QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 12:54pm)
To the best of my recollection, we are talking about a case where a couple of people contributed or conveyed information under their own real names, so the responsibility for those assertions rested solidly with them, until such time as the moderators of this Forum usurped that responsibility.
If you're talking about Daniel Brandt and Patrick Byrne, then I can say that I did ask Daniel about it in advance, but not Mr. Byrne, though I'm fairly certain he would have said, "Sure, whatever."
QUOTE
Lay reasoning would probably guess that the moderators of this Forum were on safer legal ground before doing that than they became after doing that.
The problem there is that prior judicial precedent simply doesn't exist to the extent that one can be certain about that, one way or the other. And we're not talking about anything illegal here anyway - compared to the average videogame forum, for example, this place is a paragon of civility.
Also, don't forget that during various periods we've denied members the ability to edit their own posts after a certain period of time, including now, which effectively removes some degree of responsibility from the posters without
necessarily transferring it to the moderators.
QUOTE
Of course there are standards of conduct, but up until recently they have been solidly grounded in global community standards, enforced by peer pressure and near universal assent...
I don't see the near-universal assent one way or the other, but maybe I'm not looking for it hard enough. That's why we're talking about it now, right? Everything I did is reversible, after all.
But let me ask you this: Do you
not think it matters that the material in question was posted (in some cases) over a year ago, and that the situation (WRT Wikipedia's respect for the privacy of others, as well as the behavior and sentiments of the involved parties) has significantly changed since then?