Mike Godwin Joins the Review Options

[mnemonic]

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

Best regards,

--Mike

[TungstenCarbide]

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

Welcome Mike!

[gomi]

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

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

Welcome to the Review, Mike.

[Zoloft]

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

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

[mnemonic]

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

[thekohser]

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

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

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

[thekohser]

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

LOL. Now that's funny. Touché.

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

[gomi]

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

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

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

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

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

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

[Zoloft]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EricBarbour]

Welcome to WR, Mike.

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

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

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

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Detective]

I'm willing to give him a chance here.

That's very decent of you.

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

Does anyone know if Ottava will?

[gomi]

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

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

[EricBarbour]

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

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

[Vigilant]

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

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

[Jon Awbrey]

Nazi ❢

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

[Vigilant]

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

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

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

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

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

Mods,

Can you please ban Ottava?

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

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

[melloden]

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

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

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

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

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

Mods,

Can you please ban Ottava?

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

Seconded.

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

Welcome to WR, by the way!

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

Welcome to WR, by the way!

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

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

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

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[EricBarbour]

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[dogbiscuit]

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

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

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

Welcome to WR, by the way!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lilburne]

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

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

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

Welcome to WR, by the way!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

Nazi ❢

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

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

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

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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

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

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

This sort of encapsulates what is wrong with Wikipedia.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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

Oh yes, and that too.

[mnemonic]

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

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

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

Truly an achievement to be proud of.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

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

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

[Web Fred]

Nazi ❢

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

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

BTW, welcome Mr Godwin.

Any chance of getting me unblocked? heheheh

[A Horse With No Name]

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

[thekohser]

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

[mbz1]

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

Best regards,

--Mike

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

[mnemonic]

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

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

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

Oh yes, and that too.

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

[mnemonic]

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

Best regards,

--Mike

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

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

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

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


--Mike

[Somey]

(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.)

Well, it's a "lightly" moderated forum, so sometimes people say weird things and get away with it. Still, I suspect they meant that you should be hauled off, not that you actually were hauled off, at least physically.

As I recall, the issue regarding the FBI seal wasn't whether or not the FBI was using their time and resources wisely by asking the WMF to delete the seal image - I suspect most of us would agree that they were not - but why the response was worded the way it was, which is to say that it seemed rather "cheeky." It was actually the sort of response I would probably have come up with myself, which is why it seemed surprising that anyone at the WMF would have signed off on it.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Best regards,

--Mike

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

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

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

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


--Mike

Sometimes you need to read the posts too. But then again you don't have to respond to every post and maybe shouldn't if you don't understand it well enough to know rather the poster is addressing you or someone else.

[Fusion]

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

Because of comments like 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.

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.

Well we all like a little a bit of the otkazano when dealing with legal matters. And I'm a great fan of the Arkell response too. But I'll point out that pressdram were and are actually responsible for what they publish. That they don't hide behind the curtains or say its not me, whilst pointing at some pimply youth over the way.

Just what does the WMF do to justify its appeals for money? Apparently NOT the content though their adverts would imply that they are. At best they condone and support the collation and accumulation of sleeze. A Stasi filing cabinet for the censorious of all descriptions.

[radek]

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

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

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

Wasn't Ottava just whining about that one for exactly the opposite reason? Mirror, mirror...

[EricBarbour]

I just have one question: Why are some of Mike's posts to this thread being deleted?

[gomi]

I just have one question: Why are some of Mike's posts to this thread being deleted?

The logs for this thread indicate that no posts have been deleted.

P.s. - I check the moderator and admin logs in the ACP and no posts have been moved or edited in this thread. Only one thread has been moved in the last few days, and this isn't it. This thread was split from the New Members thread.

P.p.s - Edit - 26 minutes after I posted the above (according to the logs), the topic was split to remove Ottava's blatherings. One of Godwin's posts, a reply to Ottava, went into the split thread.

[GlassBeadGame]

I just have one question: Why are some of Mike's posts to this thread being deleted?

Cool.

[GlassBeadGame]

Nazi ❢

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

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

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

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

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

Wasn't Ottava just whining about that one for exactly the opposite reason? Mirror, mirror...

I don't know what Mr. Ottava said but clealy Reason is a right wing rag. Not getting past the masthead without praising "free markets" is a dead give away. It doesn't matter that it claims some kind of balance. Right Wing Rag. Tied to Reason Foundation.

You can see Godwin pandering to right in the article as he is "not impressed" with a anti-globalization, anti-free trade fair-trade advocate. Which is about the only nod in the direction of substantive ideas of the Occupy people he makes. So Mr. Godwin is agin bringing down military force upon peaceful demonstrators. Very White of him.

