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

[Moulton]

Jimbo's recent intervention in Wikiversity, where he declared various academic lines of inquiry (primarily associated with a course on Applied Ethics) to be "Beyond the Scope" of Wikiversity (and all other WMF-funded projects) is probably a bigger issue for Section 230 Immunity than other arguments.

At the same time that Jimbo publishes an appeal to donors to contribute to WMF's mission of bringing the sum of all human knowledge to 21st Century youth, he declares that a wide swath of educational material on Wikiversity is beyond the remit of the project, and he personally expunges it.

To my mind, that not only abrogates the letter and the spirit of the WMF Mission Statement, it also dispenses with the "hands-off" Section 230 argument that otherwise lawful and traditional educational content is not censored.

Jimbo's recent intervention in Wikiversity, where he declared various academic lines of inquiry (primarily associated with a course on Applied Ethics) to be "Beyond the Scope" of Wikiversity (and all other WMF-funded projects) is probably a bigger issue for Section 230 Immunity than other arguments.

It wasn't the concept of a course on applied ethics that was declared "beyond the scope" of wikiversity, it was the implementation (drawn heavily from your personal disputes).

While it might not have been your intent, can you at least see how someone else looking at it might see your implementation of the course in this way as somewhat self-serving (allowing you to present your adversaries as the "bad guys" in a story supposedly being used in an academic context)?

Jimbo never actually said exactly what was "Beyond Scope", and he failed to answer questions from others who asked him to explain himself.

Superficially, he made reference to "outing" on my talk page. But the only "outing" on that page was a paragraph near the top where SB_Johnny referred to me as "Barry".

But to your point about the case studies...

Originally, the course material on Applied Ethics was all theory, with no examples or exercises. Hillgentleman, who was helping us to structure the course, asked us to provide examples of ethical dilemmas against which the theoretical principles could be applied. Initially, PrivateMusings responded with a "scenario" roughly paralleling his experiences on WP. Hillgentleman said he didn't want synthetic scenarios, but live examples from WP. So several of us wrote up cases as Hillgentleman had requested.

When Tracy Walker took issue with the cases involving her, I invited her to write up her own account and we would both submit our versions to scholarly peer review, accepting and responding to questions from others. Tracy declined to do that, preferring to edit or delete the cases that John Schmidt and I had constructed, based on the evidence.

Time and again, I invited the editors from IDCab to present their versions and submit everything to peer review, in accordance with the principles of scholarly ethics.

Instead, they shredded the project, creating a fresh batch of ethical dilemmas to chew on. Ultimately, Cary and Jimbo issued veiled and not-so-veiled threats to shut WV down. Most of the custodians buckled. Some left the project.

I still call for a scholarly review of the travesty that took place on WV in the wake of the unprecedented intervention of Cary and Jimbo.

At the same time that Jimbo publishes an appeal to donors to contribute to WMF's mission of bringing the sum of all human knowledge to 21st Century youth, he declares that a wide swath of educational material on Wikiversity is beyond the remit of the project, and he personally expunges it.

An excellent point---falling on deaf ears.

Eventually, if things continue as they have, all Wikimedia projects will fall apart, primarily due to declining funding. Wikipedia etc. will end up like Geocities---a vast, Balkanized and almost-invisible digital slum.

That's been predicted for a while now.

But what concerns me more than the plausible prediction of an epic failure of WMF is the fraud that is being perpetrated on the donors and the disservice being delivered to impressionable 21st Century youth who have fallen into the anachronistic culture of the Jimbonic Jackboot Juggernaut as it ambles down the Puerile Pogrom Parade.

More than anything, it grieves me to watch these youngsters fall into reprehensible fascistic practices that ethical pioneers fought so hard to eradicate down through the past 4000 years of bloody political history.

[dtobias]

It would probably be better for objectivity and detatchment in a course on ethics if you would have provided examples not directly involving conflicts in which you were a combatant.

