A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is self explanatory.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf in San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer, in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia community conducted a lengthy Request For Commenthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide (RFC) process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.
Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative Commons licenses.
While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel project.
Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license. Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new, non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit Wikitravel site.
The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that is not driven by commercial interests.
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-...
Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel
Forwarding to Wikimedia-l since it does not appear to have come over naturally.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is self explanatory.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf in San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer, in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia community conducted a lengthy Request For Commenthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide (RFC) process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.
Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative Commons licenses.
While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel project.
Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license. Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new, non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit Wikitravel site.
The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that is not driven by commercial interests.
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-...
Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel
Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.
Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official decision? By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, that's been left too the board too.
Nemo
On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.
Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official decision? By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, that's been left too the board too.
Nemo is correct in this matter, whilst the RFC has been closed to discussion, there has not been an official outcome. I believe it was intended that the Board would decide and make a statement/resolution to state their findings.
Thehelpfulone Sent from my iPhone
Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or organised boycott? I expect Wikimedia Foundation itself cannot encourage any sort of action, but can the actions of editors have negative repercussions on the Foundation (beyond the obvious)?
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:09:29AM +0000, Max Harmony wrote:
Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or organised boycott?
The latter is pretty much already happening by default.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf in San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers.
I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
- d.
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%2...
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willia...
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-fo...
- d.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suit<
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judg...
I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%2...
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willia...
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-fo...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil conspiracy.
I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer, perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.
The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to the Lanham Act, etc.-
43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and related website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their website.
It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come down to the "Wiki-" prefix.
Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind), in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year after year.
Regards Theo
P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this complaint doesn't have much merit.
Good luck to everyone concerned from the UK Chapter! James in particular has been doing some very interesting things in the UK recently, which we're very grateful for.
As to the trademark infringement, I think it stems not from "Wikivoyage", but instead from James' alleged use of the phrase "Wiki Travel Guide"...
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 7 September 2012 14:39, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suit<
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judg...
I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%2...
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willia...
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-fo...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil conspiracy.
I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer, perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.
The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to the Lanham Act, etc.-
- Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and related website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their website.
It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come down to the "Wiki-" prefix.
Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind), in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year after year.
Regards Theo
P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this complaint doesn't have much merit. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel; when of course no such site exists, and there is no possible way for the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or otherwise).
I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%2...
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willia...
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-fo...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which is how civil suits often work).
The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so.. not pleasant to see our lot acting like this.
Tom
On 7 September 2012 16:50, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel; when of course no such site exists, and there is no possible way for the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or otherwise).
I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%2...
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willia...
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-fo...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which is how civil suits often work).
The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so.. not pleasant to see our lot acting like this.
Which claims in particular? I haven't read through their allegations thoroughly, but on a quick read through they are mostly complaining about people conspiring against IB. Since what they were planning on doing (forking the project) wasn't illegal, it can't be a conspiracy.
On 11 September 2012 12:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which
is
how civil suits often work).
The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so..
not
pleasant to see our lot acting like this.
Which claims in particular? I haven't read through their allegations thoroughly, but on a quick read through they are mostly complaining about people conspiring against IB. Since what they were planning on doing (forking the project) wasn't illegal, it can't be a conspiracy.
The particular thing that stands out is the allegation that Ryan emailed Wikitravel members in a way that implied he represented Wikitravel, and telling them the site was migrating to the WMF. (#29 onwards)
Of course; the argument hinges on the wording of the email and whether the intent was to mislead the community.
Also; count IV is interesting. IB seem to be contending that the two (and perhaps others) conspired to fork the community by undermining IB's business (i.e. Wikitravel). Obviously the content is freely licensed, but the community carries no license! What they would have to prove is that e.g. the email intentionally tried to redirect the WT community to a forked version by confusing people as to the official status of WT. (you can commit a civil conspiracy if your ultimate aim is legal, but the way you go about reaching it is illegal etc.).
No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
Tom
On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified.
It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it?
Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
Ray
The more interesting legal line:
1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?
2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or provider of services might please them more than their present one?
3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For example,
- In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers? - In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue? - Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere?
This would be very odd, and novel.
In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two are not.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified.
It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it?
Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
Ray
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
One possibility lies within their terms of use: "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal -- to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is a form of breach of contract.
I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and Ryan defend their cases. Deryck
On 12 September 2012 10:13, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The more interesting legal line:
- Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?
- Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members
of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or provider of services might please them more than their present one?
- Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For
example,
- In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for
Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers?
- In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member
of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue?
- Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to
continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere?
This would be very odd, and novel.
In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two are not.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email
in
question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified.
It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it?
Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
Ray
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
FT2, 12/09/2012 11:13:
- Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information? [...] In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two are not.
Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub Xb" across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop". Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
Nemo
To tackle both these at once:
*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *
1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".* I don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior. 2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in collaboration with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that WT'ers were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather, WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could obtain better, which is completely separate. 3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced to leave, or impeded in freewill.
*@Nemo:* In fact AFAIK, this is legal toohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard.
1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food, garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal, and happens every day. 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hkwrote:
One possibility lies within their terms of use: "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal -- to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is a form of breach of contract.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub Xb" across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop". Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.
Nobody except IB of course.
Deryck Chan, 12/09/2012 12:42:
I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and Ryan defend their cases.
+1
Nemo
*@Nemo: *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in any of this. Agree "+1" as well :)
*@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very much. The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. "Who was involved with whom" and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer wasinvolved.
Nobody except IB of course.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the better place... that would be a problem.
This is what IB appear to be alleging.
All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
*@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very much. The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. "Who was involved with whom" and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")
Sure; but it's not a metaphor. It's a cited precedent.
