Mike Godwin Joins the Review Options

[mnemonic]

Hi, folks. Mike Godwin here. Just checking in as requested. I think I've properly enabled email if you want to email me.

Best regards,

--Mike

[TungstenCarbide]

Hi, folks. Mike Godwin here. Just checking in as requested. I think I've properly enabled email if you want to email me.

Welcome Mike!

[gomi]

Hi, folks. Mike Godwin here. Just checking in as requested. I think I've properly enabled email if you want to email me.

Just an administrative note to point out that our user "mnemonic" did, in fact, register and validate using an email address that is widely known to be Mike Godwin's. I don't believe our interface points that out or reveals that address to our membership, but the "PM" interface will work to contact Mr. Godwin if he checks it from time to time.

Welcome to the Review, Mike.

[Zoloft]

Welcome, Mr. Godwin.
Here's a nice badge for you:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/US-FBI-Seal.svg/200px-US-FBI-Seal.svg.png)

[mnemonic]

It's a great image -- though not, technically, a "badge." And of course you're using the image lawfully here, just as Wikipedia continues to use it lawfully. (The FBI ceased to press its argument that the federal statute bars non-fraudulent, non-misrepresentative uses of the seal, once it was clear they were getting a lot of bad press over it.) And I would be happy to defend your use of it here if you're ever challenged about it.

[thekohser]

(The FBI ceased to press its argument that the federal statute bars non-fraudulent, non-misrepresentative uses of the seal, once it was clear they were getting a lot of bad press over it.)

Wouldn't have anything to do with the additional fact that the guy in charge of the "case" against the WMF happened to retire from his FBI career?

[mnemonic]

(The FBI ceased to press its argument that the federal statute bars non-fraudulent, non-misrepresentative uses of the seal, once it was clear they were getting a lot of bad press over it.)

Wouldn't have anything to do with the additional fact that the guy in charge of the "case" against the WMF happened to retire from his FBI career?

Not at all, since the guy in charge of the "case" against the WMF is not Larson, who retired, but Binney, who is still with the FBI. When I spoke with Larson, he referred to Binney as "the seal guy," and seemed to be a bit bemused that "the seal guy" had pressed him (Larson) to write a letter to WMF.

[thekohser]

Not at all, since the guy in charge of the "case" against the WMF is not Larson, who retired, but Binney, who is still with the FBI. When I spoke with Larson, he referred to Binney as "the seal guy," and seemed to be a bit bemused that "the seal guy" had pressed him (Larson) to write a letter to WMF.

LOL. Now that's funny. Touché.

We need more of these "inside baseball" vignettes, Mike!

[gomi]

... I would be happy to defend your use of it here if you're ever challenged about it.

Give that man a dollar bill, just like on Perry Mason. Mike Godwin is now the Review's lawyer!

All of our PMs to him can now be considered protected work product. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[mnemonic]

... I would be happy to defend your use of it here if you're ever challenged about it.

Give that man a dollar bill, just like on Perry Mason. Mike Godwin is now the Review's lawyer!

All of our PMs to him can now be considered protected work product. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think I offered only to defend Zoloft's use of the FBI seal. (We distinguish between Zoloft the person and Wikipedia Review as a legal entity, right?) Certainly I can imagine contexts in which I could defend Wikipedia Review, provided that didn't require me to be adverse to any other current or former client.

Although to judge by consensus here, it's not clear that you would want me to defend you or WR, gomi.

[Zoloft]

... I would be happy to defend your use of it here if you're ever challenged about it.

Give that man a dollar bill, just like on Perry Mason. Mike Godwin is now the Review's lawyer!

All of our PMs to him can now be considered protected work product. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think I offered only to defend Zoloft's use of the FBI seal. (We distinguish between Zoloft the person and Wikipedia Review as a legal entity, right?) Certainly I can imagine contexts in which I could defend Wikipedia Review, provided that didn't require me to be adverse to any other current or former client.

Although to judge by consensus here, it's not clear that you would want me to defend you or WR, gomi.