----------------
Now playing: Dusty Springfield - I Only Want to Be With You
via FoxyTunes

[Moulton]

It would probably be better for objectivity and detatchment in a course on ethics if you would have provided examples not directly involving conflicts in which you were a combatant.

Initially I had no plans to include any study cases at all. I had been asked to provide the core Theory of Ethics as I had learned it from a colleague of mine who teaches an undergraduate course in Mass Media Ethics.

Even before we began the Ethics Project, John Schmidt was writing up his own independent review of the IDCab case from Wikipedia. He had left sections of his report open for comments by others, including sections set aside for comments by those whose conduct was under review. I filled in the section reserved for me, adding clarifications, details, and additional evidence above and beyond John's independent account. When Tracy Walker came by, there was a place for her to likewise add her comments and clarifications. However, instead of adhering to the protocols of Scholarly Ethics, she undertook to edit and redact the sections written and signed by other scholars. As you know, it is a gross violation of scholarly ethics to tamper with the academic submissions of other scholars. Rather one submits comments, questions and challenges, which participating scholars are honor bound to address, per the principles of Scholarly Ethics.

Meantime, PrivateMusings had written up his own scenarios, highlighting the ethical questions to be studied, but initially redacting any reference to the live cases from which his scenarios were drawn. That's where Hillgentleman urged everyone to include actual cases rather than synthetic scenarios loosely modeled after real events. It was at that point that I wrote up my own first-person accounts.

I think it's fair to say that had we stuck to purely theoretical materials, without including any case studies, the project would have drawn negligible attention from anyone. In the final analysis, I think it was good that we did follow Hillgentleman's proposal to include authentic cases, even though it meant that members of IDCab would come swooping in to trash the project. What that did was to put the integrity of Wikiversity to the test, as a venue of authentic scholarly inquiry. As you know, Wikiversity then crashed and burned, as Cary and Jimbo both came in to totally kibosh the Ethics Project and to declare such studies as "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects.

In doing so, Jimbo clearly swept away any presumption of Section 230 Immunity and dramatically breached the promise set forth in the WMF Mission Statement to bring the "sum of all human knowledge" to the Internet public. In the wake of his unprecedented intervention, half a dozen adolescent WV Custodians dutifully donned their Jimbonic jackboots and followed his lead, thus revealing what Jimbo was teaching impressionable 21st Century youth under the umbrella of WMF's tax-exempt educational mission.

I would have preferred that Wikiversity had demonstrated the integrity of WMF's professed commitment to educational enterprise. But given the remarkable breach of that expectation, I'd rather have Jimbo personally breach it in the dramatic fashion he did than to have some minor official undermine it in a marginal sideshow that not even Kato bothers to take notice of.

[GlassBeadGame]

In doing so, Jimbo clearly swept away any presumption of Section 230 Immunity and dramatically breached the promise set forth in the WMF Mission Statement to bring the "sum of all human knowledge" to the Internet public.

How does not extending "Wikiversity" coverage into certain areas differ from forum discussion boards, which have the strongest claim of Sec 230 immunity, choosing to make make some areas off-topic? All discussion forums set limits of some type in this manner.

BTW the more I listen the less I understand what a "Wikiversity" is suppose to be. Do you teach classes? Conduct research? Publish papers? All I ever see is increasingly convoluted and unkind discussion. At least the Free University alternatives of another era might teach people to speak Arabic or Spanish. Even your own MuseNet (or whatever) taught kids some basic HTML. Wikiversity seems like a complete waste of time.

[zvook]

Moulton: What's your relationship to John Schmidt?

[Moulton]

In doing so, Jimbo clearly swept away any presumption of Section 230 Immunity and dramatically breached the promise set forth in the WMF Mission Statement to bring the "sum of all human knowledge" to the Internet public.

How does not extending "Wikiversity" coverage into certain areas differ from forum discussion boards, which have the strongest claim of Sec 230 immunity, choosing to make make some areas off-topic? All discussion forums set limits of some type in this manner.

