[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

[Todd Allen]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at 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 at 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.