I appreciate your offer to defend my use of the seal. That the FBI has a 'seal guy' amuses me mightily.

[EricBarbour]

Welcome to WR, Mike.

Your NDA has probably expired by now. (I'm assuming they are paranoid enough to force new employees
to sign an NDA, despite being an "open" project thing. Could be wrong, I'd like to be wrong.)

Would you be willing to share some insider stories?
Oh, right "attorney-client etc", nevermind.

If you ever want to see things about Wikipedia that Wikimedia didn't
tell you, please feel free to send me a PM.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Detective]

I'm willing to give him a chance here.

That's very decent of you.

Who knows if he will provide anything interesting or worth while.

Does anyone know if Ottava will?

[gomi]

Although to judge by consensus here, it's not clear that you would want me to defend you or WR, gomi.

a) Joke;
b) I am sure you would zealously defend anyone you took on as a client;
c) I don't think I've ever negatively commented on your work for the WMF, whether it is reprehensible or merely misguided;
d) It's OK. We've met several times over the years, but I didn't expect you to recognize me from my picture at the left. I've gained weight.

[EricBarbour]

c) I don't think I've ever negatively commented on your work for the WMF, whether it is reprehensible or merely misguided;

No problem, other people will do that for you, Gomi. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Vigilant]

I still think Godwin recently spent too much time exaggerating claims about abuse at Occupy Oakland and was hiding evidence of impropriety by those involved to try and get attention on himself, but I'm willing to give him a chance here. Who knows if he will provide anything interesting or worth while.

Weeping Jeebus on the cross,
You are the most pointless bag of protoplasm I've ever encountered.

[Jon Awbrey]

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Vigilant]

I still think Godwin recently spent too much time exaggerating claims about abuse at Occupy Oakland and was hiding evidence of impropriety by those involved to try and get attention on himself, but I'm willing to give him a chance here. Who knows if he will provide anything interesting or worth while.

Why on earth would I want to exaggerate claims about abuse? I posted an actual link to an actual video that, so far as anyone can tell, wasn't faked.

Why would I want to hide evidence of impropriety? Certainly I would get more "attention on myself" [sic] if I exposed evidence of impropriety that other reporters didn't see, right?

The fact is, I tweeted about events at Occupy Oakland when they happened, and Reason's editors, who follow me on Twitter, specifically asked me to write up a report about what I saw. Maybe Ottava thinks I somehow telepathically implanted that notion in their minds. (Or used NLP, because that's just how powerful a tweeter I am!)

You are forgetting a fight on Durova's facebook account where you were going on and on about how awful the police where while pretending all of the protesters were innocent little lambs that weren't throwing things, attacking people, etc. I know you use to know my real name, but I am willing to believe that you forgot it in the past year.

Mods,

Can you please ban Ottava?

There does not exist a thread in which he doesn't splatter fecal material every which way.

[Kelly Martin]

You are forgetting a fight on Durova's facebook account .. blah de blah ...

Just shut up, Ottava. Seriously. Why does everything on here always have to be about you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

It so totally amuses me that in a thread nominally about Mike Godwin, my own eponymous law gets demonstrated once again.

[melloden]

I still think Godwin recently spent too much time exaggerating claims about abuse at Occupy Oakland and was hiding evidence of impropriety by those involved to try and get attention on himself, but I'm willing to give him a chance here. Who knows if he will provide anything interesting or worth while.

Why on earth would I want to exaggerate claims about abuse? I posted an actual link to an actual video that, so far as anyone can tell, wasn't faked.

Why would I want to hide evidence of impropriety? Certainly I would get more "attention on myself" [sic] if I exposed evidence of impropriety that other reporters didn't see, right?

The fact is, I tweeted about events at Occupy Oakland when they happened, and Reason's editors, who follow me on Twitter, specifically asked me to write up a report about what I saw. Maybe Ottava thinks I somehow telepathically implanted that notion in their minds. (Or used NLP, because that's just how powerful a tweeter I am!)