BTW the more I listen the less I understand what a "Wikiversity" is suppose to be. Do you teach classes? Conduct research? Publish papers? All I ever see is increasingly convoluted and unkind discussion. At least the Free University alternatives of another era might teach people to speak Arabic or Spanish. Even your own MuseNet (or whatever) taught kids some basic HTML. Wikiversity seems like a complete waste of time.

When Wikiversity submitted its plans to WMF, the charter document set forth the mission, scope, and scholarly principles of the proposed project. John Schmidt wrote major portions of the Wikiversity proposal, and thus is a subject matter expert on what the project purports to be, and what WMF approved at the time of launch. It was John's clear understanding that the analysis he prepared was well within the scope and remit of the approved charter of Wikiversity.

BTW the more I listen the less I understand what a "Wikiversity" is suppose to be. Do you teach classes? Conduct research? Publish papers? All I ever see is increasingly convoluted and unkind discussion. At least the Free University alternatives of another era might teach people to speak Arabic or Spanish. Even your own MuseNet (or whatever) taught kids some basic HTML. Wikiversity seems like a complete waste of time.

It's supposed to be a collection of educational materials, mostly organized as course materials that anyone in the world can freely use to teach those subjects anywhere, any time. There are also some University classes which conduct part of their course work within Wikiversity (e.g. students writing up modules from their course). And there are some University professors who are compiling their course materials onto Wikiversity. Unlike Wikipedia, original research is expressly permitted in Wikiversity. Like Wikipedia, Wikiversity has multiple language versions of the site. Wikiversity started out as a good faith effort to organize an educational project around the traditional academic/collegiate model. But in the wake of the arrival of Jimbo late last summer, it devolved into a reprise of Saturday morning cartoons with Elmer Fudd blasting away at that Wascally Wabbit.

Moulton: What's your relationship to John Schmidt?

I had not met or heard of John Schmidt before my arrival at Wikiversity last summer. Previously, WAS 4.250 and I had been engaged in academic dialogues on my talk page, first at Wikipedia, and then at Meta-Wiki. In early July, WAS 4.250 learned about Wikiversity and proposed that we continue our conversations there. Once there, SB_Johnny and John Schmidt greeted us and both encouraged us to translate our discussions into a course on Ethics. With their help, we started constructing course materials on Applied Ethics in early July of last summer. Greg Kohs, The FieryAngel, PrivateMusings, and Dzonatas also joined the project.

The way I got to know John Schmidt is interesting. John and a few others at Wikiversity were interested in starting a streaming audio adjunct, but they hadn't persuaded WMF to provide a streaming audio server. As it happened, I had such a streaming audio server that I had previously installed four years ago at Utah State University. I also had installed a rarely used VOIP conferencing bridge there as well. Schmidt and the others were eager to avail themselves of these resources, and I was glad to make them available. Schmidt and I spent a lot of time just chatting on the TeamSpeak Voice Conferencing Bridge, mainly because that was the easiest way for me to talk him through the rigamarole to set up all the other streaming audio services. He got in the habit of leaving his voice connection to TeamSpeak open all day, and we would just chat idly as the spirit moved us. Eventually, as we traded war stories, he decided to do an independent study of the ethical issues I had run into on WP. It was easy for him to interview me via the TeamSpeak voice bridge.

[Moulton]

The recent disclosure that 73% of edits on Wikipedia are made by just 1400 users (roughly half of whom are admins) leads me to lay down another thesis.

The dominant community on Wikipedia are profoundly learning disabled with respect to the most profound lessons laid down through 4000 years of human history.

Perhaps the oldest lessons in the annals of human history are those associated with the introduction and refinement of concepts subsumed under the Rule of Law. The very first law ever inscribed onto stone tablets declared that no one could be banned except for good cause, which must be duly proven (and not merely asserted). That law made it a capital offense to ban anyone without proving their case.

