I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to lawsuits. Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
----- Original Message ---- From: Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn at all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact that I disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF. (Doesn't Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only apply if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
I've seen the deleted article. I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and on a purely personal note, it was a horribly written article). I would hope that administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to remove any articles that looked like that.
The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous stories that criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example). When I first heard about this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized why it was deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
The issue in short form (without taking any sides on it) is that your student newspaper, if it writes something illegal, is liable as an organization. Wikimedia, however, is protected under the CDA as long as it acts as a provider, and not an editor. Wikileaks is implying that by pulling the story they are acting as an editor. Mike Godwin is saying otherwise. So, that's why this is controversial: because the issue at hand is involving the potential liability of the foundation.
-Dan On May 18, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to lawsuits. Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
----- Original Message ---- From: Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn at all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact that I disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF. (Doesn't Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only apply if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
I've seen the deleted article. I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and on a purely personal note, it was a horribly written article). I would hope that administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to remove any articles that looked like that.
The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous stories that criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example). When I first heard about this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized why it was deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
-- [[User:Ral315]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org