ability to flag would become the editorial control team and collectively responsible for editorial control. The Foundation remains independent of editorial control (another thorn with Google).
Any input on this would be much appreciated. I have every reason to believe that other languages, for example Polish, would also be interested in FlaggedRevs. They are becoming increasingly active and if you check their version of the Camp Delta story they've really gone to town filling it out. They've also established good media contacts and I strongly suspect their story, and their translation of the detainee rules will appear in tomorrow's Polish newspapers.
Brian McNeil
My first thought on this was that a private wiki is required, embargoed.wikinews.org or similar. Yet, the story up on Slashdot at the moment, and accusations of a Cabal-esque secret mailing list would not be mitigated by opening another private channel for communication and cooperation. I cannot think of alternatives that would meet the needs of these situations unfortunately.
There is a difference between lake of transparency and secrecy. Having an embargo sub-wiki should be fine as long as its existence and purpose is transparent. What is happening on it at any given time has to be secret, but that doesn't mean people can't know that the site exists. The other key point is that embargoes are, by their very nature, temporary - things happening on the embargo site will be transwikied to the main site after a fairly short period of time. I suggest keeping all discussion about a particular embargoed story on that article's talk page, and transwikiing that as well, then people know exactly what's going on, just not straight away.
Moving on from that, and on to a related item; one that has probably been asked by 1 in 5 of every new Wikinewsies that sticks around. "Why aren't we listed on Google News?" The simple answer is we have no editorial control.
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
I'm surprised the current workaround works - if the blog just reposts every story without any editing, then I can't see why Google accept it, if the person running the blog is taking editorial responsibility, then they are putting themselves at significant risk (unless they do verify every article they post, which is a hell of a job).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Moving on from that, and on to a related item; one that has probably been asked by 1 in 5 of every new Wikinewsies that sticks around. "Why aren't we listed on Google News?" The simple answer is we have no editorial control.
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
I am aware of this. I do not see how something illegal and unflagged would become the responsibility of an editorial committee or board. The point would be to say, "Here is *raw* Wikinews", or "Here is editorially checked Wikinews". The latter being the default for Google and all anonymous visitors. Registered users should get a choice which to view. (I am not aware of technical details of FlaggedRevs).
I'm surprised the current workaround works - if the blog just reposts every story without any editing, then I can't see why Google accept it, if the person running the blog is taking editorial responsibility, then they are putting themselves at significant risk (unless they do verify every article they post, which is a hell of a job).
Not every story gets posted; lead stories usually go up, and they generally have more eyeballs paying attention to them. However, the process is manual, and impractical for rapidly developing stories.
As I mentioned I am aware that anyone who took on the responsibility is at risk and many, if not most, of our contributors would be bankrupted were they taken to court over an article. However, I do not believe that a significant portion of other contributors are fully aware of this. Personally? I'd take on the responsibility. Here in Belgium you have to first convince a judge there is a case to hear. I've fought that on behalf of my partner as the libelled party - so I'm not completely clueless. Someone sues or tries to get me prosecuted in absentia? I don't think it is an extraditable offense. I just have to keep a list of countries not to visit or transit through and hope I don't suffer an extraordinary rendition for approving something nasty about the current U.S. regime.
Brian McNeil
I am aware of this. I do not see how something illegal and unflagged would become the responsibility of an editorial committee or board.
I was thinking about flagged articles. I imagine a simple disclaimer for unflagged articles (similar to the one there is already for all articles, I imagine - I haven't looked to see what disclaimers Wikinews has) would be fine to stop flaggers being liable for them.
As I mentioned I am aware that anyone who took on the responsibility is at risk and many, if not most, of our contributors would be bankrupted were they taken to court over an article. However, I do not believe that a significant portion of other contributors are fully aware of this. Personally? I'd take on the responsibility. Here in Belgium you have to first convince a judge there is a case to hear. I've fought that on behalf of my partner as the libelled party - so I'm not completely clueless. Someone sues or tries to get me prosecuted in absentia? I don't think it is an extraditable offense. I just have to keep a list of countries not to visit or transit through and hope I don't suffer an extraordinary rendition for approving something nasty about the current U.S. regime.
As long as the people taking on the responsibility know what they're doing (as you seem to), it's up to them, but it does need to be made clear to anyone volunteering that they are at personal risk. Someone would also need to check with Mike Godwin to make sure the WMF isn't also being put at risk (I would imagine not, but I don't know the ins and outs of it all).
Brian McNeil wrote:
hope I don't suffer an extraordinary rendition for approving something nasty about the current U.S. regime.
Truth is a defence in US libel law. ;-)
Ec
On 05/12/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
hope I don't suffer an extraordinary rendition for approving something nasty about the current U.S. regime.