The second oldest lessons in the annals of human history were introduced by the founders of the world's great religions. One can find many examples of community and organizational covenants dating back to the one Moses crafted with God on behalf of the newly formed community of Israelites, after they gained their freedom and independence. From the Covenant of Moses to the Magna Carta to the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, we find many historical examples of constitutional covenants designed to establish the foundation of a peaceable and civil society.

Among the other lessons of human history are those associated with the advent of scientific reasoning and scientific methods of knowledge construction and system engineering. All modern high-functioning systems rely on the contributions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The 1400 dominant players in Wikipedia have willfully ignored the most important lessons of 4000 years of bloody political history to reprise an anachronistic cultural model that was already going out of style at the dawn of recorded civilization.

Such astonishing obliviousness leads me to the thesis that the majority of these 1400 dominant players are profoundly learning disabled, even as they blindly struggle to compile the sum of all human knowledge.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Castle Rock]

The recent disclosure that 73% of edits on Wikipedia are made by just 1400 users (roughly half of whom are admins) leads me to lay down another thesis.

The dominant community on Wikipedia are profoundly learning disabled with respect to the most profound lessons laid down through 4000 years of human history.

Perhaps the oldest lessons in the annals of human history are those associated with the introduction and refinement of concepts subsumed under the Rule of Law. The very first law ever inscribed onto stone tablets declared that no one could be banned except for good cause, which must be duly proven (and not merely asserted). That law made it a capital offense to ban anyone without proving their case.

The second oldest lessons in the annals of human history were introduced by the founders of the world's great religions. One can find many examples of community and organizational covenants dating back to the one Moses crafted with God on behalf of the newly formed community of Israelites, after they gained their freedom and independence. From the Covenant of Moses to the Magna Carta to the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, we find many historical examples of constitutional covenants designed to establish the foundation of a peaceable and civil society.

Among the other lessons of human history are those associated with the advent of scientific reasoning and scientific methods of knowledge construction and system engineering. All modern high-functioning systems rely on the contributions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The 1400 dominant players in Wikipedia have willfully ignored the most important lessons of 4000 years of bloody political history to reprise an anachronistic cultural model that was already going out of style at the dawn of recorded civilization.

Such astonishing obliviousness leads me to the thesis that the majority of these 1400 dominant players are profoundly learning disabled, even as they blindly struggle to compile the sum of all human knowledge.

You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a Post-Modern Theater of Ego-Driven Dramas.

You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.

It doesn't differ significantly from other dreadfully dysfunctional organizations except in three important ways.

First of all, Wikipedia is dominated by participants who have little or no significant prior organizational or managerial experience dating back to the 20th Century. Indeed, many of them have little or no adult life experience dating back to the 20th Century.

Second of all, Wikipedia is dominated by participants whose primary advertised function is to compile the sum of all human knowledge, most of which knowledge came to light prior to the end of the 20th Century.

Those two differences wouldn't be significant except for the fact that Wikipedia relies on public donations for the express purpose of compiling the sum of all human knowledge for the edification of 21st Century learners. Those donors have a right to expect Wikipedians to exemplify accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media as it struggles to fulfill its charter, its promise, and its mission.

John von Neumann is credited with inventing the modern stored-program computer, back in the 1940s. Together with Oscar Morgenstern, von Neumann also wrote a book entitled Theory of Games and Economic Choice. Nobel Prize Winner, John Forbes Nash, relied on the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern when he developed the Nash Equilibrium Theorem for the Two-Person Zero-Sum Game. Game Theory, as developed half a century ago by von Neumann, Morgenstern, and Nash, has now evolved considerably. The current state of the theory now embraces not only Game Theory but also Drama Theory. A new book on the subject could be called Theory of Dramas and Egonomic Voice. In 60 years, we go from the Theory of Games and Economic Choice to the Theory of Dramas and Egonomic Voice. Wikipedia is a Post-Modern Theater of Ego-Driven Dramas.

[EricBarbour]

You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.