[EricBarbour]

He PMed me that something he'd written had disappeared. Dunno.

[gomi]

He PMed me that something he'd written had disappeared. Dunno.

PEBKAC, would be my guess.

Repeated from above: 26 minutes after I posted the above (according to the logs), the topic was split to remove Ottava's blatherings. One of Godwin's posts, a reply to Ottava, went into the split thread.

Because of the time difference, I am not at all sure whether we are all talking about the same post. Suffice it to say, the mods here are not deleting Mike Godwin's posts.

[SB_Johnny]

He PMed me that something he'd written had disappeared. Dunno.

It might be in the tarpit. I'll put my mod hat on and write in italics:

[Angry and bait-ish stuff from brother Ottava moved to the tarpit in response to apparent "community concern". Please excuse our appearance as we bulldoze the gardens.]

[radek]

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

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

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

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

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

Wasn't Ottava just whining about that one for exactly the opposite reason? Mirror, mirror...

I don't know what Mr. Ottava said but clealy Reason is a right wing rag. Not getting past the masthead without praising "free markets" is a dead give away. It doesn't matter that it claims some kind of balance. Right Wing Rag. Tied to Reason Foundation.

You can see Godwin pandering to right in the article as he is "not impressed" with a anti-globalization, anti-free trade fair-trade advocate. Which is about the only nod in the direction of substantive ideas of the Occupy people he makes. So Mr. Godwin is agin bringing down military force upon peaceful demonstrators. Very White of him.

You... um, didn't actually read the article, did you? At least I hope not.

[SB_Johnny]

Suffice it to say, the mods here are not deleting Mike Godwin's posts.

Not that it wouldn't be a heck of a fun thing to do! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

So Mr. Godwin is agin bringing down military force upon peaceful demonstrators. Very White of him.

Godwin wouldn't stand a chance against Romney or Dr. Paul.

Wait, are we talking about possible presidents, or just some wacko California lawyer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

So Mr. Godwin is agin bringing down military force upon peaceful demonstrators. Very White of him.

Godwin wouldn't stand a chance against Romney or Dr. Paul.

Wait, are we talking about possible presidents, or just some wacko California lawyer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Looky, looky Reason has a Koch on Board. Those same people who fund the tea party as well as the effort to dismantle public education in Michigan. I guess it's not much worse than the Ron Paul Newsletter.

[mnemonic]

[/quote]

Sometimes you need to read the posts too. But then again you don't have to respond to every post and maybe shouldn't if you don't understand it well enough to know rather the poster is addressing you or someone else.
[/quote]

Oh, I did read the post. Still, I'm sure that any mistake was entirely my fault and not at all due to any lack of specificity on your part. Also, it was probably silly of me to look too hard at the topic header. Sorry for both. Thanks!


--Mike

[radek]

So Mr. Godwin is agin bringing down military force upon peaceful demonstrators. Very White of him.

Godwin wouldn't stand a chance against Romney or Dr. Paul.

Wait, are we talking about possible presidents, or just some wacko California lawyer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Looky, looky Reason has a Koch on Board. Those same people who fund the tea party as well as the effort to dismantle public education in Michigan. I guess it's not much worse than the Ron Paul Newsletter.

So, um, yeah... you DIDN'T bother to read the actual article before commenting.

[mnemonic]

(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.)

Well, it's a "lightly" moderated forum, so sometimes people say weird things and get away with it. Still, I suspect they meant that you should be hauled off, not that you actually were hauled off, at least physically.

As I recall, the issue regarding the FBI seal wasn't whether or not the FBI was using their time and resources wisely by asking the WMF to delete the seal image - I suspect most of us would agree that they were not - but why the response was worded the way it was, which is to say that it seemed rather "cheeky." It was actually the sort of response I would probably have come up with myself, which is why it seemed surprising that anyone at the WMF would have signed off on it.

I'm surprised nobody here ever speculated about the strategic reasons one might be "cheeky" in response to an overreaching FBI letter of this sort. The answer lies in strategic goals -- specifically, I wanted to make sure the FBI complaint evaporated and never posed any threat of returning.

How does one do this? Well, publicly embarrassing the FBI early on is an excellent way to do this. To make the public embarrassment sting enough to compel FBI to back off, I had to make sure that the press coverage of their overreaching demand (not to mention their ridiculous editing of the statutory language in order to make the law seem less obviously inapplicable) was spread widely and deeply.

