Jimbo Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope" Options Rating

[j.delanoy]

Moulton, with all due respect, you are an idiot.

I know very little about law in general, and less about internet law. However, the little I do know is enough for me to know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.

Section 230 does not say anything about moderating content. Indeed, unless you change the meaning of the content by doing so, I don't even think that only posting part of someone else's content would violate your Section 230 immunity.

[Milton Roe]

Moulton, with all due respect, you are an idiot.

I know very little about law in general, and less about internet law. However, the little I do know is enough for me to know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.

Section 230 does not say anything about moderating content. Indeed, unless you change the meaning of the content by doing so, I don't even think that only posting part of someone else's content would violate your Section 230 immunity.

No, you can even alter content in a way that changes its meaning, and not be classified as a publisher, under one 230 decision. I kid you not. It's only when you encourage your contributers to start categorizing people in socially unacceptable ways, that one Federal circuit court (that gay old 9th, with a Jewish judge, even) has decided you lose immunity and become a publisher. But not for any particularly good intelligible reason. More in the nature of IDONTLIKEIT. See List of British Jews for similar button-pushing. No problem unless it's your own ox being gored, as usual.

[jch]

Moulton, with all due respect, you are an idiot.

I know very little about law in general, and less about internet law. However, the little I do know is enough for me to know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.

Section 230 does not say anything about moderating content. Indeed, unless you change the meaning of the content by doing so, I don't even think that only posting part of someone else's content would violate your Section 230 immunity.

No, you can even alter content in a way that changes its meaning, and not be classified as a publisher, under one 230 decision. I kid you not. It's only when you encourage your contributers to start categorizing people in socially unacceptable ways, that one Federal circuit court (that gay old 9th, with a Jewish judge, even) has decided you lose immunity and become a publisher. But not for any particularly good intelligible reason. More in the nature of IDONTLIKEIT. See List of British Jews for similar button-pushing. No problem unless it's your own ox being gored, as usual.

My question is how does Jimbo qualify as anything more than a community volunteer? His rights, as an admin and editor, aren't related to the rights of being chairman emeritus. Other permissions he holds are unrelated to editorial control at all. When he's playing sysop on Wikipedia, he's doing so as a volunteer, like the other 1600 admins.

So, why is it so different if it's him doing it, then? Please explain.

[Milton Roe]

Moulton, with all due respect, you are an idiot.

I know very little about law in general, and less about internet law. However, the little I do know is enough for me to know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.

Section 230 does not say anything about moderating content. Indeed, unless you change the meaning of the content by doing so, I don't even think that only posting part of someone else's content would violate your Section 230 immunity.

No, you can even alter content in a way that changes its meaning, and not be classified as a publisher, under one 230 decision. I kid you not. It's only when you encourage your contributers to start categorizing people in socially unacceptable ways, that one Federal circuit court (that gay old 9th, with a Jewish judge, even) has decided you lose immunity and become a publisher. But not for any particularly good intelligible reason. More in the nature of IDONTLIKEIT. See List of British Jews for similar button-pushing. No problem unless it's your own ox being gored, as usual.

My question is how does Jimbo qualify as anything more than a community volunteer? His rights, as an admin and editor, aren't related to the rights of being chairman emeritus. Other permissions he holds are unrelated to editorial control at all. When he's playing sysop on Wikipedia, he's doing so as a volunteer, like the other 1600 admins.

So, why is it so different if it's him doing it, then? Please explain.

Well, you mean leaving out the sec 230 problems?

It's like any volunteer organization. If the non-profit org gives some guy keys to the organization's truck and he runs over your dog with it while running a stoplight, in theory the organizaton has some liability for giving such powers to such an idiot. If they give the volunteer keys to the org's armored personnel carrier and your dog is REALLY flat, presumably it's even more.

[Moulton]

You can find a brief summary of the basis for Wikipedia's claim of Section 230 immunity here...

Section 230 and Wikipedia

The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity.

From there, one has to drill down to the authoritative analysis, a 46-page article by Ken S. Myers from the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (Volume 20, Number 1 Fall 2006).

Therein, you will find that there is a "three-pronged test" that WMF has to meet to shield itself with Section 230. Of the three prongs, the third one is the most fragile for WMF. You will find it discussed on page 187 of the above cited article...

C. Third Prong: “Information Provided by Another Information Content Provider”

Of the three prongs, the third will present the greatest challenge to Wikipedia. This prong requires that the relevant “information” be “provided by another information content provider.” The ambiguity and complexity in these terms cause this prong to be the most litigated.