Well, sonny, the crazy people who run it take it VERY seriously.
"Change the world" hype and all that.

It's not changing the world. It's just declining in quality, as its database expands in raw size.
But don't say that to a rabid Jimbo-gnome. He will ban you for life.

You should listen to Moulton. He's a pest sometimes, but essentially correct.

[Moulton]

Letter to Jimbo Wales, Chairman Emeticus

Dear Woolworths Foundation Board of Trustees,

As you requested, here are the faculty recommendations regarding the qualifications of the Umbridge Twins (Mike and SB_Dolores) to assume the duties of Headmaster here at Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy.

We were especially impressed by the recent production in which the impressionable young students of Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy were inducted into the long-forgotten practice of employing Parliamentary Bill of Attainder. The symbolic allusions to the Trial Scene from Alice in Wonderland was an especially brilliant maneuver.

We are confident that, with the Umbridge Twins in charge, our students will quickly learn all the well-known hoary practices from the rubbish heap of political history dating back to the Forgotten Realms of Hammurabi.

And, at the end of the term, all the students are cordially invited to Go Jump In the Lake.

(signed)

Humble Members of Your Obedient Faculty Senate
Ottava Rima, Chairman of the Committee on Crime and Punishment
Darklama, Recoding Secretary
Sxeptomaniac, Sargeant at Harms
KillerChihuahua, Redactor of Records

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[One]

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wut's all dis fuß I hear about cache-ears!?

We all know Jimbo caches in like nobuddy (else)'s bizness off WP, so what else is new!?

Ja³

[Moulton]

Scherzophrenia

WAS 4.250 posts this send-up of the idiocy at Wikiversity...

Hello, Verizon? Yes. This is John Smith. I am a custodian at Wikiversity. We have a problem. One of your customers is editing the Wikiversity web site even though we told him not to. Well, yes, we are an anyone can edit site, but not for people who break our rules. Well, no, the rule he broke wasn't written down as a site rule. No, we don't have any agreement people have to agree to before they begin editing. What did he do? He used someone's real name. Hello? Hello? Anyone there? WAS 4.250 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[dtobias]

Hello, Verizon?

Can you hear me now?


----------------
Now playing: Frankie Valli - My Eyes Adored You
via FoxyTunes

[Kato]

Somewhere on Wikiversity, I spotted a complete lunatic demanding that Moulton face legal action for "outing" a couple of contributors, on the grounds that he'd breached some "privacy laws". An act I gather was little more than linking to his blog, and various sites which carried names of contributors.

I wrote about it here, but my system crashed and I never made the post. Now I can't find the edit on Wikiversity, but it was hysterical.

WAS 4.250's satire is on the nail, here. The whole thing is ludicrous.

UPDATE: Found it

Support - Due to legal issues, his security/internet provider should be immediately informed about him since he also have violated the law itself. Dark Obsidian@en.Meta-Wiki 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

questions: "abuse complaint" <-- abuse of what? "he also have violated the law itself" <-- what law? --JWSchmidt 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By revealing personal information - he has violated the "Data Protection Act" this is the law which I was referring to. Dark Obsidian@en.Meta-Wiki 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you mean: Data Protection Act? --JWSchmidt 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the law still applies. Dark Obsidian@en.Meta-Wiki 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how that law applies to Moulton and Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[Milton Roe]

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

IMHO, it hasn't been tested properly yet. I want a case where it's clearly argued before the Supreme Court that in fact sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright. Is that what was really intended, and can the law be pushed that far, in light of the very traditional restraints on the 1st Ammendment in areas of defamation and advertising (commercial speech)? I don't think so. But it hasn't been clearly reviewed, and won't be, until somebody out there on the net crosses the line far more eggregiously than WP has. For one thing, a case would force the court to DEFINE "publishing." Not so easy to do, these days.

[Moulton]

What makes Jimbo's intervention in Wikiversity so interesting is that it not only jeopardizes Section 230 immunity, it also jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of WMF as an authentic educational enterprise.