Truth is a defence in US libel law. ;-)
Just have to hope you end up in front of a judge that was appointed during a previous regime, I guess...
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
On Dec 4, 2007 9:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
Both for copyright and libel there are provisions in the US that limit the liability of "service providers" for the actions of their users. Generally, part of liability protection comes from the conclusion that the service provider is unaware of the negative behavior of the users.
My understanding is that if there were a full-fledged editor responsible for approving every story then that person (or organization) could be liable in the event that something they approved was found to libelous or otherwise injurious to a third party. Or in other words once you put in a filter on submitted content, you may be responsible when negative content inappropriately gets through that filter.
However, as far as I know, there is very little in the way of case law that actually addresses the liability associated with massive collaboration systems, like wikis. It is unclear to me what liability a volunteer editor might have when confronted with the injurious statements of another volunteer contributor.
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 4, 2007 1:59 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 9:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
Both for copyright and libel there are provisions in the US that limit the liability of "service providers" for the actions of their users. Generally, part of liability protection comes from the conclusion that the service provider is unaware of the negative behavior of the users.
I think you're going to have to cite some sources for that, post Section 230, as far as the US goes. Because the cases I have read have contradicted that point. Specifically, I'm thinking of [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]].
My understanding is that if there were a full-fledged editor responsible for approving every story then that person (or organization) could be liable in the event that something they approved was found to libelous or otherwise injurious to a third party. Or in other words once you put in a filter on submitted content, you may be responsible when negative content inappropriately gets through that filter.
Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and rejected. The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage* self-policing and filtering. If services which filtered content were held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and filtering using the very argument you are now making.
However, as far as I know, there is very little in the way of case law that actually addresses the liability associated with massive collaboration systems, like wikis. It is unclear to me what liability a volunteer editor might have when confronted with the injurious statements of another volunteer contributor.
The fact that it is a massive collaboration system likely is irrelevant. Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity to both a "provider or user of an interactive computer service". It has been said that this immunity is essentially applicable to anyone who communicates over the Internet, so long as the information is "provided by another information content provider".
Anthony wrote:
The fact that it is a massive collaboration system likely is irrelevant. Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity to both a "provider or user of an interactive computer service". It has been said that this immunity is essentially applicable to anyone who communicates over the Internet, so long as the information is "provided by another information content provider".
That's all well and good for the Foundation.
I'm not certain that editorial liability is the same thing as what you're talking about. Newspaper editors are responsible for what they accept and publish from their reporters. I am sure some areas would hold to that same principle with an online news source with an editorial team approving what was being picked up and listed in Google News. I think [[w:Ian Hislop]] would agree with me, at least were someone from the UK found to have pushed the button to publish libel about a UK figure.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 4, 2007 3:14 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The fact that it is a massive collaboration system likely is irrelevant. Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity to both a "provider or user of an interactive computer service". It has been said that this immunity is essentially applicable to anyone who communicates over the Internet, so long as the information is "provided by another information content provider".
That's all well and good for the Foundation.
I'm not certain that editorial liability is the same thing as what you're talking about. Newspaper editors are responsible for what they accept and publish from their reporters. I am sure some areas would hold to that same principle with an online news source with an editorial team approving what was being picked up and listed in Google News. I think [[w:Ian Hislop]] would agree with me, at least were someone from the UK found to have pushed the button to publish libel about a UK figure.
My comments were strictly limited to the US, which Robert and Thomas both mentioned in response to my question of jurisdiction. In fact, outside of California, Barrett v. Rosenthal doesn't even hold as precedent, though I believe the legal argument makes sense. Don't take my word for it, though. Read it yourself, or at least read the Wikipedia article about it.
I also suspect Congress is going to have to act if this precedent holds. Something like the DMCA for libel, with takedown notices and such, would probably make a lot more sense.
Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and rejected. The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage* self-policing and filtering. If services which filtered content were held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and filtering using the very argument you are now making.
That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New York Times.
That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New York Times.
The courts have already ruled that what an anonymous contributors posts to an online message board is not the responsibility of the owners of that message board. An online version of the New York Times, if it's open for anonymous submissions, would fall under the same category.
Now, the New York Times paper, the printed edition, is not open for anonymous editing, and so is probably held to different standards.
--Andrew Whitworth
The courts have already ruled that what an anonymous contributors posts to an online message board is not the responsibility of the owners of that message board. An online version of the New York Times, if it's open for anonymous submissions, would fall under the same category.
No-one is disputing that. I'm talking about an online newspaper taking submissions from the public, not a public message board. The key difference is that the newspaper selects stories it thinks are good from the submissions.
On Dec 4, 2007 4:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The courts have already ruled that what an anonymous contributors posts to an online message board is not the responsibility of the owners of that message board. An online version of the New York Times, if it's open for anonymous submissions, would fall under the same category.