This is where Jimbo is on thin ice, as he has clearly usurped supreme authority to "shape the content" of educational resources in Wikiversity (and by extension, in all WMF-sponsored projects).

[One]

In the last link's post you and GBG mention the Calfornia Fair Housing Council vs. Roommates.com case, which is more interesting than I think you've suggested, at least based on this analysis:

http://www.squidoo.com/cda230

Although Zeran had incredibly held that sec 230 immunises basically any Interactive Computer Service or ICS (read: anybody with a server and access to the internet) from any defamation publishers' liability even when they exercise "publisher's traditional editorial functions--such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content, the 9th court begged to differ. They decided that when Roommates.com provided even a dropdown menu which made suggestions about editing of content provided by third parties, that they had gone beyond simply being an ICS and were doing more than "traditional editorial functions" ala Zeran, and had therefore lost CDA 230 immunity, due to having crossed the line into guiding the creation of information content. What if they'd had 5 pillars of editing principles?

Don't get me wrong, I think Zeran is horrifyingly broad, but lots of courts have adopted it, and the civil libertarians are rabid any time there's even a slight concession.

When I read Kozinsky's plurality opinion, it comes off as incredibly libertarian (which is not surprising, considering the author). There is some language which would seem to give some traction, but when you look at the graveyard of claims that have been killed by section 230, a lot of them have encouragements much more specific than Wikipedia's Five Pillars about submitting content. In fact, if the five pillars were enough, it would seem to totally gut 230, because any web forum that has posted standards would be argued to be encouraging certain content.

It looks like a very narrow exception to me, and one that's built on facts that don't have much traction in cases like Wikipedia--where there's no drop down to break the law.

Now, yes, there were civil rights issues to make things hot, as Roomates.com had provided dropdown menu options about whether you were looking for roommates of various types (straight, gay, male, female, black, white), and the California Fair Housing Council thus sued them. The court was annoyed and was looking for a reason to decide against Roommate.com, so it essentially decided that their dropdown menus encouraged illegal housing discrimination. Unforunately the court failed to come to grips with the question of why an ICS site that provides editorial direction in a direction the court doesn't like (categorizing people for roommate matching purposes) loses CDA 230 immunity, but should enjoy CDA 230 immunity if they provide editorial direction to categorizes people in more benign ways (such as all computer dating services do).

I think this is precisely why that case went differently. A dropdown box was pretty blatant encouragement to post illegal content, and it was a civil rights issue to boot.


Moulton, that's a good article. The author's conclusion is that Wikipedia is easily immune (although it's pre-Roommates). It's worth looking to the appendix so that you can look up the cases where the defendant lost. They all were much more involved with creating the content rather than defining its scope.

For example, hotornot.com is not the source of the content just because they exclude pictures of the Code of Hammurabi (I would rate it '7'). So too with Wikipedia.

Also note that even if Jimbo can be called WMF's information provider, they're only on the hook for what Jimbo says--not for third-party defamation.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 10th February 2009, 2:24am

[Cedric]

But I dislike being chastised for posts when Victim Joseph and umpteen cranks have free reign

When "cranks" like "Victim Joseph" go off on a rant here, they always get plenty of contradiction, not just from calmer serious critics of Wikipedia, but increasingly from you of the "Wikipedia Improvement Association" faction, who are all too quick dismiss and deride any criticism from someone who displays a bit of passion, all very much in keeping with the "shoot the messenger" culture that pervades WP.

--and they certainly don't have to bear derisive comments about their real-world identities from pseudonymous mods.

WTF are you even talking about here?? Does WP have any lack of admins hiding behind pseudonyms who do far more than make "derisive comments" about people with known identities? Serious libels have been put forth on WP by anonymous admins, and you damn well know it. Perhaps you mean to goad some of us mods into revealing our "RLI". In my case, I daresay you will find that disappointing (if you could even be persuaded to believe it in the first place). While my real name is not as common as "Steve Jones" or "Kevin Smith", it might as well be. You will get some hundreds of thousands of "ghits" for my name for thousands of men, none of whom are me. I have no significant "internet presence" at all, except for what little I have here.

If this doesn't stop, I won't post here anymore--even though there is still no alternative to this pseudonym-worshiping site with the temperamental owner.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

I've too damn much to do anyway.