Yesterday's protracted IRC discussion exposes the extent that the small "ruling cabal" on Wikiversity is setting the educational agenda of the site, as guided by Jimbo Wales.

When seeking tax-exempt status for WMF, and when soliciting donor funds to bring "the sum of all human knowledge" to 21st Century youth, Jimbo represents the project as a non-profit educational enterprise. To my mind, a close reading of the case reveals that Jimbo's crew is teaching rather odd and questionable practices at odds with modern concepts for such academic subjects as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Scientific Methods of Inquiry, and Scholarly Ethics.

To my mind, that is a fraud on the IRS, a fraud on the taxpayers, a fraud on the donors, and a fraud on the impressionable young students who are being inculcated into anachronistic, unscholarly, unethical, and unbecoming practices that are a disgrace to any enterprise purporting to be an authentic learning community.

[One]

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

IMHO, it hasn't been tested properly yet. I want a case where it's clearly argued before the Supreme Court that in fact sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright. Is that what was really intended, and can the law be pushed that far, in light of the very traditional restraints on the 1st Ammendment in areas of defamation and advertising (commercial speech)? I don't think so. But it hasn't been clearly reviewed, and won't be, until somebody out there on the net crosses the line far more eggregiously than WP has. For one thing, a case would force the court to DEFINE "publishing." Not so easy to do, these days.

It's been reviewed and interpreted by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th (Easterbrook, as I recall this one is a little softer), 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits using tons of fact patterns, and they all agree on broad immunity. All of them cite Zeran and the academics love it (well, they love the policy--like you and me, they doubt that the act was actually intended to do as much as Zeran says it does). The text of the statute is relatively clear. Hard to see a constitutional problem either. Hell, the civil rights people think it's a great thing for free speech and would probably argue that not interpreting it this way is a violation of First Amendment rights somehow.

It's not fragile.

There was one case that I thought might cause the First Circuit to split with the Ninth though. In this case mentioned here, the judge allowed the suit to proceed under dubious trademark claims and state personality right claims. If they prevail and this is endorsed by the 1st, it would seem to conflict with the 9th, where only Federal intellectual property rights are excepted.

This post has been edited by One:

[dtobias]

sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright.

And where copyright is concerned, another law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), provides safe-harbor provisions immunizing the provider from liability if they follow an established procedure when somebody requests a takedown of an alleged copyvio.

[Jon Awbrey]

…

The above content has been censored under the provisions of the Wikilawyer-Wikiclient Confidentiality Act of 16 Feb 2009.

The more that Wikipediots fuzz the line between Free Speech and Academic Freedom, the worse it will be for both sides in the end.

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

[Moulton]

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

And we can also observe that W-R offers all manner of content including rants, diatribes, parody, satire, wicked humor, scathing criticisms, popcorn drama, bloviating blather, and the occasional serious essay, news analysis, or academic commentary.

Would Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Borat be better suited to contribute to W-R or to WP?

[Random832]

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

[Moulton]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

[One]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

Again and again, 230 doesn't work that way. Other defendants have actually hired paid staff who are charged with deleting material and banning users. That did not affect 230 immunity in the slightest. In fact, allowing that sort of thing is precisely the reason Congress passed 230.

For the love of God, read it.
other information content providers + interactive computer service = immunity for the provider and users

This post has been edited by One:

[jch]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

Does it matter which "hat" he's wearing at the time? He's not staff, as they're pointing out on his losing steward reconfirmation, and he's not actually part of the board. This makes him a figurehead and local admin. The only right he has which can allow him to block Giano is as a local admin.

I think the question is, "Is ArbCom willing to take disciplinary steps against Jimbo, as Jimbo blocked outside the blocking policy?"