You are forgetting a fight on Durova's facebook account where you were going on and on about how awful the police where while pretending all of the protesters were innocent little lambs that weren't throwing things, attacking people, etc. I know you use to know my real name, but I am willing to believe that you forgot it in the past year.

Mods,

Can you please ban Ottava?

There does not exist a thread in which he doesn't splatter fecal material every which way.

Seconded.

And to think he didn't understand why ArbCom banned him.

[Cla68]

Anyway, since this thread is about Mr. Godwin, I'd like to ask him something...why did you get involved in the David Gerard/ArbCom flap? There seemed to be several problems with the way you handled it:

1. You said that you weren't acting in your official capacity, but you implied legal implications in your communications with ArbCom members.
2. WP editors get wronged, or think they are wronged, by WP's administration all the time. Why did you jump in on David Gerard's behalf, of all people?
3. The WMF is always saying that it will stay out of WP's administration, but your intervention seemed to violate that informal edict.

Also, were you surprised at the level of animosity that so many WP editors have towards David Gerard?

Welcome to WR, by the way!

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[mnemonic]

Anyway, since this thread is about Mr. Godwin, I'd like to ask him something...why did you get involved in the David Gerard/ArbCom flap? There seemed to be several problems with the way you handled it:

1. You said that you weren't acting in your official capacity, but you implied legal implications in your communications with ArbCom members.
2. WP editors get wronged, or think they are wronged, by WP's administration all the time. Why did you jump in on David Gerard's behalf, of all people?
3. The WMF is always saying that it will stay out of WP's administration, but your intervention seemed to violate that informal edict.

Also, were you surprised at the level of animosity that so many WP editors have towards David Gerard?

Welcome to WR, by the way!

In a nutshell: I didn't want David to sue Arbcom as a group or as individuals, and I believe David had a case that would survive whatever the UK equivalent of a summary-judgment motion is. Although Arbcom is not an agent of the Foundation, a successful legal attack on Arbcom could potentially lead to problems for the Foundation, so in my judgment it was best to move Arbcom and David to a better settlement and resolution of the dispute. (As I recall, David relinquished any claim to admin powers, and Arbcom retracted its public statement that David was violating privacy or other rules.)

At the same time, it was important that I make clear that I wasn't giving Arbcom orders, but strongly suggesting as someone who was *not* their supervisor or attorney that "talk to the hand" is not the optimal response to a credible legal challenge. The confusion lay in the fact that my .signature appended my title in one or more of my first messages -- when I realized that was happening, I changed my signature.

I imagine that people who aren't trained as lawyers find it hard to understand why a lawyer might seek to prevent a potentially problematic case from arising rather than focusing on how to win it (or to stay out of it), but a very great deal of my work at Wikimedia had to do with preventing cases from ever happening. If you didn't often hear about other potential cases, that is because I frequently was able to nip them earlier in the bud. (More rarely, as you may infer, it was appropriate to make potential cases public before they got off the ground, as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[EricBarbour]

In a nutshell: I didn't want David to sue Arbcom as a group or as individuals, and I believe David had a case that would survive whatever the UK equivalent of a summary-judgment motion is. Although Arbcom is not an agent of the Foundation, a successful legal attack on Arbcom could potentially lead to problems for the Foundation, so in my judgment it was best to move Arbcom and David to a better settlement and resolution of the dispute. (As I recall, David relinquished any claim to admin powers, and Arbcom retracted its public statement that David was violating privacy or other rules.)

If this is the essence of what happened, then I would have to say that you did a good job of dealing
with a near explosion. People here figured out long ago that Mr. Gerard is a Very Bad Person, the only
people who don't seem to realize this are his fellow Wikipedians.

I mean, look at all the blocks he was making prior to November 2009.
No one's ever checked to see if all those users were blocked for
good reasons or bad, or none at all.

