On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)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(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.