Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
I appreciate that. As we've already discussed, this appears to be due to a very serious misperception of the status of voluntary edits on Wikipedia.
It's worth clearing up once and for all, and letting new editors and admins know what the situation is. Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help. I think it's important finally to clarify how the Foundation sees itself in law, how it see its admins and editors, what Jimbo's position is, and when something is an OFFICE action, and when not. And when it's not, what the status of it is.
Wikipedia's too large and prominent now for the loose understandings that it's relied on in the past, understandings that not everyone shares or even knows about.
I don't think that anyone has threatened me with violence or a lawsuit in connection with Wikipedia activities, though if it were to happen I would first pause to assess the credibility of the threat. In the case of a threat I would be very much inclined to tell the person, "Put up or shut up, but do it in my jurisdiction."
I don't think that it's up to WMF to protect admins from themselves. WMF has no control over the way that admins do their work; they are not employees. Just because they have gone through the gauntlet of earning adminship does not magically turn them into representatives of the Foundation.
Ec