No-one is disputing that. I'm talking about an online newspaper taking submissions from the public, not a public message board. The key difference is that the newspaper selects stories it thinks are good from the submissions.
an online X where anonymous contributors may post materials that are not explicitly moderated or approved prior to public display. In this case, "X" can really be a "online newspaper", "message board", "forum", "newsgroup", etc. Terminology really doesnt make a difference in the method of the post nor the net effect of it.
--Andrew whitworth
On 04/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 4:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The courts have already ruled that what an anonymous contributors posts to an online message board is not the responsibility of the owners of that message board. An online version of the New York Times, if it's open for anonymous submissions, would fall under the same category.
No-one is disputing that. I'm talking about an online newspaper taking submissions from the public, not a public message board. The key difference is that the newspaper selects stories it thinks are good from the submissions.
an online X where anonymous contributors may post materials that are not explicitly moderated or approved prior to public display. In this case, "X" can really be a "online newspaper", "message board", "forum", "newsgroup", etc. Terminology really doesnt make a difference in the method of the post nor the net effect of it.
We are explicitly discussing the case where content *is* moderated and approved, so why are you talking about the opposite? I think everyone on this list is familiar with CDA 230's implications for unmoderated public contributions to websites, since it's brought up at least once a week.
On Dec 4, 2007 4:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The courts have already ruled that what an anonymous contributors posts to an online message board is not the responsibility of the owners of that message board. An online version of the New York Times, if it's open for anonymous submissions, would fall under the same category.
No-one is disputing that. I'm talking about an online newspaper taking submissions from the public, not a public message board. The key difference is that the newspaper selects stories it thinks are good from the submissions.
Barrett v. Rosenthal was a case which could most innocently be described as a moderated mailing list (there is some dispute there because the mail was sent to the personal email address of someone who then edited and forwarded it on to the mailing list). The email was certainly selected, but immunity for passing it on was still granted. The decision followed from Batzel v. Smith (9th circuit 2003) which answered the question of "under what circumstances a *moderator* [my emphasis] of a listserv and operator of a website who posts an allegedly defamatory e-mail authored by a third party can be held liable for doing so". The majority opinion explicitly said "Because Cremers did no more than select and make minor alterations to Smith's e-mail, Cremers cannot be considered the content provider of Smith's e-mail for purposes of § 230."
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and rejected. The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage* self-policing and filtering. If services which filtered content were held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and filtering using the very argument you are now making.
That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New York Times.
If the comments are not subject to editorial control and not in print, you might as well be talking about Slashdot.
Brian McNeil
That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New York Times.
If the comments are not subject to editorial control and not in print, you might as well be talking about Slashdot.
It didn't say there was no editorial control. It should be obvious from context that I was assuming editorial control, since that was the entire point of my argument.
On Dec 4, 2007 4:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and rejected. The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage* self-policing and filtering. If services which filtered content were held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and filtering using the very argument you are now making.
That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation.
I'd say it's a hell of a law, more than a hell of an interpretation. The Supreme Court of California even admitted that the law has "disturbing implications", after ruling on its interpretation.
If it's correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New York Times.
I'm not sure what your view of "us" is that you think is excluded from potentially being subject to the latter. Unlike nuclear weapons I don't think mutually assured destruction will work for libel law.
On Dec 4, 2007 11:54 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 1:59 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 9:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because
with
editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone
takes
editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable
for
anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
Both for copyright and libel there are provisions in the US that limit
the
liability of "service providers" for the actions of their users.
Generally,
part of liability protection comes from the conclusion that the service provider is unaware of the negative behavior of the users.
I think you're going to have to cite some sources for that, post Section 230, as far as the US goes. Because the cases I have read have contradicted that point. Specifically, I'm thinking of [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]].
My understanding is that if there were a full-fledged editor responsible
for
approving every story then that person (or organization) could be liable
in
the event that something they approved was found to libelous or
otherwise
injurious to a third party. Or in other words once you put in a filter
on
submitted content, you may be responsible when negative content inappropriately gets through that filter.
Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and rejected. The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage* self-policing and filtering. If services which filtered content were held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and filtering using the very argument you are now making.
However, as far as I know, there is very little in the way of case law
that
actually addresses the liability associated with massive collaboration systems, like wikis. It is unclear to me what liability a volunteer
editor
might have when confronted with the injurious statements of another volunteer contributor.
The fact that it is a massive collaboration system likely is irrelevant. Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity to both a "provider or user of an interactive computer service". It has been said that this immunity is essentially applicable to anyone who communicates over the Internet, so long as the information is "provided by another information content provider".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony,
I was somewhat careless in my description.