PS: Gerard might have agreed to "not use" his admin powers, but he's still got them.
People have been desysopped for a lot less. Nuff said.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[dogbiscuit]

Anyway, since this thread is about Mr. Godwin, I'd like to ask him something...why did you get involved in the David Gerard/ArbCom flap? There seemed to be several problems with the way you handled it:

1. You said that you weren't acting in your official capacity, but you implied legal implications in your communications with ArbCom members.
2. WP editors get wronged, or think they are wronged, by WP's administration all the time. Why did you jump in on David Gerard's behalf, of all people?
3. The WMF is always saying that it will stay out of WP's administration, but your intervention seemed to violate that informal edict.

Also, were you surprised at the level of animosity that so many WP editors have towards David Gerard?

Welcome to WR, by the way!

In a nutshell: I didn't want David to sue Arbcom as a group or as individuals, and I believe David had a case that would survive whatever the UK equivalent of a summary-judgment motion is. Although Arbcom is not an agent of the Foundation, a successful legal attack on Arbcom could potentially lead to problems for the Foundation, so in my judgment it was best to move Arbcom and David to a better settlement and resolution of the dispute. (As I recall, David relinquished any claim to admin powers, and Arbcom retracted its public statement that David was violating privacy or other rules.)

At the same time, it was important that I make clear that I wasn't giving Arbcom orders, but strongly suggesting as someone who was *not* their supervisor or attorney that "talk to the hand" is not the optimal response to a credible legal challenge. The confusion lay in the fact that my .signature appended my title in one or more of my first messages -- when I realized that was happening, I changed my signature.

I imagine that people who aren't trained as lawyers find it hard to understand why a lawyer might seek to prevent a potentially problematic case from arising rather than focusing on how to win it (or to stay out of it), but a very great deal of my work at Wikimedia had to do with preventing cases from ever happening. If you didn't often hear about other potential cases, that is because I frequently was able to nip them earlier in the bud. (More rarely, as you may infer, it was appropriate to make potential cases public before they got off the ground, as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

One of the things that we as outsiders haven't got a clear picture of is the perceptions that the WMF have of The Community. I would say that amongst the diverse membership here, one of the few things there is consensus on is that the Wikipedian community is the fundamental thing that is broken. There are many aspects of this: the basic standard of behaviour to one another, the setting up of the unknowing to be considered better than the knowing (and you must have been gnashing your teeth as a lawyer at times being told what the law was by some Internet nerd).

While publicly we can expect to see WMF being supportive of their baby, I think Sue has been speaking out in ways which shows that there is perhaps more understanding of this within the WMF than might be perceived from their actions. As Eric mentions, there are a few particularly toxic characters who set the tone, and we'd count David Gerard as one of them - a very able debater who applies his mind to supporting his own extreme agenda. The failure of WMF to take any real responsibility for the community it relies on is my biggest disappointment, which I view as being at the door of Jimbo and WMF have taken their cue from him rather than trying to bring Wikipedia back into the real world.

Is there anything you'd care to share on that?

[lilburne]

as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

And hence the BLPs on WP have become a cesspit of sleeze, an accumulation of any bit of reported gossip, true or otherwise, permanently attached to the record of anyone deemed notable by some bizarre standard, and not only the reported gossip about the subject, but also gossip about their friends and family too.

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

[mnemonic]

Anyway, since this thread is about Mr. Godwin, I'd like to ask him something...why did you get involved in the David Gerard/ArbCom flap? There seemed to be several problems with the way you handled it:

1. You said that you weren't acting in your official capacity, but you implied legal implications in your communications with ArbCom members.
2. WP editors get wronged, or think they are wronged, by WP's administration all the time. Why did you jump in on David Gerard's behalf, of all people?
3. The WMF is always saying that it will stay out of WP's administration, but your intervention seemed to violate that informal edict.

Also, were you surprised at the level of animosity that so many WP editors have towards David Gerard?

Welcome to WR, by the way!

In a nutshell: I didn't want David to sue Arbcom as a group or as individuals, and I believe David had a case that would survive whatever the UK equivalent of a summary-judgment motion is. Although Arbcom is not an agent of the Foundation, a successful legal attack on Arbcom could potentially lead to problems for the Foundation, so in my judgment it was best to move Arbcom and David to a better settlement and resolution of the dispute. (As I recall, David relinquished any claim to admin powers, and Arbcom retracted its public statement that David was violating privacy or other rules.)

