Mark writes:
It's certainly possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened because I have absolutely no idea) that the articles were being developed by someone who interviewed people who work for the Foundation, and that person was forbidden to submit the articles, or told to remove some things.
So far as I can determine, the articles were accessible by anyone in the world who was capable of using "Recent changes."
So whatever happened, happened "post-publication" as far as the law goes.
I'll note that Wikileaks is wrong to assert that the Foundation removed the stories. (And Slashdot is wrong to repeat this assertion.) If that had been our method of operation, I could have removed the stories myself. Instead, we went to great lengths to explain what our legal concerns were, privately, to representatives of the community.
My view continues to be that the Foundation should almost never engage in direct editing or removal of project content, except (as in DMCA takedown notices) when we are required to do so by law.
Anything else should normally entail engagement of community members.
--Mike
\
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 84
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mark writes:
It's certainly possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened because I have absolutely no idea) that the articles were being developed by someone who interviewed people who work for the Foundation, and that person was forbidden to submit the articles, or told to remove some things.
So far as I can determine, the articles were accessible by anyone in the world who was capable of using "Recent changes."
So whatever happened, happened "post-publication" as far as the law goes.
I'll note that Wikileaks is wrong to assert that the Foundation removed the stories. (And Slashdot is wrong to repeat this assertion.) If that had been our method of operation, I could have removed the stories myself. Instead, we went to great lengths to explain what our legal concerns were, privately, to representatives of the community.
My view continues to be that the Foundation should almost never engage in direct editing or removal of project content, except (as in DMCA takedown notices) when we are required to do so by law.
Anything else should normally entail engagement of community members.
--Mike
\
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 84
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"Asserting your concerns privately", from a position of authority, is just a roundabout way of not having the "official stamp" on an official action. If the concerns had been brought up PUBLICLY, and a regular community discussion held (I don't know the exact way Wikinews handles deletion discussions, I'm sure they have some procedure), and the community agreed, then we can say it's a community action. Otherwise, backroom stuff is backroom stuff, regardless of who pulled the trigger.
I'll note that Wikileaks is wrong to assert that the Foundation removed the stories. (And Slashdot is wrong to repeat this assertion.) If that had been our method of operation, I could have removed the stories myself. Instead, we went to great lengths to explain what our legal concerns were, privately, to representatives of the community.
The WMF expressing legal concerns about the stories is effectively identical to the WMF removing the stories. The WMF wants the stories gone, the stories go - that's the short of it. If the general counsel of the WMF tells you there are legal concerns regarding one of your articles, you delete the article, you don't have any say in the matter, regardless of whether or not the WMF actually demands deletion.
That said, the WMF removing stories because of legal concerns has always been accepted (albeit reluctantly) by the community as something the WMF has to do. The WMF has a responsibility to obey the law, whether we like it or not. There is a big difference between removing the articles due to legal concerns and, as Wikileaks seems to claim, censoring articles critical of Wikipedia. As long as it was just the former (and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise), I have no problem with it.
I think the claims about losing CDA protection stem from a simple misunderstanding of terminology. When the CDA talks about publishing something, that refers to the bit where someone presses the "submit" button. When Wikinews talks about publishing something, the refer to the bit where it's decided that an article is ready to be removed from the "in development" section. The articles were, as I understand it, removed inbetween those two stages. As far as the CDA is concerned, the WMF stepped in post-publication to remove content they saw a problem with, which they are certainly allowed to do.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There is a big difference between removing the articles due to legal concerns and, as Wikileaks seems to claim, censoring articles critical of Wikipedia.
Wikileaks is simply wrong when they say that this was an instance of "censoring articles critical of Wikipedia". Of course, Wikinews is supposed to be NPOV, but within that framework there is absolutely no prohibition about producing factual articles that would tend to show the Wikimedia Foundation in a negative light.
--Jimbo
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
My view continues to be that the Foundation should almost never engage in direct editing or removal of project content, except (as in DMCA takedown notices) when we are required to do so by law.
FWIW, I think that's an absolutely terrible decision that is the cause of a great deal of completely unnecessary ill-will toward the Foundation and its projects. The only semi-coherent explanation for it seems to be that it is required for protection under Section 230 of the CDA, but as you and I both know this is absolutely not correct. In fact, everything I have read on the matter suggests that the whole point of Section 230 of the CDA was to allow service providers to engage in direct removal of project content without becoming liable for that which it failed to remove.
Mike Godwin wrote:
My view continues to be that the Foundation should almost never engage in direct editing or removal of project content, except (as in DMCA takedown notices) when we are required to do so by law.
Anything else should normally entail engagement of community members.
To clarify, is this merely your personal view, or is it actually the policy being adopted? That is, is [[en:WP:OFFICE]] now defunct?
-Mark
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org