Hello, and thanks for your reply.
No need to cc me. I already subscribe to the list, and don't need a second copy of a message. Thanks, though.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth learning from.
Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
And how would that differ from any law in other country in the world? I'm sure there are dozens of countries with information- or press-suppression laws more restrictive than the US's. The notion that we should follow all of them seems untenable, and I don't see why we'd follow some but not others.
Personally, I don't think armchair international lawering will get us anywhere. Absent a formal request from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to follow non-US law, I suggest we'd focus on building the best encyclopedia possible.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
That's an interesting argument, although I'd personally not go so far as to call it good.
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being malicious on-wiki. But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
Well, I also agree that we should stop people from making personal attacks on-wiki, if that helps. And I'd encourage people not to get into the zero-sum, low-respect mindset that goes with a lot of attacks; I rarely see it help anything.
However, I stand by my view that people should be able to have thoughtful, [[WP:COOL]] discussions about those attacks, referring to source material as necessary. I believe anything else is in the long term counterproductive, harming the very community we are aiming to protect, and undermining a norm that is central to our ability to build a great encyclopedia.
But yes I agree completely that people on all sides of some of these disputes feel attacked, and also agree that's part of the problem.
William