To quote Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Where "information content provider" means "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service"
A person who serves in the traditional role of an editor, i.e. someone who both selects what content to publish and contributes to editting that content, is in an ambiguous position with respect to 230. To apply the traditional dead-tree standards, an editor and the organization to which he belong can be responsible for the content being published, even if they are unaware of its injurious nature. Or more specifically, this person is traditionally seen as sharing in the role of being a content provider.
230 provides a scenario where a person managing content need not be seen as a content provider, and may be protected as a neutral party. Specifically, he may be afforded protection if he is merely a user and not an "information content provider" for the injurious content. So, the whole thing basically turns on whether or not the editor will be seen as a neutral conduit or an active participant in the information creation; should he be counted as merely a user or as a person "responsible... for the creation or development of information" that he publishes. Is it two independent acts of information creation, or one collective act?
Someone who merely attempts to select information, ala Slashdot, is probably in a strong position to argue for the 230 exemption. Someone who participates in the content creation process at Wikinews, while also deciding when to promote/"publish" the story is probably in a much weaker position. By traditional standards, the author, editor, and publisher are often seen as engaging in a single extended act of content creation. I suspect that the more people involved in the Wikinews editting and publishing process, the more likely it is to be seen as an extended act rather than a set of independent acts.
To consider an absurd reduction of this problem, suppose User:X writes an article about how George Bush likes to have threesomes with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole. You read this story, and decide to promote it as a serious publication on Wikinews and send it to Google News. Now, is it reasonable that you should be immune from liability? I'd certainly say no. You participated in an injurious publication process when you certainly should have known better. I suspect the courts would interpret an act like that as not exempt (even if they had to bend over backwards to do so).
Somewhere between my absurd example and the case of a simple message board there is probably a fuzzy gray line to decide when someone is just a user and when they are part of an extended content creation process. In the absense of guiding case law, I personally am going to stay away from the middle ground, but you are free to choose differently.
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 4, 2007 5:57 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony,
I was somewhat careless in my description.
To quote Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Where "information content provider" means "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service"
A person who serves in the traditional role of an editor, i.e. someone who both selects what content to publish and contributes to editting that content, is in an ambiguous position with respect to 230.
Yes, it depends if their editing constitutes being a provider of information.
To apply the traditional dead-tree standards, an editor and the organization to which he belong can be responsible for the content being published, even if they are unaware of its injurious nature. Or more specifically, this person is traditionally seen as sharing in the role of being a content provider.
But Section 230 of the CDA intentionally creates a different standard for Internet publications and traditional dead-tree standards. Or, to quote the very first paragraph of Batzel v. Smith:
<blockquote> There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.</blockquote>
Someone who merely attempts to select information, ala Slashdot, is probably in a strong position to argue for the 230 exemption. Someone who participates in the content creation process at Wikinews, while also deciding when to promote/"publish" the story is probably in a much weaker position.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, there is some dispute over how fine grained the "provided by another information content provider" should be taken. If someone edits one section of a Wikipedia article, do they give up immunity for that section, for the entire article, for the entire site, or for only the statements they actually wrote? I'll certainly admit the law itself is not clear on that point. The courts seem to be taking a narrow view, though. I don't have any citations on that at the moment though, so I'll leave it open.
By traditional standards, the author, editor, and publisher are often seen as engaging in a single extended act of content creation. I suspect that the more people involved in the Wikinews editting and publishing process, the more likely it is to be seen as an extended act rather than a set of independent acts.
Traditional standards are completely irrelevant, in my opinion, because Congress clearly and intentionally provided different standards for providers *or users* of interactive computer services.
To consider an absurd reduction of this problem, suppose User:X writes an article about how George Bush likes to have threesomes with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole. You read this story, and decide to promote it as a serious publication on Wikinews and send it to Google News. Now, is it reasonable that you should be immune from liability? I'd certainly say no.
Should you be immune from liability? No way. Are you immune from liability under the CDA? Under current precedent in California, probably (IANAL, don't try this at home, etc). Elsewhere in the 9th Circuit, probably (IANAL, don't try this at home, etc). Elsewhere in the US, depends how good your lawyer is.
You participated in an injurious publication process when you certainly should have known better. I suspect the courts would interpret an act like that as not exempt (even if they had to bend over backwards to do so).
Did you read the details of the cases I provided? Take Barrett v. Rosenthal, which I liken to Bang Bang v. Giano II. Some guy took a libelous (*) email someone sent him and published it on the Internet. He participated in an injurious (*) publication process when he certainly should have known better (*). And he got off scott-free.
(*) At least, this was assumed to be true for the purpose of the case.
Somewhere between my absurd example and the case of a simple message board there is probably a fuzzy gray line to decide when someone is just a user and when they are part of an extended content creation process. In the absense of guiding case law, I personally am going to stay away from the middle ground, but you are free to choose differently.
