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

[Florence Devouard]

George Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I explicitly said, it doesn't matter if you actually demand it or
>>>> not, just saying there are legal concerns is effectively a demand for
>>>> its removal.
>>>>
>>> No, it is not.
>> It is hard to avoid the impression that every word spoken by the pope is
>> /ex cathedra/. You and Mike in particular will frequently want to
>> comment as ordinary editors, but it is hard to avoid arguments like "but
>> Jimbo wrote in June 2003 that ...."  You may have no memory of what you
>> wrote then, and may even have changed views since, but for someone who
>> is trying to push a point of view it is an irrefutable argument to be
>> exploited.
>>
>> Much as I would decry it, there remains a level of deference to
>> authority within the projects that is not easily overcome. Much of what
>> you say is treated as a demand irrespective of whether you intended it
>> that way.
> 
> 
> Both Mike and Jimmy have tried to be clear when they're communicating
> an official position.  There have been problems with this in the past
> (the events leading to Erik's short desysopping, for example, among
> others), but I think in general everyone's more aware of this now.
> The bulk of administrators and I hope all the Stewards are aware of
> the issues and won't sanction when there's no clear "the Foundation
> OFFICE hat was on".
> 
> Unfortunately, this sort of situation can sometimes lead to a negative
> feedback loop.  Jimmy tries to communicate in a neutral manner without
> overusing authority, and then once in a while has to drop an official
> action hammer on someone.  Some will perceive this as arbitrary hand
> of god behavior and treat everything else Jimmy says more
> deferentially as you note.  Which was the opposite of the initial
> intent.
> 
> I think that as a general rule, that can be combated by attempting to
> get to know Jimmy if you have to deal with him - and, generalizing,
> get to know the people in the "power structure" as it is both in the
> community and Foundation.
> 
> Familiarity usually breeds some mutual respect and lessens the
> tendency to overreact in stress situations.  A great deal of potential
> problems are headed off because someone does send a private email to
> someone else, or ask on IRC, or knows someone from posts to wikien-L
> or the foundation list.
> 
> 

I could not agree more.
It should be pointed out that Jimbo does not have the authority to act 
alone, in the name of the Foundation. As WMF person, he does not have 
any more authority than any other board member.

If an action is "board approved", then it must have been approved by the 
entire board. If the action seem to be "under approval of board", then a 
wise move might be to check with another board member.

If an action is more operational in nature (such as a legal-related 
removal), it should probably be done by our lawyer, or under order of 
our lawyer, by a staff member. (office hat on).
I would advise that Jimbo never do "office" action. He is no office. It 
might be confused with authoritative action. And Mike is probably much 
more likely to make a decision strictly based on legal considerations.

If the move does not belong to either of the two above categories, then 
it is a "personal" edit, and should be treated as such. Which means it 
is up to the community to decide whether Jimbo has a special authority 
to edit or not.


Ant