[WikiEN-l] Analysis of the politics of "Brandt unblocked by

[Gwern Branwen]

Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> writes:

>> Fred Bauder
>>
>> Too clever by half.
>
> 	A weakness of mine, I will admit. I cut from my original 
          post a
> *speculation* that the Wikipedia higher-ups have concluded that 
they're
> going to get a "section 230" testing lawsuit someday, and better 
  it be
> Brandt as a plaintiff for the first case, than someone like 
Seigenthaler.
>
>> Negotiation in good faith must seem very simple.
>
> 	That was pre-emptive point #1:
>
>   1) Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
>
>  	No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one 
           sinner
>   that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier 
    here
>   than for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way 
    and
>   join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all 
    Wikiality. But
>   it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
>
> -- 
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer 
  http://sethf.com/Infothought

People have been saying for a long time that Brandt would make a 
good test case; nothing new or shocking there. Personally, I think 
we would've been better off with a Seigenthaler suit, as then it'd 
be easier to position PR-wise (hypocrisy, minor impact, 
over-reaction, posted by an anon once, etc), as opposed to Brandt, 
where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision 
to keep the article was bad - and if it is bad, it basically 
condemns anyone who ever spoke in favor of something related to 
keeping it, which is how much of the active community and 
higher-ups?

-- 
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.