My moral standards are such that I'm going to choose not to participate in such behavior regardless of the law, but I provided the case law - [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]] and [[Batzel v. Smith]]. At least read the Wikipedia article, if not the actual decisions.
Just for the record, according to Shepard's, Batzel has been distinguished 4 times, and criticized 2 times.
Feel free to check out the following (ignore the indent's, they're a problem with cutting and pasting)
7TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
11. Criticized by: Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21345 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12 347 F.3d 655 p.660 7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
12. Criticized by: Chi. Lawyers' Comm. for Civ. Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 681, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82973 (N.D. Ill. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN23,HN24, HN25 461 F. Supp. 2d 681 p.690
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 668 (9th Cir. Cal. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25 433 F.3d 1199 p.1251 20. Distinguished by: Sanai v. Sanai, 141 Fed. Appx. 677, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17785 (9th Cir. Wash. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN26 141 Fed. Appx. 677 p.678
38. Distinguished by, Cited by: Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11665 (N.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN23, HN24, HN25
On Dec 4, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 5:57 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony,
I was somewhat careless in my description.
To quote Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Where "information content provider" means "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service"
A person who serves in the traditional role of an editor, i.e. someone who both selects what content to publish and contributes to editting that content, is in an ambiguous position with respect to 230.
Yes, it depends if their editing constitutes being a provider of information.
To apply the traditional dead-tree standards, an editor and the organization to which he belong can be responsible for the content being published, even if they are unaware of its injurious nature. Or more specifically, this person is traditionally seen as sharing in the role of being a content provider.
But Section 230 of the CDA intentionally creates a different standard for Internet publications and traditional dead-tree standards. Or, to quote the very first paragraph of Batzel v. Smith:
<blockquote> There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.</blockquote>
Someone who merely attempts to select information, ala Slashdot, is probably in a strong position to argue for the 230 exemption. Someone who participates in the content creation process at Wikinews, while also deciding when to promote/"publish" the story is probably in a much weaker position.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, there is some dispute over how fine grained the "provided by another information content provider" should be taken. If someone edits one section of a Wikipedia article, do they give up immunity for that section, for the entire article, for the entire site, or for only the statements they actually wrote? I'll certainly admit the law itself is not clear on that point. The courts seem to be taking a narrow view, though. I don't have any citations on that at the moment though, so I'll leave it open.
By traditional standards, the author, editor, and publisher are often seen as engaging in a single extended act of content creation. I suspect that the more people involved in the Wikinews editting and publishing process, the more likely it is to be seen as an extended act rather than a set of independent acts.
Traditional standards are completely irrelevant, in my opinion, because Congress clearly and intentionally provided different standards for providers *or users* of interactive computer services.
To consider an absurd reduction of this problem, suppose User:X writes an article about how George Bush likes to have threesomes with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole. You read this story, and decide to promote it as a serious publication on Wikinews and send it to Google News. Now, is it reasonable that you should be immune from liability? I'd certainly say no.
Should you be immune from liability? No way. Are you immune from liability under the CDA? Under current precedent in California, probably (IANAL, don't try this at home, etc). Elsewhere in the 9th Circuit, probably (IANAL, don't try this at home, etc). Elsewhere in the US, depends how good your lawyer is.
You participated in an injurious publication process when you certainly should have known better. I suspect the courts would interpret an act like that as not exempt (even if they had to bend over backwards to do so).
Did you read the details of the cases I provided? Take Barrett v. Rosenthal, which I liken to Bang Bang v. Giano II. Some guy took a libelous (*) email someone sent him and published it on the Internet. He participated in an injurious (*) publication process when he certainly should have known better (*). And he got off scott-free.
(*) At least, this was assumed to be true for the purpose of the case.
Somewhere between my absurd example and the case of a simple message board there is probably a fuzzy gray line to decide when someone is just a user and when they are part of an extended content creation process. In the absense of guiding case law, I personally am going to stay away from the middle ground, but you are free to choose differently.
My moral standards are such that I'm going to choose not to participate in such behavior regardless of the law, but I provided the case law - [[Barrett v. Rosenthal]] and [[Batzel v. Smith]]. At least read the Wikipedia article, if not the actual decisions.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 04/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
The understanding comes from having spent far too much time reading Wikimedia mailing lists. The jurisdiction? Primarily US, but the same applies to any other jurisdiction with similar protection for hosts.
On Dec 4, 2007 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we don't have editorial control of any kind is because with editorial control comes editorial responsibility. At the moment, any libel (or whatever) is solely the responsibility of the person that added it (at least, until WMF is formally notified). If someone takes editorial control, by my understanding, they would also be liable for anything illegal on the site.
Where does this understanding come from? And what jurisdiction(s) are you talking about?