At the same time, it was important that I make clear that I wasn't giving Arbcom orders, but strongly suggesting as someone who was *not* their supervisor or attorney that "talk to the hand" is not the optimal response to a credible legal challenge. The confusion lay in the fact that my .signature appended my title in one or more of my first messages -- when I realized that was happening, I changed my signature.

I imagine that people who aren't trained as lawyers find it hard to understand why a lawyer might seek to prevent a potentially problematic case from arising rather than focusing on how to win it (or to stay out of it), but a very great deal of my work at Wikimedia had to do with preventing cases from ever happening. If you didn't often hear about other potential cases, that is because I frequently was able to nip them earlier in the bud. (More rarely, as you may infer, it was appropriate to make potential cases public before they got off the ground, as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

One of the things that we as outsiders haven't got a clear picture of is the perceptions that the WMF have of The Community. I would say that amongst the diverse membership here, one of the few things there is consensus on is that the Wikipedian community is the fundamental thing that is broken. There are many aspects of this: the basic standard of behaviour to one another, the setting up of the unknowing to be considered better than the knowing (and you must have been gnashing your teeth as a lawyer at times being told what the law was by some Internet nerd).

While publicly we can expect to see WMF being supportive of their baby, I think Sue has been speaking out in ways which shows that there is perhaps more understanding of this within the WMF than might be perceived from their actions. As Eric mentions, there are a few particularly toxic characters who set the tone, and we'd count David Gerard as one of them - a very able debater who applies his mind to supporting his own extreme agenda. The failure of WMF to take any real responsibility for the community it relies on is my biggest disappointment, which I view as being at the door of Jimbo and WMF have taken their cue from him rather than trying to bring Wikipedia back into the real world.

Is there anything you'd care to share on that?

I think it's clear to most people engaged with the Wikimedia projects, including staff, that improving diversity in the community is a good and necessary thing. I also agree that the (correct in my view) attitude that Argument From Authority is a fallacy is too often interpreted as an excuse to discount a contribution from a (self-identified but presumptively honest) expert. As for being told what the law is by Internet nerds, I have enjoyed the frequent declarations on WR that I'm incompetent, that I've gotten the law wrong, etc. I'd take such criticisms more seriously if they were coming from colleagues, which I suppose indicates that, speaking personally, I'm one of those people who does value expert opinion over amateur opinion.

Still, amateurs can contribute a lot. (Amateur astronomers, for example, have done great work over the years.) So, I don't discount something merely because it comes from an amateur. So, striking the right balances to ensure that there is enough content to make an encyclopedia relevant is a hard problem. (One meme I've been successful in promoting is that Wikipedia should be a fine place to start researching a subject, but it will generally be a bad place to *start and end* your research.) I do understand and sympathize with some people who are unhappy about this or that aspect of Wikipedia. I also think it's worth keeping in mind that most people who work for WMF really are idealistic and trying to help these projects succeed.

as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

And hence the BLPs on WP have become a cesspit of sleeze, an accumulation of any bit of reported gossip, true or otherwise, permanently attached to the record of anyone deemed notable by some bizarre standard, and not only the reported gossip about the subject, but also gossip about their friends and family too.

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

I'm not sure why you use the word "hence" here. BLPs predate my tenure at WMF. The work I did in shutting down the German murderers' lawsuits against WMF and the chapters didn't promote inaccuracy -- instead, that work ensured greater accuracy. As for the FBI, I don't see a connection between the FBI Seal complaint and BLPs.

[GlassBeadGame]

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

See your Nazi and raise you two Hiltlers, Jon. Yet another internet wierdo right winger (Austrian School -Austrian School -Go Austrian School) on WR. Godwin Doesn't know shit from shinola or Occupy from a Ron Paul rally. How's your real world work against the far right rights attacks on education in Michigan going? Not that WR is a meaningful place for that discussion. The dialog has collapsed.

