Nathan asks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
My professional opinion is that we are under no obligation to either (a) enforce the UCMJ as to editors who happen to be in the military, or (b) categorically bar those who are subject to the UCMJ, which probably includes but is not exclusive to those with .mil addresses, because the they have professional obligations to report (purported) violations of the UCMJ.
We know to a reasonable certainty that there are editors with ties to law enforcement, military, and anti-espionage agencies. I don't see how we can reasonably police their engagement with our services in a categorical way. Obviously, we may choose to bar particular users based on their behavior, which may include violation of Wikimedia's privacy policies. But I could not endorse any measure that categorically barred anyone with a .mil address from editing.
--Mike
Thanks Mike. In your opinion, is there a conflict between our no legal threats policy and an editor warning another editor of their responsibility (as they claim) to report conduct that violates the UCMJ to military authorities? I.e. if someone has an affirmative responsibility to report a violation, can we resonably bar them from issuing a warning relating to that responsibility?
On Jan 2, 2008 4:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan asks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
My professional opinion is that we are under no obligation to either (a) enforce the UCMJ as to editors who happen to be in the military, or (b) categorically bar those who are subject to the UCMJ, which probably includes but is not exclusive to those with .mil addresses, because the they have professional obligations to report (purported) violations of the UCMJ.
We know to a reasonable certainty that there are editors with ties to law enforcement, military, and anti-espionage agencies. I don't see how we can reasonably police their engagement with our services in a categorical way. Obviously, we may choose to bar particular users based on their behavior, which may include violation of Wikimedia's privacy policies. But I could not endorse any measure that categorically barred anyone with a .mil address from editing.
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think, but i am not sure, that No Legal Threats is a local policy, and not a policy issued by the Wikimedia Foundation? So I guess you'd have to ask enwiki community in this case...
BR, Lodewijk
2008/1/2, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Thanks Mike. In your opinion, is there a conflict between our no legal threats policy and an editor warning another editor of their responsibility (as they claim) to report conduct that violates the UCMJ to military authorities? I.e. if someone has an affirmative responsibility to report a violation, can we resonably bar them from issuing a warning relating to that responsibility?
On Jan 2, 2008 4:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan asks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
My professional opinion is that we are under no obligation to either (a) enforce the UCMJ as to editors who happen to be in the military, or (b) categorically bar those who are subject to the UCMJ, which probably includes but is not exclusive to those with .mil addresses, because the they have professional obligations to report (purported) violations of the UCMJ.
We know to a reasonable certainty that there are editors with ties to law enforcement, military, and anti-espionage agencies. I don't see how we can reasonably police their engagement with our services in a categorical way. Obviously, we may choose to bar particular users based on their behavior, which may include violation of Wikimedia's privacy policies. But I could not endorse any measure that categorically barred anyone with a .mil address from editing.
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Whether its a local policy or a Foundation-wide policy doesn't change its status as conflicting with the law (or leading to an unnecessary conflict with a legal responsibility). Its still an appropriate question for the legal counsel.
~Nathan
On Jan 2, 2008 4:54 PM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think, but i am not sure, that No Legal Threats is a local policy, and not a policy issued by the Wikimedia Foundation? So I guess you'd have to ask enwiki community in this case...
BR, Lodewijk
On 02/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think, but i am not sure, that No Legal Threats is a local policy, and not a policy issued by the Wikimedia Foundation? So I guess you'd have to ask enwiki community in this case...
If we have some legal obligation to allow people to give such warnings (which would seem unlikely, but I guess it's possible), then it's not a decision for the enwiki community - consensus doesn't trump the law.
I thikn in general a community can set up rules to ban people. This could be a reason, apart from all legal implications. I do not see why legal implications would mean that people could not be banned. So that part is up to the community imho.
If the Foundation has an own reason/policy to ban them, that's indeed overruling enwiki policy. But I assumed that was not the case.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/2, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 02/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think, but i am not sure, that No Legal Threats is a local policy, and not a policy issued by the Wikimedia Foundation? So I guess you'd have to ask enwiki community in this case...
