Mike Godwin Joins the Review Options

[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: Thu 5th January 2012, 5:11am

[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: Thu 5th January 2012, 5:31am

[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: Thu 5th January 2012, 8:10am

[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

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

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

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

I wondered who was going to be the first... you beat me to it

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?

[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?

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

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