[Moulton]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

[One]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

Wrong. People allows posts of whatever they want--as long as someone else is the source, the online site does not have publisher liability. For example, Hotornot.com can reject photos of animals, buildings, or even people just because they think are too ugly, naked, or for any other reason they feel like. It doesn't matter how good or academic or mainstream it is. They can pick whatever material they like, and scrap the rest. This does not make them liable--not unless they actually participated in the creation of the material.

None of this invalidates section 230 immunity. I've read some case quotations on point (about the job of an editor not waiving the immunity, or somesuch), but I'm done trying to tell you.

Moulton, you're just wrong on this point. End of story.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

Wrong. People allows posts of whatever they want--as long as someone else is the source, the online site does not have publisher liability.

The source of the material on Bill of Attainder is Article I of the US Constitution. The source of the material on NYBrad's Principles of Jurisprudence (as articulated in the FM/SV/Cla68 ArbCom case) was NYBrad. The source of the material on the first three laws of the Code of Hammurabi is Hammurabi of Mespotamia. Jimbo did not allow that material in Wikiversity, full stop. He declared it "beyond the scope" of the project.

For example, Hotornot.com can reject photos of animals, buildings, or even people just because they think are too ugly, naked, or for any other reason they feel like. It doesn't matter how good or academic or mainstream it is. They can pick whatever material they like, and scrap the rest. This does not make them liable--not unless they actually participated in the creation of the material.

What was wrong with material on Bill of Attainder or on Hammurabi's Code? Is that unsuitable educational material for a course on Applied Ethics?

None of this invalidates section 230 immunity. I've read some case quotations on point (about the job of an editor not waiving the immunity, or somesuch), but I'm done trying to tell you.

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230. At that point, he has become a "publisher" in the ordinary sense of discretionary judgment on what to publish. He expressly declared that material on civics and governance theories and ethics to be beyond the charter and remit of WMF-sponsored projects.

Moulton, you're just wrong on this point. End of story.

I don't think so, One.

I think it's the beginning of a remarkable story about how Jimbo undercut the published mission of the site and breached the promise to donors to provide the "sum of all human knowledge". If that fundamental material is out of bounds, per the dictat of Jimbo, then I think that's news worth discussing.

[One]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

[JoseClutch]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

The usual internet lingo for this is "Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out."

I think the second the number 230 appears in a post, you are probably safe to disregard it in its entirety.

[One]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

[jch]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

Nobody's even been called a Nazi yet. Get cracking!

[One]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

Prior to the advent of the Internet, back in the days of print and broadcast media, the owner-operator had total editorial control of what got printed or went out over the air waves. They were defined as a publisher, with full editorial control, and were liable for what got published or broadcast through their systems.

Contrast that with the common carrier (telephone company) that had zero editorial control over messages transmitted through its services. Common carriers, by law, were immune from liability for the content of messages.

With the advent of the Internet, the bright line separating common carriers from publishers became blurred. Operators of sites wanted it both ways — they wanted the immunity of common carriers, but they also wanted the right to exercise editorial oversight over content.

Section 230 struck a compromise. If the owner-operator of a site wanted common carrier immunity, they had to take a hands-off approach to editing the content, with a narrow exception spelled out in Section 230: the owner-operator could edit, redact, or censor content that was "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" without otherwise giving up common-carrier immunity for liability of content.

But Jimbo exceeded the scope of the content for which Section 230 confers immunity, because he edited out content that was clearly educational and clearly not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" under the definition of Section 230. Thus he cashiered WMF's Section 230 immunity, in favor of exercising traditional discretionary editorial judgment employed by publishers who thereby assume liability for content.

Now, if someone files a complaint against WMF (say for allowing libelous material to stand), WMF will have a harder time invoking Section 230 immunity since Jimbo has set a clear precedent of exercising discretionary editorial oversight when it pleased him to do so, in a case where Section 230 clearly does not grant him immunity from liability for editorial intervention on behalf of the interests of WMF.

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

Yes, I certainly did value your posting then and that was hardly an isolated incident of a good post by you. I didn't even always so openly acknowledge your good posts but I believe there were many.