{{citation needed}}

[EricBarbour]

This whole legal area is still quite grey. The court decisions that will help
sharpen and define an online "service provider"'s responsibilities and
liabilities have yet to be made, because the public has had significant
internet access only since 1994. It's still too new, and the millstones of the
law grind very slowly.

I told an attorney friend about this is-Wikipedia-a-publisher thing, and he said:
"It's a tough question. It only takes one court decision to ruin their day, and
courts can sometimes be very, very erratic."

That said, is Jimbo and his Nerd Starfleet willing to take this risk every day,
and dance on the edge of becoming a "publisher"? IMO they've already gone
over the edge anyway. Moulton's example is only one of many.

Do they really wanna be the test case? And are they simply deluding
themselves that they can simply ignore the question? Anyone wanna sell them
an insurance policy against defamation lawsuits?

I already posted a link to this article in another thread. It doesn't mention
Wikipedia directly, but does talk about online communities that have very roughly similar
operational parameters (Yelp, Juicy Campus). And please don't blather at me that WP is an
encyclopedia, not an opinion site--any attorney could look thru the forums here,
and conclude that WP has some opinionizing. Not to mention Jimbo etc. interfering
with content.

[One]

--and they certainly don't have to bear derisive comments about their real-world identities from pseudonymous mods.

WTF are you even talking about here?? Does WP have any lack of admins hiding behind pseudonyms who do far more than make "derisive comments" about people with known identities? Serious libels have been put forth on WP by anonymous admins, and you damn well know it. Perhaps you mean to goad some of us mods into revealing our "RLI". In my case, I daresay you will find that disappointing (if you could even be persuaded to believe it in the first place). While my real name is not as common as "Steve Jones" or "Kevin Smith", it might as well be. You will get some hundreds of thousands of "ghits" for my name for thousands of men, none of whom are me. I have no significant "internet presence" at all, except for what little I have here.

Yes, Wikipedia pseudonyms are similarly destructive toward real, named people. Did I say otherwise?

[Moulton]

Kauderwelsch and Brimstone

This whole legal area is still quite grey. The court decisions that will help sharpen and define an online "service provider"'s responsibilities and liabilities have yet to be made, because the public has had significant Internet access only since 1994. It's still too new, and the millstones of the law grind very slowly.

I told an attorney friend about this is-Wikipedia-a-publisher thing, and he said: "It's a tough question. It only takes one court decision to ruin their day, and courts can sometimes be very, very erratic."

That said, is Jimbo and his Nerd Starfleet willing to take this risk every day, and dance on the edge of becoming a "publisher"? IMO they've already gone over the edge anyway. Moulton's example is only one of many.

Do they really wanna be the test case? And are they simply deluding themselves that they can simply ignore the question? Anyone wanna sell them an insurance policy against defamation lawsuits?

Yes, the millstones of the law grind slow.

But amidst all the Kauderwelsch and Brimstone, there remains the traditional surgeon's scalpel of legally protected analysis, commentary, satire, and parody. This, too, Jimbo will consistently redact from the pages of WMF-sponsored projects, thereby establishing himself as the supreme authority for shaping the editorial content of materials published via WMF's servers, and wobbly legal jeopardies be damned.

[Moulton]

A fish rots from the head down.

When Jimbo replied to my concerns about Checkuser "Smith" by saying, essentially, "I agree that looks bad, maybe you should checkuser some people on the other side of the debate for balance" I knew once and for all that Jimbo was not the right person to turn to for insightful management of such issues.

It's worse than that. One can overlook a lack of mastery in the finer points of ethical reasoning, as long as there is some indication that the culture is making a good faith effort to learn, promote, and practice ethical administration.

But when Cary and Jimbo expressly declare a practical course on Applied Administrative Ethics to be "beyond the scope of the project", there is little doubt it's a hopelessly lost cause.

There were serious problems with that particular implementation (i.e. using disputes that had not yet been resolved as examples of allegedly unethical behavior, and whatever you think of pseudonyms, using people's real names against their wishes was surely not NECESSARY). He was NOT talking about the very idea of a course on ethics.

If that were true, the problem could have been fixed by keeping the course on Applied Ethics and excising the specific case studies which Hillgentleman had requested.

But that's not what happened. Instead, the entire course was dismantled and the subject matter was declared "beyond the scope" of the project.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 20th February 2009, 10:58pm

[Random832]

A fish rots from the head down.

