[Foundation-l] check user...
teun.spaans at gmail.com
Mon Apr 2 17:13:27 UTC 2007
sounds like sound advice :-)
On 4/2/07, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I passed on part of this thread to Jonathan Zittrain, an eminent lawyer
> and net scholar who enjoyed a misspent youth administering online fora,
> and has thought about related issues a great deal. His comments below.
> I see this as an issue of being clear about what is expected, what may
> be required of people as a result of their actions in a role (in the
> descriptions of checkuser responsibilities), and what may happen with
> that should limit the participation of younger community members.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jonathan Zittrain <...zed at law.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user... (fwd)
> In any case, it doesn't seem to me a youngster problem. It's a broader
> problem -- volunteers are harder to rein in than "real" employees. I see
> same issue with CDA 230 immunity, since the way Wikipedia works
> blurs the line between who is Wikipedia and who is "another speaker," when
> Wikipedia only speaks through its volunteers. (Substantively speaking,
> out, and says there will be circumstances in which disclosures can take
> and people should take that into account from the start. Then you don't
> to exclude the kids.
> > Bias against clever youngsters.... annoying. S
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:59:24 +0000
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user...
> >> -----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
> >> 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
> >> 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..
> >> Best,
> >> Tomos
> > Your legal reasoning is fine, although a parent could sign off on the
> > 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
> > ever have to explain it to a court or in the public press.
> > Fred
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l