If we have some legal obligation to allow people to give such warnings (which would seem unlikely, but I guess it's possible), then it's not a decision for the enwiki community - consensus doesn't trump the law.
On 02/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I thikn in general a community can set up rules to ban people. This could be a reason, apart from all legal implications. I do not see why legal implications would mean that people could not be banned. So that part is up to the community imho.
If the Foundation has an own reason/policy to ban them, that's indeed overruling enwiki policy. But I assumed that was not the case.
I agree, but IANAL.
On Jan 2, 2008 2:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think, but i am not sure, that No Legal Threats is a local policy, and not a policy issued by the Wikimedia Foundation? So I guess you'd have to ask enwiki community in this case...
If we have some legal obligation to allow people to give such warnings (which would seem unlikely, but I guess it's possible), then it's not a decision for the enwiki community - consensus doesn't trump the law.
In principle, I disagree. You might have a legal obligation to spy on your neighbor, but it would not be illegal for WMF / enwiki to ban all people who do so from participating. It's our community, we can choose to categorically exclude everyone that does X, even if X is a legal obligation for some portion of the population of potential contributors.
That said, I don't think it would be reasonable course to take such sweeping actions given the current arguments.
-Robert Rohde
Thats the crux - can we have a policy that imposes consequences on an editor for fulfilling a legal obligation and actions associated with that obligation?
Related to NLT - if someone doesn't make a legal threat, but actually *sues* an editor and does so via a subpoena to the WMF, is there any policy treating that situation?
On Jan 2, 2008 5:21 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
In principle, I disagree. You might have a legal obligation to spy on your neighbor, but it would not be illegal for WMF / enwiki to ban all people who do so from participating. It's our community, we can choose to categorically exclude everyone that does X, even if X is a legal obligation for some portion of the population of potential contributors.
That said, I don't think it would be reasonable course to take such sweeping actions given the current arguments.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thats the crux - can we have a policy that imposes consequences on an editor for fulfilling a legal obligation and actions associated with that obligation?
That is, indeed, the crux of the matter. As far as I know, we can, since there is no legal right to edit Wikipedia, but that is the question that needs answering.
Related to NLT - if someone doesn't make a legal threat, but actually *sues* an editor and does so via a subpoena to the WMF, is there any policy treating that situation?
There's not a relevant enwiki policy, to my knowledge. The WMF may well have internal policies on how to deal with such legal action - they probably involve alerting Mike and having him fulfil the foundation's legal obligations. There may also be some WP:OFFICE actions to limit any potential further damage. That's all at foundation level, though, and isn't up to the enwiki community.
On 02/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thats the crux - can we have a policy that imposes consequences on an editor for fulfilling a legal obligation and actions associated with that obligation?
I don't see why not - it's quite easy to imagine a legal obligation that would be unacceptable to WMF or wiki communities.
(In this particular case, it's pretty clearly one editor trying to use this as a threat to intimidate another editor out of editing, i.e. this is straight-up No Legal Threats territory as far as en:wp is concerned. Particularly as he tried to leave it hanging over his head for months. Sounds not much like a legal obligation to me.)
- d.
Well, two separate cases really - one is OrangeMarlin, who hasn't been aware of the situation since the original e-mail and (apparently) was alerted to it only recently, and is stating that it is his obligation under the UCMJ (Durova's clarification notwithstanding).
The one where it could be interpreted as intimidation (debatably) is from Jim62sch, who is not in the military. Unless he's in the Secret Service, I find it hard to imagine he has an affirmative legal obligation as a Treasury employee.
On Jan 2, 2008 5:40 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thats the crux - can we have a policy that imposes consequences on an editor for fulfilling a legal obligation and actions associated with that obligation?
I don't see why not - it's quite easy to imagine a legal obligation that would be unacceptable to WMF or wiki communities.
