[Foundation-l] check user...
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Mon Apr 2 10:48:17 UTC 2007
When we have to explain that people aged 15 can do a responsible job, we can
do that in two ways
- show how a particular person has done so in the past
- show how they do a job compared to people who are more mature
When people want to be skepticle, they assume .. and assumptions are the
mothers of most fuck-ups. The notion that a person who is young cannot be
responsible is as believable as the notion that someone is responsible
because he is legally mature.
On 4/1/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: wiki_tomos at inter7.jp [mailto:wiki_tomos at inter7.jp]
> >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:33 PM
> >To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >Subject: [Foundation-l] check user...
> >I think check user generates certain legal risk to the Foundation
> >when he is a minor.
> >expressively promising that certain information will not be released
> >to the third party unless specific conditions are met.
> >And here, "third party release" does not include, at least the
> >from Wikimedia Foundation to a check user. It suggests that,
> >insiders for the Foundation, not a third party.
> >This, in turn, means that the Foundation has a legal responsibility
> >So when check user breaks the promise - i.e. violate the Foundation's
> >for the violation.
> >If a check user is legally a minor, he may be able to legally get away
> >breaking promises he has made, including the compliance with privacy
> >I am not sure if minors really are less reliable than adults, but if they
> >are equally unreliable, then the Foundation is more responsible for
> >So, not because minors are less reliable, but because adults can bear
> >more legal risk when they abuse their check user privilege, it is legally
> >safer for the Foundation to limit the check user to adults.
> >How significant this difference? That is perhaps open to debate.
> >I personally think that the better course of action to mitigate the
> >I am not a lawyer, so be reminded that my reasoning could be flawed..
> Your legal reasoning is fine, although a parent could sign off on the
> legal liability. I think our problem is not with allowing a 15 year old to
> do responsible work, but with the understandable skepticism we will face if
> we ever have to explain it to a court or in the public press.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l