The understanding comes from having spent far too much time reading Wikimedia mailing lists. The jurisdiction? Primarily US, but the same applies to any other jurisdiction with similar protection for hosts.
Wikimedia mailing lists are not a reliable source for such information. In fact, for this particular topic it seems to largely be a horrible source for information.
On 12/4/07, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
My first thought on this was that a private wiki is required, embargoed.wikinews.org or similar. Yet, the story up on Slashdot at the moment, and accusations of a Cabal-esque secret mailing list would not be mitigated by opening another private channel for communication and cooperation. I cannot think of alternatives that would meet the needs of these situations unfortunately.
I don't see any issue with this, and I support a private wiki for the Wikinews community. :-) I've worked on sensitive materials for Wikinews myself, and found it awkward to have to put all information in public. The only question would be the rules governing access - perhaps that could be tied to accreditation?
Moving on from that, and on to a related item; one that has probably been asked by 1 in 5 of every new Wikinewsies that sticks around. "Why aren't we listed on Google News?" The simple answer is we have no editorial control. With an "anyone can edit" approach we fail some of the criteria Google applies when approving or declining potential sources.
That's what they told me when I met them two years ago. I tried to re-establish contact, but their staff has changed, and the new person hasn't gotten back to me yet. The reasons for exclusion that they gave to me then may no longer apply.
In any case, I do support Wikinews being among the first wikis trying out FlaggedRevs; it makes obvious sense.
The other thing I think we need for Wikinews is much better RSS support. I started a small project proposal at MicroPledge for this:
http://micropledge.com/projects/namespacenews-extension-for-mediawiki
Perhaps the Wikinews community can do some dedicated fundraising work for tech improvements like this?
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't see any issue with this, and I support a private wiki for the Wikinews community. :-) I've worked on sensitive materials for Wikinews myself, and found it awkward to have to put all information in public. The only question would be the rules governing access - perhaps that could be tied to accreditation?
Thanks for supporting this idea. Access has to be a bit wider than just Accredited reporters though. Arria and a bunch of other people she rounded up carried out translations on stories for us, some of them being Wikimedians who were happy to muck in.
Google news
That's what they told me when I met them two years ago. I tried to re-establish contact, but their staff has changed, and the new person hasn't gotten back to me yet. The reasons for exclusion that they gave to me then may no longer apply.
As they've told the few people who have tried to get us listed since.
In any case, I do support Wikinews being among the first wikis trying out FlaggedRevs; it makes obvious sense.
Again, thanks.
The other thing I think we need for Wikinews is much better RSS support. I started a small project proposal at MicroPledge for this:
http://micropledge.com/projects/namespacenews-extension-for-mediawiki
Perhaps the Wikinews community can do some dedicated fundraising work for tech improvements like this?
Not during the main fundraiser at least, and after there will be some fatigue from the public so it'd be some time in the future for that.
Brian McNeil
On 06/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't see any issue with this, and I support a private wiki for the Wikinews community. :-) I've worked on sensitive materials for Wikinews myself, and found it awkward to have to put all information in public. The only question would be the rules governing access - perhaps that could be tied to accreditation?
Thanks for supporting this idea. Access has to be a bit wider than just Accredited reporters though. Arria and a bunch of other people she rounded up carried out translations on stories for us, some of them being Wikimedians who were happy to muck in.
You may need something that allows Wikilike working together, but isn't MediaWiki - MW just doesn't allow access restriction more fine-grained than "can access this wiki" or not, so you wouldn't be able to compartmentalise stories very well. I think MoinMoin does, but MoinMoin is so annoying after using MW. Also, only MW uses MW wikitext. Annoying ...
- d.
On Dec 6, 2007 9:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't see any issue with this, and I support a private wiki for the Wikinews community. :-) I've worked on sensitive materials for Wikinews myself, and found it awkward to have to put all information in public. The only question would be the rules governing access - perhaps that could be tied to accreditation?
Thanks for supporting this idea. Access has to be a bit wider than just Accredited reporters though. Arria and a bunch of other people she rounded up carried out translations on stories for us, some of them being Wikimedians who were happy to muck in.
You may need something that allows Wikilike working together, but isn't MediaWiki - MW just doesn't allow access restriction more fine-grained than "can access this wiki" or not, so you wouldn't be able to compartmentalise stories very well. I think MoinMoin does, but MoinMoin is so annoying after using MW. Also, only MW uses MW wikitext. Annoying ...
what do you mean by "annoying", resp. what annoys most?
rupert.
David Gerard wrote:
I'll ask two questions about the other issue I raised, Flagged Revisions - then move on to David's comment.
Assuming Wikinews implements flagged revisions, and the entire process to select people with the powers is implemented by the community, would the Foundation still retain it's independence from the editorial process? I.e. we're liable, not the foundation. Mike?
