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

[Brock Weller]

the problem with that is that the WMF helps itself get not sued by asserting
the opposite, that they dont have control over it. Thats what all the
earlier talk about section 230 was about. The Foundation is not responsible
for the content in most cases, hence it's (untested) common carrier status.

On 4/19/07, Cascadia <cascadia at privatenoc.com> wrote:
>
> My thoughts of the language that would appear are as follows:
>
> "By and large, administrators and editors are responsible for all actions
> on
> Wikipedia that may involve legal action. Most administrative actions on
> Wikipedia should not fall under any existing laws. However, should an
> admin
> be summoned to a court of law under a suit alledging illegal action as
> part
> of an administrative act, the Foundation will assist the admin to the
> point
> of asserting that the Foundation controls the content on all sites under
> their jurisdiction, and that the admin is an appointed delegate of the
> Foundation and is generally free to carry out those orders as they see
> fit.
> This assertion may be made as a "friend of the court" brief, or a
> statement
> on behalf of the admin and or their legal counsel. The Foundation may
> also,
> at it's discression, take any further action or provide any further
> assistance. If an action taken by an admin actully violates any laws, then
> the admin is acting solely within their own judgment and are not
> representing the Foundation in those actions, and as such, responsible for
> any legal issues that arrise."
>
> Probably would need to be shortened, but that's the jist of what I would
> think of.
> -Cascadia
>
> "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:a4359dff0704191643m267ba565y4d8465439acfbee8 at mail.gmail.com...
> >> I specifically stated that I could not find any admin action that could
> >> be
> >> taken by any admin that could be sued upon without the complatintant
> >> being
> >> laughed out of the court room, but we're talking about those situations
> >> where the case goes before "The one judge in the world who would hear
> >> it".
> >
> > Just because the judge is willing to hear the case doesn't mean it
> > stands any chance of being successful. That's all irrelevant though -
> > the question is about the WMF protecting admins. If the WMF were to
> > have a policy of protecting admins, what would that policy say?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
-Brock