(In this particular case, it's pretty clearly one editor trying to use this as a threat to intimidate another editor out of editing, i.e. this is straight-up No Legal Threats territory as far as en:wp is concerned. Particularly as he tried to leave it hanging over his head for months. Sounds not much like a legal obligation to me.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I believe that this thread has evolved to the point where it's clear that under current Foundation policy, the Foundation is not directly involved in this. It appears to be an English language Wikipedia specific policy and problem.
Unless people intend to argue that the Foundation should develop relevant policy, I suggest that discussion migrate towards wikien-L and on-WIki, and leave foundation-L lower noise.
I disagree - the outstanding questions are an issue of legal policy relating to Wikipedia generally, not a specific Wikipedia - such as, can projects establish policies that effectively punish editors for fulfilling a legal obligation? That isn't the only issue necessarily, but just because it occurred on en.wiki doesn't mean it doesn't have wider relevance - it does.
On 02/01/2008, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan asks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting_people.27s_em...
This is an interesting thread (one of a few on this subject, including in the Jimsch62 (sp) RfAr) - two editors who are in the military/work for the US government claim that it is their legal responsibility to report to the USAF the use of a military PC to edit Wikipedia because that is a violation of the UCMJ. I'm curious about whether that is true, and if it is why we don't block .mil IPs from editing en masse.
Mike Godwin, do you have an opinion on this issue?
My professional opinion is that we are under no obligation to either (a) enforce the UCMJ as to editors who happen to be in the military, or (b) categorically bar those who are subject to the UCMJ, which probably includes but is not exclusive to those with .mil addresses, because the they have professional obligations to report (purported) violations of the UCMJ.
We know to a reasonable certainty that there are editors with ties to law enforcement, military, and anti-espionage agencies. I don't see how we can reasonably police their engagement with our services in a categorical way. Obviously, we may choose to bar particular users based on their behavior, which may include violation of Wikimedia's privacy policies. But I could not endorse any measure that categorically barred anyone with a .mil address from editing.
Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
On 1/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
I aren't a lawyer (though my uncle is one), nor do I have a private connection into Mikes brainbox, but...
The way I see the contract everyone makes when they choose to edit wikipedia, is that they search within their heart whether their prior obligations are such that they permit or disallow them to edit according to our customs, practises and the implicit rules for editing wikipedia. The no "legal threats on-site" is part and parcel of that. For each and very editor to see if they can abide by it. It is an individual calculation for each editor, not something that automatically derives from what IP they hail from.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 02/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
I aren't a lawyer (though my uncle is one), nor do I have a private connection into Mikes brainbox, but...
The way I see the contract everyone makes when they choose to edit wikipedia, is that they search within their heart whether their prior obligations are such that they permit or disallow them to edit according to our customs, practises and the implicit rules for editing wikipedia. The no "legal threats on-site" is part and parcel of that. For each and very editor to see if they can abide by it. It is an individual calculation for each editor, not something that automatically derives from what IP they hail from.
I agree, but I don't really see the relevance. I can understand (and agree with) the moral and ethical reasons for allowing .mil's to edit, but when the legal counsel says he can't endorse something, I'm assume it's for legal reasons unless told otherwise - hence my request for clarification.
On 1/3/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
I aren't a lawyer (though my uncle is one), nor do I have a private connection into Mikes brainbox, but...
The way I see the contract everyone makes when they choose to edit wikipedia, is that they search within their heart whether their prior obligations are such that they permit or disallow them to edit according to our customs, practises and the implicit rules for editing wikipedia. The no "legal threats on-site" is part and parcel of that. For each and very editor to see if they can abide by it. It is an individual calculation for each editor, not something that automatically derives from what IP they hail from.
I agree, but I don't really see the relevance. I can understand (and agree with) the moral and ethical reasons for allowing .mil's to edit, but when the legal counsel says he can't endorse something, I'm assume it's for legal reasons unless told otherwise - hence my request for clarification.
Not everything lawyers do is driven by legal obligation. There is no dictum that says that lawyers can't speak if they aren't obligated to do so.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org