Second, were the foundation to approve the procedures and processes we defined for flagged revisions would that make them liable? I ask because I want the policy to become as serious and official as NPOV if possible. I want it emphasised that requesting this privilege could land you in court if you promote something obviously defamatory and unverifiable.
On to David's comment...
You may need something that allows Wikilike working together, but isn't MediaWiki - MW just doesn't allow access restriction more fine-grained than "can access this wiki" or not, so you wouldn't be able to compartmentalise stories very well. I think MoinMoin does, but MoinMoin is so annoying after using MW. Also, only MW uses MW wikitext. Annoying ...
I'd hate to use something something other than the standard MW syntax, and I think it would throw a lot of our less-technical contributors on a curve. I appreciate that fine-grained access controls might be unavailable but to my thinking, if you're trusted enough to get in and work on something like translating one story, you should get a crack at getting all of them into your local language.
However, I think there should be a core who all have as a minimum administrator access, say all accredited reporters. There should be several bureaucrats - and I would be in favour of the wiki being invite only.
My idea of bureaucrats is they can invite trusted community members from Wikinews who are not accredited to help with digging up sources, related links, and research for the duration of a specific embargo. Ditto for translators. Once that requirement for access has gone the account is deleted after the release of the story and Original Reporting notes.
There will be information that will never leave the embargoed Wiki. For example, a couple of us have contact addresses for some of the habeas corpus lawyers working on the case before the Supreme Court, it would not be good for this information (their emails and private musings) to fall into public view.
Brian McNeil
On 06/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Assuming Wikinews implements flagged revisions, and the entire process to select people with the powers is implemented by the community, would the Foundation still retain it's independence from the editorial process? I.e. we're liable, not the foundation. Mike?
Sounds right. It's conceptually no different from what you do with admins now, is it?
There will be information that will never leave the embargoed Wiki. For example, a couple of us have contact addresses for some of the habeas corpus lawyers working on the case before the Supreme Court, it would not be good for this information (their emails and private musings) to fall into public view.
If you want to severely restrict this sort of contact information, but leave it "on file", it might be worth setting up some kind of OTRS account and mailing it there - the number of people with access is limited and managed on a case-by-case basis, and you don't have to worry about it being lost when you wipe it from the wiki... or available to more than the two or three people who need to read it and summarise it for everyone else.
There will be information that will never leave the embargoed Wiki. For example, a couple of us have contact addresses for some of the habeas corpus lawyers working on the case before the Supreme Court, it would not be good for this information (their emails and private musings) to fall into public view.
If you want to severely restrict this sort of contact information, but leave it "on file", it might be worth setting up some kind of OTRS account and mailing it there - the number of people with access is limited and managed on a case-by-case basis, and you don't have to worry about it being lost when you wipe it from the wiki... or available to more than the two or three people who need to read it and summarise it for everyone else.
I would keep contact info like that privately and just hand it when absolutely necessary. If they are personal contacts, then you ought to contact them personally, rather than handing out their addresses to other people. There is a risk that someone will leave the project and take their contacts with them, but, as far as I know, that's the case in the journalism industry as a whole, it's not unique to Wikinews.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I would keep contact info like that privately and just hand it when absolutely necessary. If they are personal contacts, then you ought to contact them personally, rather than handing out their addresses to other people. There is a risk that someone will leave the project and take their contacts with them, but, as far as I know, that's the case in the journalism industry as a whole, it's not unique to Wikinews.
I suppose there are arguments both ways - for keeping things to yourself, or for sharing contact details with other reporters. I'd actually like to have us maintain a private list of contacts for use with details of which reporter first contacted them, and which reporter last contacted them (and a list of everyone else that has too). For procedure like that I believe we should use a process of introductions, i.e. last person to contact someone writes the first email, CCs the person who needs to ask the questions or fill out the story, and it goes from there.
You can bet in mainstream journalism that when someone moves from one place to another they take their contacts' details. If you've done the job right you've established a rapport that will survive you moving to a differing publication, as well as established a relationship on behalf of your previous employer that will allow them to continue using the contact. It may not always work like that in the real world, but if Wikinews strives for that then we can survive the eventual point where one or more of our contributors make the jump to paid journalism.
At the moment we've only got one item that is under embargo, and I don't think it will be a really big story, but the other things being worked on are about the limit of what can be done in public.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_questions_Senior_Counterterrorism_Couns el_of_HRW_on_Camp_Delta_and_more
The above is an article waiting on answers to questions, we wouldn't be getting this opportunity has we not been in on the 2004 SOP leak. Our forwarding of the document and links landed us a contact with HRW's Senior Counterterrorism Counsel; serendipity did so just as the habeas corpus case starts up in the Supreme Court.
