[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Fred Bauder]

I didn't do that quite right, he also quoted a post by Eric:

>On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> If we take our role as an encyclopedia seriously, then these
>> externalities are irrelevant. I would be deeply concerned about the
>> kind of precedent where a sufficient amount of noise alone guarantees
>> the removal of information. Now it may be Daniel Brandt, tomorrow,
>> some strange religious group nobody has ever heard of, then some
>> litigious video game lawyer .. this is the wrong way to look at the
>> problem and could seriously damage our usefulness. And if you think
>> that you can actually close this issue by deleting Brandt's article,
>> you've apparently not followed the debate after the last speedy
>> deletion attempt.
>> 
>> I'm already concerned that we have a thin skin when it comes to legal
>> threats. I want us to develop a legal strategy where we have the
>> confidence to stand up against bullies and kooks, rather than folding
>> as soon as we get a nasty letter. But that also means that we have to
>> take more responsibility to ensure that all our BLP processes are
>> working -- including stable version tagging, and so on.
>> 
>> I can understand the notion of an "opt-out" for borderline notability,
>> but I've come to the conclusion that this cannot be implemented in a
>> reasonable fashion. The only thing that I see viable is that the
>> subject's wishes are, by policy, one factor to be taken into account
>> in an AfD. That doesn't mean they necessarily outweigh the interests
>> of the encyclopedia, but that the people debating the issue ought to
>> make a judgment call about it. Then let the chips fall where they may.
>
>I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned
>me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted,
>along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too.
>I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been,
>apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that
>article on me, in whole and in part.
>
>I ask that Mr. Wales reconsider. If the article still exists
>several weeks from now, I will formally appeal to the Wikimedia
>Foundation Board of Trustees. Since Erik is a trustee (at least
>until June), he may have a chance to cast his vote on this issue at
>that time. If the Board declines to get involved, then this will
>introduce an additional level of confusion over the distribution
>of power and responsibility within Wikipedia.
>
>Since the structure of Wikipedia has a direct bearing on the
>content offered by Wikipedia, this distribution of power has legal
>implications. Let me put it bluntly: While it may be true that the
>Foundation Board of Trustees does not seek to shape content apart
>from its control over moderation privileges through the software
>it develops and the servers it owns, it is still true that the
>Board has the power to summarily delete content. Failure to do so
>is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board
>is made aware of the situation. I don't think anyone seriously
>disputes this. If it is a matter of dispute, then this is what
>I hope to clarify someday in a court of law.
>
>Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that
>the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside
>interference -- Wikipedia exists in the wonderful world of
>cyberspace, where real-world laws don't apply. The only concession
>he makes is that the subject's wishes are "one factor": the victim
>gets to say some final words before execution.
>
>That is not a realistic point of view. It is especially unrealistic
>given the fact that hordes of anonymous editors, many of them
>underage, are creating Wikipedia's content, and can change it
>at any time.
>
>It was pointed out by another that I'm neither powerful enough
>nor rich enough to give Wikipedia any trouble, and therefore it
>follows that Wikipedia should ignore me. As pathetic and immoral
>as this viewpoint may be, it is the logical extension of Erik's
>position. If Erik is wrong, it's the death of Wikipedia in the
>short-term. And if Erik is right, it's still the death of
>Wikipedia, but now perhaps in the longer-term.
>
>I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding
>that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save
>everyone a lot of trouble.
>
>-- Daniel Brandt