In recent months you seem to playing to the on-wiki audience, pandering and generally acting like a wiki-careerist butt-head. The worst was your announcing that you intended to lead a new improved Review during your ArbCom run. That was something of a low point. Fortunately nobody followed you. What I would like now is for you ratchet down the Wikipedian nonsense and find your way back to making valuable contributions here.

[One]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

Yes, I certainly did value your posting then and that was hardly an isolated incident of a good post by you. I didn't even always so openly acknowledge your good posts but I believe there were many.

In recent months you seem to playing to the on-wiki audience, pandering and generally acting like a wiki-careerist butt-head. The worst was your announcing that you intended to lead a new improved Review during your ArbCom run. That was something of a low point. Fortunately nobody followed you. What I would like now is for you ratchet down the Wikipedian nonsense and find your way back to making valuable contributions here.

I don't think my posting has changed. Maybe it has and I'm not aware of it. Maybe complimenting the new DICK award scores me points in the on-wiki audience. I dunno.

But I dislike being chastised for posts when Victim Joseph and umpteen cranks have free reign--and they certainly don't have to bear derisive comments about their real-world identities from pseudonymous mods.

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. I've too damn much to do anyway.

This post has been edited by One:

[Milton Roe]

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

IMHO, it hasn't been tested properly yet. I want a case where it's clearly argued before the Supreme Court that in fact sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright. Is that what was really intended, and can the law be pushed that far, in light of the very traditional restraints on the 1st Ammendment in areas of defamation and advertising (commercial speech)? I don't think so. But it hasn't been clearly reviewed, and won't be, until somebody out there on the net crosses the line far more eggregiously than WP has. For one thing, a case would force the court to DEFINE "publishing." Not so easy to do, these days.

It's been reviewed and interpreted by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th (Easterbrook, as I recall this one is a little softer), 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits using tons of fact patterns, and they all agree on broad immunity. All of them cite Zeran and the academics love it (well, they love the policy--like you and me, they doubt that the act was actually intended to do as much as Zeran says it does). The text of the statute is relatively clear. Hard to see a constitutional problem either. Hell, the civil rights people think it's a great thing for free speech and would probably argue that not interpreting it this way is a violation of First Amendment rights somehow.

It's not fragile.

There was one case that I thought might cause the First Circuit to split with the Ninth though. In this case mentioned here, the judge allowed the suit to proceed under dubious trademark claims and state personality right claims. If they prevail and this is endorsed by the 1st, it would seem to conflict with the 9th, where only Federal intellectual property rights are excepted.

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?

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).

It's not simply that the one practice is illegal-- so is false advertising, child porn, defamation, soliciting illegal acts, and so on. None is protected by the 1st ammendment, so this is not really a constitutional problem, unless you believe the 1st ammendent is fundamentally somehow upheld if you can defame somebody on an e-newspaper letters page, but not on one that is published in print. I mean, suppose the newspaper comes out both ways with the exact same content-- how does it not violate some kind of equal-protection clause if everybody reads it with impunity on their screen, but the newspaper becomes liable as a publisher the moment one of their subscribers prints it out on a printer? Or does that need to happen at the newspaper's office? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

In any case, the idea of the Roommates.com decision is that the ICS loses immunity if it shapes 3rd party content in a way that encourages violation of the law.

It's going to be interesting. This blog looks at a college site which actually encourates people to post juicy campus gossip; it's called JuicyCampus.com:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...housing_co.html

However, the encouragement is only global, not specific. The guy ends up deciding that JuicyCampus.com will be safe in providing an electronic platform to defame anybody in any way, so long as they don't have a dropdown menu which encourages it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

All I can say is: wait till some judges and their families find themselves on the receiving ends of this. The internet comes to all, one way or another, even if you don't look, like Seigenthaler tried not to. It's like war: "So what if they threw a war and nobody came?" Why then, the war comes to you. So also with your internet gossip bio. It just comes later to some, than others.

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

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

[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?