[WikiEN-l] Scope of this mailing list

[Phil Nash]

Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash <phnash at blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for
>> some inexplicable reason".
>
> Does this refer to this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=431917947&oldid=431917436
>
> I'm not going to comment further, but I think others who respond to
> your posts should be aware of this.

Actually, you did comment further, and on a personal level; see below. And 
the lack of response in nearly nine hours to your post amply demonstrates, 
to me at least, how you seems to have missed the point.

> What the scope of this mailing list should be (given your recent posts
> on BLP matters, all copied to Jimmy Wales), is something I'd like to
> see discussed by the list moderators and those posting here. If there
> is a reason or rationale behind the posts, attempting to demonstrate
> something, then fine, but it would be courteous to state that rather
> then just post randomly like this.

Starting at the back, and working forward, my posts are not random. They are 
carefully selected examples based on my experience as (currently) a reader 
of Wikipedia and my responses to what I found. I take it as obvious that if 
I can read these articles, so can their subjects, and if they don't like 
what they see, making appropriate noises, or (in extreme cases) litigating 
against the Foundation.

We have BLP policies for that reason, and while I see editors on Wikipedia 
competing to provide articles about bacon(!), fiddling about with templates 
that are ostensibly fit for purpose as they are[1], and still arguing about 
trivial issues, nobody seems to be committed to clearing backlogs of 
articles that actually provide legal, if not journalistic, risk for WP and 
its parent. And there are myriad similar examples.

My personal reasons are less important than making sure that this project 
does, and can, continue without unnecessary diversions into legalities- 
perhaps I've been spending too much time reading up Commons policies of 
late, one of which (to paraphrase) says that "just because nobody will 
notice a copyright violation is no reason to ignore policy"- and so it 
should be with any policy on any WMF project that may have consequences for 
the Foundation. I am available to discuss any non-apparent personal 
motivations PRIVATELY by email rather than on a public list. But don't 
assume that I don't have our project's viability at heart.

As a lawyer by training, qualifications, experience, and observation, I've 
seen many operations thought to be acting blithely within the law crumble to 
the ground when the courts have upheld unexpected, but valid challenges. I'm 
not suggesting this is likely in our case; but neither is it beyond the 
bounds of possibility, and at least if I bring risks to the attention of 
others, my hands are clean.

Hope that helps.

[1] and consuming unnecessary resources in TfDs