My apologies if your supermarket analogy was a true precedent rather than a metaphor.
As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing.
Tom
It would probably be hard to sustain a claim of deceit. As best I can tell, long before any wider discussion, all roles were clear or known. The email cited by IB clearly itself attempts to ensure roles and principals are not mistaken.
The test of deceit would be whether persons who are or have considered changing where they write, testify that *they only made that decision* due to being misled as to who was affiliated with or representing whom, *and that* knowing that now, they would wish not to change hosts.
But even that doesn't help IB because the easy answer is, Wikitravel is not discontinued by their action, so a person wishing to continue editing there is freely able to do so. The only people who will leave are precisely those members of the public who - knowing all the facts now known - *still* wish to do so. In which case they either were not deceived or any purported deceit has not changed their course of action.
Individual authors, not IB, have a course of action. IB the legal entity was not deceived as to representatives nor was any misrepresentation directed at IB. Indeed, I doubt that any purported misrepresentation is capable of having affected IB in a legal sense. (Tautologically so: - those who might feel they were misled will stay anyway now they know "the truth", those leaving regardless clearly either did not feel misled or else were unaffected by any claimed misrepresentation as they wish to leave even knowing "the truth", IB has the ability to communicate to all affected any alleged misrepresentations so they can enjoy this choice)
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend
to
be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to be), but that's not alleged here. "Who was involved with whom" and relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it. (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really
represented")
As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing.
The foundation of the IB suit seems to be that they feel without their present community, they cannot sustain their content and product. They feel that their website is being stolen, and stolen by a conspiracy with the WMF involved. This is a valid assumption, but it is *just an assumption. *I do not expect IB to understand what they purchased when they bought the wiki, because it didn't need explaining at the time. The IB WikiTravel site remains a wiki. It is free to edit, it is free to maintain, and free to build.
Not every wiki is capable of a perfect storm to build a huge and successful wiki, but any wiki is capable of a small, modest and functioning community to drive it. Most important is that the popularity of a wiki shouldn't trump its content. The atmosphere is what keeps people on any website, and the situation on WikiTravel has been, and will be, up to IB's choice of staffing the site to help the community, and its software development. Not unlike the principles behind the Wikimedia Foundation. If IB can make the place a nice wiki post-fork, they can build a new community. It's a website, there's nothing out of the realm of possibility.
The fact that they do not see this is evident, though. It's about the money in the here and the now.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
This is a valid assumption, but it is *just an assumption.*
By this I mean a point of view reading of the context on their side. It's not correct, in my perspective.
Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the better place... that would be a problem.
This is what IB appear to be alleging.
All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
On 12 September 2012 12:09, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
To tackle both these at once:
*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *
- WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create
a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".* I don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior. 2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in collaboration with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial legal agreement (I gather) says as much. There is no evidence that WT'ers were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather, WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could obtain better, which is completely separate. 3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you cite. When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced to leave, or impeded in freewill.
*@Nemo:* In fact AFAIK, this is legal toohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard.
- If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food,
garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal, and happens every day. 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty. Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk
wrote:
One possibility lies within their terms of use: "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals
but
refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal
--
to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals) does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which
is
a form of breach of contract.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub
Xb"
across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list
of
all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop". Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
[...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a copyright violation.
Deryck
On 12 September 2012 12:29, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
[...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a copyright violation.
Ouch, no case law is not metaphors.
You won't see a court asking for metaphorical submissions to demonstrate guilt (or innocence).
Tom
On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it?
That's what tortuous interference is all about. See:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:26:06PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
Your blog post somehow made its way to slashdot.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/1853238/internet-brands-sues-people-f...
(Haven't spotted at HN or Reddit yet.)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Just to note:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with Wiki Travel content.
It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements. It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would certainly be an "aha" moment).
If we can't defend the right to fork publicly, then we are hypocrites.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay kkay@wikimedia.org wrote:
A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is self explanatory.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf in San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer, in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia community conducted a lengthy Request For Commenthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Travel_Guide (RFC) process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.
Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative Commons licenses.
While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel project.
Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license. Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new, non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit Wikitravel site.
The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that is not driven by commercial interests.
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-...
Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel
-- Kelly Kay Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadgeThis message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. For legalreasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their individual capacity.*
http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=6370274&pg=personal&fr_id=2173&s_src=BF_emailbadge
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with Wiki Travel content. It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements. It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would certainly be an "aha" moment).
It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read it, before asserting bad faith?
The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think they're soft-pedaling this.
- d.
Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with Wiki Travel content. It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements. It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would certainly be an "aha" moment).
It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read it, before asserting bad faith?
The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think they're soft-pedaling this.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing - write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the sake of transparency.
On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded
with
Wiki Travel content. It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public
statements.
It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would certainly be an "aha" moment).
It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read it, before asserting bad faith?
The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think they're soft-pedaling this.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with other community members and censoring any mention of Wikimedia or Wikivoyage. He has even resorted to removing criticism of Internet Brands or its Wikitravel management, whether or not that criticism mentions forking directly or indirectly, calling it either "vandalism" or claiming to be editing others comments "to conform with policy."
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?
Maybe not if you're referring to a current snapshot of the project, but of course that may not always be the case. Even the failure to effectively address vandalism seems like it could put the organization at risk, if they've lost the protection afforded to service providers.
Makes interesting reading. Is there anywhere that we can read the IB vs "the volunteers" documents? Or are they not publicly viewable?
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with Wiki Travel content. It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements. It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would certainly be an "aha" moment).
It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read it, before asserting bad faith?
The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think they're soft-pedaling this.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org