You will note from the second paragraph of the above work in progress we have contact with James Yee the former Guantanamo chaplain. He's our next <s>victim</s> interview candidate.
Anyway, I've probably rambled enough. I'm hoping people on list can see how this links into looking into flagged revisions. That would mean Google would carry all this heavyweight stuff we're managing to do and list it at a respectable position on their results.
On that topic, Erik mentioned contacts with Google having gone stale; if anyone has a current contact they can forward to me privately (Jimmy?) that I can start discussing what we'd need to do to meet their standards I'd like to do so. I would greatly appreciate their feedback on proposals for a flagging authority procedure and guidelines for those with the permission. I am sure they would understand some of the legal aspects that are of concern, such as keeping the Foundation uninvolved.
Brian McNeil
I suppose there are arguments both ways - for keeping things to yourself, or for sharing contact details with other reporters. I'd actually like to have us maintain a private list of contacts for use with details of which reporter first contacted them, and which reporter last contacted them (and a list of everyone else that has too). For procedure like that I believe we should use a process of introductions, i.e. last person to contact someone writes the first email, CCs the person who needs to ask the questions or fill out the story, and it goes from there.
I agree, if a new person is going to communicate with a contact that should always be introduced by someone already known to the contact. A list of contacts like you suggest would be good, but without the contact details, just the names and organisations, then anyone needing a contact in a particular organisation can contact whoever is listed next to that name and get an introduction.
You can bet in mainstream journalism that when someone moves from one place to another they take their contacts' details. If you've done the job right you've established a rapport that will survive you moving to a differing publication, as well as established a relationship on behalf of your previous employer that will allow them to continue using the contact. It may not always work like that in the real world, but if Wikinews strives for that then we can survive the eventual point where one or more of our contributors make the jump to paid journalism.
I would say that the relationship wouldn't be with your previous employer, it would be with one of your colleagues who you introduced to the contact while you were both working for that employer.
Anyway, I've probably rambled enough. I'm hoping people on list can see how this links into looking into flagged revisions. That would mean Google would carry all this heavyweight stuff we're managing to do and list it at a respectable position on their results.
On that topic, Erik mentioned contacts with Google having gone stale; if anyone has a current contact they can forward to me privately (Jimmy?) that I can start discussing what we'd need to do to meet their standards I'd like to do so. I would greatly appreciate their feedback on proposals for a flagging authority procedure and guidelines for those with the permission. I am sure they would understand some of the legal aspects that are of concern, such as keeping the Foundation uninvolved.
Talking to Google is definitely the next step. There's a good chance they'll accept some form of flagged revisions as acceptable to get on Google News properly, but there's no point trying to set up such a scheme until Google have said what they would require of it.
On Dec 6, 2007 3:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't see any issue with this, and I support a private wiki for the Wikinews community. :-) I've worked on sensitive materials for Wikinews myself, and found it awkward to have to put all information in public. The only question would be the rules governing access - perhaps that could be tied to accreditation?
Thanks for supporting this idea. Access has to be a bit wider than just Accredited reporters though. Arria and a bunch of other people she rounded up carried out translations on stories for us, some of them being Wikimedians who were happy to muck in.
You may need something that allows Wikilike working together, but isn't MediaWiki - MW just doesn't allow access restriction more fine-grained than "can access this wiki" or not, so you wouldn't be able to compartmentalise stories very well.
Doesn't MediaWiki allow access control per namespace? I seem to remember having this up and running before.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NamespacePermissions ?
I experimented with adding access control per article, and I got it working, but there were quite a few holes which I never got around to plugging. But on a per-namespace basis, I thought it was worked out.
On Dec 6, 2007 8:36 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NamespacePermissions ?
Hmm, this page seems to be more up to date: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Security_issues_with_authorization_extensions
Doesn't MediaWiki allow access control per namespace?
By default, no. There are various extensions which try and do that kind of stuff, but they are of only limited effectiveness. MediaWiki wasn't designed with such restrictions in mind, so most restrictions can be got around if you try hard enough, as I understand it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Doesn't MediaWiki allow access control per namespace?
By default, no.
Actually, yes. I don't know how much I'd trust it for limited *read* access, but it probably works. Mostly. :)
There are various extensions which try and do that kind of stuff, but they are of only limited effectiveness. MediaWiki wasn't designed with such restrictions in mind, so most restrictions can be got around if you try hard enough, as I understand it.
This is why we don't recommend MediaWiki for storing medical records. ;)
-- brion
On 06/12/2007, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Doesn't MediaWiki allow access control per namespace?
By default, no.
Actually, yes. I don't know how much I'd trust it for limited *read* access, but it probably works. Mostly. :)
Really? How? The only per namespace restrictions I know of is $wgNamespaceProtection or whatever it's called, but AFAIK, that just stops editing, not reading.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org