[Michaeldsuarez]

One meme I've been successful in promoting is that Wikipedia should be a fine place to start researching a subject, but it will generally be a bad place to *start and end* your research.

The problem with depending on Wikipedia as a starting point is that POV-pushers control the next point readers go to (or don't go to).

[It's the blimp, Frank]

People here figured out long ago that Mr. Gerard is a Very Bad Person, the only
people who don't seem to realize this are his fellow Wikipedians.

I mean, look at all the blocks he was making prior to November 2009.
No one's ever checked to see if all those users were blocked for
good reasons or bad, or none at all.

PS: Gerard might have agreed to "not use" his admin powers, but he's still got them.
People have been desysopped for a lot less. Nuff said.

This sort of encapsulates what is wrong with Wikipedia.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

And hence the BLPs on WP have become a cesspit of sleeze, an accumulation of any bit of reported gossip, true or otherwise, permanently attached to the record of anyone deemed notable by some bizarre standard, and not only the reported gossip about the subject, but also gossip about their friends and family too.

Oh yes, and that too.

[mnemonic]

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

See your Nazi and raise you two Hiltlers, Jon. Yet another internet wierdo right winger (Austrian School -Austrian School -Go Austrian School) on WR. Godwin Doesn't know shit from shinola or Occupy from a Ron Paul rally. How's your real world work against the far right rights attacks on education in Michigan going? Not that WR is a meaningful place for that discussion. The dialog has collapsed.

I'm not a right-winger. Generally speaking, I'm a left-progressive civil-libertarian social democrat. I hang out with more doctrinaire Libertarians because I like them personally and get along with them, and they publish me, even when they disagree with me. (They even published my piece about how the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore incorrectly.) I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between a Ron Paul rally and an Occupy rally. I'm not admitted to the Michigan bar, and I don't live in Michigan, but I support those who are fighting right-wing attacks on government and public policy in Michigan.

[mnemonic]

One meme I've been successful in promoting is that Wikipedia should be a fine place to start researching a subject, but it will generally be a bad place to *start and end* your research.

The problem with depending on Wikipedia as a starting point is that POV-pushers control the next point readers go to (or don't go to).

That's one thing that seems intuitively true, but that I don't find to be true in practice. It's usually pretty easy for a truly curious person to find contradictory POVs, even if they begin with a POV-distorted Wikipedia article. I certainly agree that if someone is not curious, but just lazy or paranoid, it's possible to give an such a person a biased article and make it stick in their minds.

as I did with the German murderers and with the FBI.)

And hence the BLPs on WP have become a cesspit of sleeze, an accumulation of any bit of reported gossip, true or otherwise, permanently attached to the record of anyone deemed notable by some bizarre standard, and not only the reported gossip about the subject, but also gossip about their friends and family too.

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

Looks like my previous attempt at a response was deleted. Anyway, I don't see a connection between (a) my handling of the German murderers and the FBI and (b) any problems regarding BLPs. As you know, BLPs and BLP policies predate my tenure at WMF.

[GlassBeadGame]

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

See your Nazi and raise you two Hiltlers, Jon. Yet another internet wierdo right winger (Austrian School -Austrian School -Go Austrian School) on WR. Godwin Doesn't know shit from shinola or Occupy from a Ron Paul rally. How's your real world work against the far right rights attacks on education in Michigan going? Not that WR is a meaningful place for that discussion. The dialog has collapsed.

I'm not a right-winger. Generally speaking, I'm a left-progressive civil-libertarian social democrat. I hang out with more doctrinaire Libertarians because I like them personally and get along with them, and they publish me, even when they disagree with me. (They even published my piece about how the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore incorrectly.) I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between a Ron Paul rally and an Occupy rally. I'm not admitted to the Michigan bar, and I don't live in Michigan, but I support those who are fighting right-wing attacks on government and public policy in Michigan.

