Shell Kinney - retired? Options

[carbuncle]

That what she said.

[lilburne]

meanwhile it is head-in-soup time.

I think we do need to clarify which tasks should be handled by whom. Once I get some direction on where to go with this, I might have a better idea how best to iron out these issues. (I'm still working on that communication system, so can't rely on it yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)) I think voicing them here is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mde...om_and_security

Yep definitely a good start.

[Kelly Martin]

meanwhile it is head-in-soup time.

I think we do need to clarify which tasks should be handled by whom. Once I get some direction on where to go with this, I might have a better idea how best to iron out these issues. (I'm still working on that communication system, so can't rely on it yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)) I think voicing them here is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mde...om_and_security

Yep definitely a good start.

Personally, I don't think the WMF will ever provide proper protection or legal guidance to its volunteers, because that would risk its section 230 immunity.

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they? There is absolutely nothing that even begins to suggest that offering either acceptable-use policies or legal guidance to customers (let's keep it straight, Wikipedia editors are customers, not volunteers) would breach Section 230. In fact, calling them "volunteers" is more likely to breach 230 protection than having AUPs would. But the WMF doesn't have AUPs, and it only calls its customers "volunteers" when it's trying to raise money.

Providing "protection" is more complicated, since it could end up making the editors agents. But the Association of the Editors of the English Wikipedia could readily enter into an agreement with an insurance company that would then offer general liability policies to its members at reasonable rates, which could be incorporated as part of the membership dues; such an arrangement would not necessarily make the Association liable. If only such an entity existed....

[No one of consequence]

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they?

By way of clarification, I can't say for certain that they think they are hamstrung by section 230, only that they have refused in the past to provide the kind of guidance and support that anyone else in a multi-million dollar organization would get*. If there was a specific reason cited, I don't recall it.

*Do you imagine, for example, that if a Red Cross volunteer was harassed at her home by a mentally unstable person who who was opposed to blood donation, that the leaders of the local chapter would shrug their shoulders and tell the volunteer that she was on her own, and good luck?

[lilburne]

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they?

By way of clarification, I can't say for certain that they think they are hamstrung by section 230, only that they have refused in the past to provide the kind of guidance and support that anyone else in a multi-million dollar organization would get*. If there was a specific reason cited, I don't recall it.

*Do you imagine, for example, that if a Red Cross volunteer was harassed at her home by a mentally unstable person who who was opposed to blood donation, that the leaders of the local chapter would shrug their shoulders and tell the volunteer that she was on her own, and good luck?

You forget they are Randroids and other assorted Monarchists. Rugged individualistic frontiersmen swashbuckling through wilderness inhabited by sockpuppets, and trolls, to reach the castle "MOAR PR0N". Anyone that gets waylaid by the forces of parents, teachers, or courts, is on their own.