[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
>> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
>> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
>> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
>> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
>> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of
>> community
>> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive
>> this,
>> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
>> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
>> cases of content dispute.
>>
>>
>>  This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of
> staff.  The status of an ISP implies blindness to content.  The more it
> assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
> question.  It does not know about these contents until it receives a
> properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must
> act according to law.  Third parties who just happen to feel offended by
> some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may
> or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed
> of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management
> will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts.



Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always
burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go
away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial
judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project
content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would
have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now
and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as
*comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this
last year, is ludicrous.

Andreas