When Jimbo replied to my concerns about Checkuser "Smith" by saying, essentially, "I agree that looks bad, maybe you should checkuser some people on the other side of the debate for balance" I knew once and for all that Jimbo was not the right person to turn to for insightful management of such issues.

It's worse than that. One can overlook a lack of mastery in the finer points of ethical reasoning, as long as there is some indication that the culture is making a good faith effort to learn, promote, and practice ethical administration.

But when Cary and Jimbo expressly declare a practical course on Applied Administrative Ethics to be "beyond the scope of the project", there is little doubt it's a hopelessly lost cause.

There were serious problems with that particular implementation (i.e. using disputes that had not yet been resolved as examples of allegedly unethical behavior, and whatever you think of pseudonyms, using people's real names against their wishes was surely not NECESSARY). He was NOT talking about the very idea of a course on ethics.

This post has been edited by Random832: Fri 20th February 2009, 10:41pm

[Moulton]

There were serious problems with that particular implementation (i.e. using disputes that had not yet been resolved as examples of allegedly unethical behavior, and whatever you think of pseudonyms, using people's real names against their wishes was surely not NECESSARY). He was NOT talking about the very idea of a course on ethics.

If that were true, the problem could have been fixed by keeping the course on Applied Ethics and excising the specific case studies which Hillgentleman had requested.

But that's not what happened. Instead, the entire course was dismantled and the subject matter was declared "beyond the scope" of the project.

To expand a bit...

There were nearly a dozen editors collaborating to craft the Wikversity course on Applied Ethics, including four longstanding WV Custodians. SB_Johnny prompted us to contribute much of the central core material, and he organized it into about a dozen manageable subpages. Hillgentleman proposed we augment the central core theory with real case studies. As I recall, there were three subpages (out of about a dozen subpages in all) that contained the Wikipedia case studies, which were primarily authored by three people (PrivateMusings, JWSchmidt, and myself).

If the problem were just those case studies (which were added after the bulk of the central core theory was in place), just those case studies could have been excised, keeping the academic theory and the references.

But the entire project was dismantled and declared "beyond the scope of the project."

I salvaged the central core theory (most of which I had written) and ported it to Google Knol. The rest of the material was summarily deleted.

[dtobias]

WAS_4.250 has asked me to "clue in" Moulton regarding his claims that his instructional material was "summarily deleted"; actually, much of it is still online, though many pages have been renamed and rearranged.

(I seem to be the designated relay agent now for getting info back and forth between WP and WR, being that I'm in reasonably good standing in both places, though that hardly makes me unique these days.)

[Milton Roe]

WAS_4.250 has asked me to "clue in" Moulton regarding his claims that his instructional material was "summarily deleted"; actually, much of it is still online, though many pages have been renamed and rearranged.

(I seem to be the designated relay agent now for getting info back and forth between WP and WR, being that I'm in reasonably good standing in both places, though that hardly makes me unique these days.)

Did WAS do the renaming and rearranging?

I should have left a post-it note to myself to nominate WAS 4.250 for Dick of Distinction for his unflaggingly inclusionist defense of BLP, while all the time insisting on remaining anonymous himself (his IP address was 4.250.xxx.xxx before he decided on his present creative username). A shy person who lives in New Jersey, one supposes. But that's not punishment enough for him, say I!

[Moulton]

WAS knows perfectly well that the bulk of the course was gutted, dismantled, and summarily baleeted. A few scattered shards remain scattered about, many with red links, some with templates reading, "this page has been nominated for deletion."

The course on applied ethics simply no longer exists, full stop.

[Jon Awbrey]

Bumping this up for another grind …


Jon

[EricBarbour]

By "grind", you do mean his thread, yes?

Featuring Jimbo making a fucking pest out of himself on Wikiversity. Again.

[Moulton]

For those just tuning in to the current flap on Wikiversity, it's instructive to note that this is not the first time that Jimbo came galumphing in to manipulate, threaten, and destabilize Wikiversity over the subject of managerial ethics. The above thread chronicles some of the fallout from his previous intervention, when he first gutted the content on managerial ethics, stating that such subject matter was "beyond the scope of the project."

[Moulton]

From Cormac Lawler's talk at Wikimania 2010...

Where are the boundaries?

Wikiversity has tried to be as inclusive as possible, but we can’t include everything (Bomb-making 101? Creationist history of the world?)

Particular boundary case: learning projects about other people, or other Wikimedia projects

Raised issues of ethics and civility: how much flexibility does one person have, in relation to the community?