Reason (Free Minds and Free Markets) looks as far right as it gets. "I'm not a right winger I just serve their interests on internet where it is popular and trendy" sounds about right. But why should I make such a distinction.

The Michigan stuff was addressed to Jon. Not everything is about you.

[Web Fred]

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I wondered who was going to be the first... you beat me to it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

BTW, welcome Mr Godwin.

Any chance of getting me unblocked? heheheh

[A Horse With No Name]

Eh, phooey...how come WR can't get more 18-to-24-year-old girls with overflowing D cups? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[thekohser]

Mike, I am wondering if you can share how much you ever interacted with previous WMF attorney, Brad Patrick. What is your opinion of his work? Do you know why he left the WMF?

[Eppur si muove]

Eh, phooey...how come WR can't get more 18-to-24-year-old girls with overflowing D cups? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

It did. Unfortunately, the D cups were as fictional as someone else's divinity qualifications.

[mbz1]

Hi, folks. Mike Godwin here. Just checking in as requested. I think I've properly enabled email if you want to email me.

Best regards,

--Mike

Mike, I wonder why did you decide to join WR?

[mnemonic]

Mike, I am wondering if you can share how much you ever interacted with previous WMF attorney, Brad Patrick. What is your opinion of his work? Do you know why he left the WMF?

I spoke with Brad a number of times both before and after I was hired, and consulted him from time to time during my tenure as General Counsel. I never actually worked with him, though. I wasn't party to any discussions about his leaving WMF. That all predates me. I can say he has always been pleasant, cooperative, and collegial, and I appreciate that he has said kind words about my work at WMF from time to time.

And hence the BLPs on WP have become a cesspit of sleeze, an accumulation of any bit of reported gossip, true or otherwise, permanently attached to the record of anyone deemed notable by some bizarre standard, and not only the reported gossip about the subject, but also gossip about their friends and family too.

Oh yes, and that too.

I don't see much of a connection between BLPs and my work with regard to the German murderers or the FBI.

[mnemonic]

Hi, folks. Mike Godwin here. Just checking in as requested. I think I've properly enabled email if you want to email me.

Best regards,

--Mike

Mike, I wonder why did you decide to join WR?

Well, I often thought about responding to questions and misapprehensions I saw here when I was working at WMF, but it seemed to me that to do so would be a time sink that I really couldn't afford.

(For example, it was widely speculated here that I was "hauled off" by the FBI. Nothing could be further from the truth. We invited the FBI to speak to us about cooperation -- not about the FBI Seal -- in my final months as General Counsel, and that meetup, heavily attended by WMF staff, was pleasant and created a lasting working relationship with the SF Bay Area FBI office.)

Nazi ❢

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

See your Nazi and raise you two Hiltlers, Jon. Yet another internet wierdo right winger (Austrian School -Austrian School -Go Austrian School) on WR. Godwin Doesn't know shit from shinola or Occupy from a Ron Paul rally. How's your real world work against the far right rights attacks on education in Michigan going? Not that WR is a meaningful place for that discussion. The dialog has collapsed.

I'm not a right-winger. Generally speaking, I'm a left-progressive civil-libertarian social democrat. I hang out with more doctrinaire Libertarians because I like them personally and get along with them, and they publish me, even when they disagree with me. (They even published my piece about how the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore incorrectly.) I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between a Ron Paul rally and an Occupy rally. I'm not admitted to the Michigan bar, and I don't live in Michigan, but I support those who are fighting right-wing attacks on government and public policy in Michigan.

Reason (Free Minds and Free Markets) looks as far right as it gets. "I'm not a right winger I just serve their interests on internet where it is popular and trendy" sounds about right. But why should I make such a distinction.

My view is that in many ways Reason/Cato Libertarians are orthogonal to the traditional left-right distinctions common in United States politics. At any rate, Reason publishes me even though their editors know I disagree with them about a range of issues, ranging from economic policy to civil rights remedies.

The Michigan stuff was addressed to Jon. Not everything is about you.

Sorry for my mistake. Was fooled by the topic header.


--Mike