[WikiEN-l] Will the WMF protect admins acting as their agents toenforce policies?

[Brock Weller]

No need to clarify this, it's rediculously obvious. And if it's not obvious
to someone, I would argue that that person does not have the necessary
cognitive ability to effectively help write an encyclopedia.

-Brock

On 4/19/07, Cascadia <cascadia at privatenoc.com> wrote:
>
> On one hand, I don't believe anyone really would have a leg to stand on in
> any court trying to sue someone over an administrative action of a
> website.
> The owners of the website have full control over the content, as well as
> the
> authority to delegate that control to anyone they see fit to do the job (I
> know, I am a moderator for another site). Personally, I believe the
> complaintant would be laughed out of court. HOWEVER, I believe what Info
> Control is trying to ask is:
>
> A)In that rare circumstance where someone does decide to go to court with
> an
> admin over an administrative action, will the WMF step in and say "Wait,
> hold on... This person was delegated authority by us, the site owners, to
> control content." and atleast try to keep it from becoming costly
> litigation
> on the shoulders of the individual editor.
>
> and
>
> B)If this is not the case, is the WMF, etc., prepared to notify all admins
> that "If you're sued because of an administrative action, you're on your
> own. If you get stuck in lengthly litgation because the complaintant found
> the one judge in the world that would hear it, well sorry to say you are
> screwed. But remember, this was in good faith!"
>
> Info Control, does that about properly sum up your argument?
>
> -Cascadia
>
> "Info Control" <infodmz at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:def5f7d40704191251n4c77d723nf01e28678e36ef40 at mail.gmail.com
> ...
> > Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to
> > answer
> > this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes
> > (as
> > is happening on the Brandt discussion).
> >
> > Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why?
> > Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and
> knowledge
> > of
> > any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not
> > risk
> > losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United
> States.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>