Talking to Jimmy Wales about discussion

[Thomas Dalton]

> Would BLP concerns even need to apply to a project/subproject that is
> a straightforward simple message board host? At least in
> article-space, someone can make an argument that the foundation
> "endorses" the article or otherwise contributes to a libel.  But a
> message board host should be every bit as free from liability as the
> US Postal Service for the letters it carries, or the phone company for
> calls that go through its lines, or for the emails written on Gmail.
>
> But of course, I'm not a lawyer, and would love to know if I know what
> I'm talking about. :)

I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is
pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for
a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a
world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for
practically everything, so I think things are ok.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Will L <Nabble>]

Nathan, and everyone,

Thanks for the responses. Let me make the idea more concrete.

Here is the wiki article on what is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Here is the wikien-l mailing list discussions: http://www.nabble.com/English-Wikipedia-f14021.html

I use Nabble's wikien-l archive because it's easy to browse the topics and to SEE the tight relationship between the discussions and the wiki article.

They complement each other. Why should they be separated?

Regards,
Will

Nathan Awrich wrote:

Hi Will,

Thanks for your interest. I think Jimmy and Thomas have made the standard
points above - that our aim is to provide a source of accessible and
comprehensive information. It isn't a primary teaching tool. We aim to, for
instance, contain all the material you might find in a standard general
chemistry textbook (as an example). What we do not do, though, is provide
this material in a manner suitable for actually learning general chemistry.
We also, obviously, don't provide an instructor.

One of the key benefits of the Wikipedia development model is that it allows
for improvements by people who are not terribly well informed, on the
assumption that in time enough people will have enough aggregate knowledge
that the general quality of our articles will be high. The editors who might
respond about a subject on the talkpage of a random article can't be assumed
to have complete knowledge, or even to know much of anything at all. They
might still make valuable contributions to the article, but you wouldn't
want to ask a question (say, about breast cancer) where an accurate answer
would require a broad depth of knowledge on related subjects.

On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions
are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're
looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?

Nathan

[Charlotte Webb]

On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is
> pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for
> a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a
> world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for
> practically everything, so I think things are ok.

Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral"
issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.

—C.W.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/9/24 Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb@...>:
> On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
>> I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is
>> pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for
>> a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a
>> world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for
>> practically everything, so I think things are ok.
>
> Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral"
> issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.

My comment wasn't about audience, it was about authors. If the authors
are clearly just a bunch of random chatting chatting people aren't
likely to care too much about what they say or take it seriously. If
the authors are Wikipedians that are generally considered (possibly
incorrectly) to be well informed and reliable, people are likely to
care much more and will take it seriously.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb@...
> wrote:

> On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> > I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is
> > pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for
> > a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a
> > world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for
> > practically everything, so I think things are ok.
>
> Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral"
> issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.
>
> —C.W.

This is not true in the least.  There are clear ethical issues arising from
the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally become
one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for that
person's name.  Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory information
about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other
random website.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charlotte Webb]

On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@...> wrote:
> This is not true in the least.  There are clear ethical issues arising from
> the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally become
> one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for that
> person's name.  Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory information
> about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other
> random website.

No.

If I refuse to write derogatory information about you at all, I am ethical.

If I write or condone derogatory information about you elsewhere on
the internet, but refuse to post it or discuss it on Wikipedia on the
basis of ethics (basing my ethics on estimated google juice), I am a
hypocrite of the worst kind.

—C.W.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb@...>wrote:

> On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@...> wrote:
> > This is not true in the least.  There are clear ethical issues arising
> from
> > the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally
> become
> > one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for
> that
> > person's name.  Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory
> information
> > about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other
> > random website.
>
> No.
>
> If I refuse to write derogatory information about you at all, I am ethical.
>
> If I write or condone derogatory information about you elsewhere on
> the internet, but refuse to post it or discuss it on Wikipedia on the
> basis of ethics (basing my ethics on estimated google juice), I am a
> hypocrite of the worst kind.
>
> —C.W.
>

I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the
meaning of "derogatory information."  If we are interpreting it as meaning
"blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong
anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story.  But if it means "negative
information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable
whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may
become more significant.  As many BLP problems deal with the second of these
categories as the first.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charlotte Webb]

On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@...> wrote:
> I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the
> meaning of "derogatory information."  If we are interpreting it as meaning
> "blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong
> anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story.  But if it means "negative
> information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable
> whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may
> become more significant.  As many BLP problems deal with the second of these
> categories as the first.

I agree that there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate these
issues, exactly as explained in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts_on_BLP

In any case, when you put anything on the internet, you have to assume
that pretty much everybody will see it, and copy it too, regardless of
the copyright status.

Yes, I will be the first to admit this about the real world, that
anything's kosher as long as you don't get caught, or as long as
nobody cares, or as long as you have a good lawyer. Most people do
base decisions on the probability of negative consequence, and not on
"ethics".

Ethics are about doing what's right regardless of these factors.

I'm not going to tell anybody how to act when they find a lost wallet.
Maybe you return it to the rightful owner, maybe you don't, but you
can't call it "ethics" when the real reason is "everyone in the
building saw you pick it up". Not with a straight face anyway.

—C.W.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l