Now, one can certainly write a deadly earnest letter, with no humor in it at all, and make precisely the same legal points I made. That would have gotten the resulting exchange into perhaps 10 newspapers and journals at most, with some Internet coverage, but not that much. This might have been enough to make the FBI back off, but possibly not.

I knew from my years in Washington, DC, that the FBI is acutely aware of its public image and worries a lot about bad PR. I also knew from my days as a newspaper journalist that a "cheeky" response makes a better story than a simply earnest response (the latter might even be interpreted as whinging).

I knew from my own research, from the research of my law clerks, and from consulting outside counsel that WMF was sound on the law regarding Wikipedia's use of the FBI Seal. So I never felt I was taking any legal risk at all with regard to the FBI. Furthermore, everyone in WMF that I reported to, as well as WMF's communications chief, got to sign off on the letter before I sent it. I told everyone expressly that the goal here was to gin up press coverage, embarrass the FBI, and give them every incentive to drop the matter altogether (which in fact the FBI ultimately did). I even told folks that the letter had to be a little humorous to ensure press coverage.

So, sending the letter, worded as it was, was actually the product of a lot of thought and input. (I'd also told the New York Times well in advance of receiving the Larson letter that this might turn into an interesting story, and the Times reporter expressed interest in following the issue as it developed.) As it turns out, we got the precise results from the letter we intended to get. And cheekiness was a strategic choice, not a reflexive or hasty one.

[thekohser]

I'm surprised nobody here ever speculated about the strategic reasons one might be "cheeky" in response to an overreaching FBI letter of this sort.

I'm not surprised that everybody here speculated about how you were no longer with the WMF less than 3 months after your letter hit its home run.

[Cedric]

I'm surprised nobody here ever speculated about the strategic reasons one might be "cheeky" in response to an overreaching FBI letter of this sort. . . .

The reason is that everyone here was under the impression that you are a lawyer, not a PR strategist (or "storyteller," in WMF-speak). Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

[anthony]

I'm surprised nobody here ever speculated about the strategic reasons one might be "cheeky" in response to an overreaching FBI letter of this sort. . . .

The reason is that everyone here was under the impression that you are a lawyer, not a PR strategist (or "storyteller," in WMF-speak). Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

Not everyone. Kelly Martin said basically that years ago, and presented a good argument for it. (EDIT: Of course neither I nor she claim that he is not in fact "a lawyer" as in licensed to practice law.)

Found the quote (at least one of them):

So the work that Godwin did at the EFF doesn't count for anything? I'm not buying your line of reasoning in this. Mike Godwin had a good name and a good reputation before coming to WMF, would be my view.

When you dig into it, you will find that Mike Godwin did relatively little legal work at EFF, and when he did try his hand at legal work he often as not botched it. Godwin was mainly a "pretty face" used for PR and fundraising. Does this sound at all familiar?

Personally I'm skeptical of the part of this assessment suggesting Mr. Godwin is not a good lawyer. From my conversations he seems to be intelligent, and intelligence combined with graduating from law school is bound to lead to at least some lawyerly skills.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Emperor]

WMF has had very little legal trouble that we know about, even with the license changeover which must have been tricky.

Something must be going right.

[mnemonic]

I'm surprised nobody here ever speculated about the strategic reasons one might be "cheeky" in response to an overreaching FBI letter of this sort. . . .

The reason is that everyone here was under the impression that you are a lawyer, not a PR strategist (or "storyteller," in WMF-speak). Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

Who told you that lawyers who handle cases don't take pains to shape the public perception of those cases?

Besides, the goal here was to make the issue go away -- a central responsibility for a lawyer defending a client. If using a PR strategy achieves the right legal result, then a lawyer would be irresponsible not to use it, in my view. I've used PR strategies for more than 20 years to defend people or to advance policy agendas, but it's a particularly one-dimensional point of view to imagine this is the only arrow in my quiver. It would be as if I said that "Cedric is nothing more than his postings on Wikipedia Review." I'm not quite so inhumane.

I have occasionally read Kelly Martin's assessment of my work and skills, Anthony. Very inventive, I must say.

[mnemonic]

WMF has had very little legal trouble that we know about, even with the license changeover which must have been tricky.

Something must be going right.

For what little it may be worth, my successor, whose opinion I value, has been nothing but generous in his praise for the work I did and nothing but appreciative of the legacy (of very little legal trouble) that he inherited from me.

Not that I expect anyone on WR to agree with him -- if I came to Wikipedia Review for validation, I would be even stupider than I look.

[Kelly Martin]

\Not that I expect anyone on WR to agree with him -- if I came to Wikipedia Review for validation, I would be even stupider than I look.

You opened the door, counselor, so I'll bite: Why, then, did you come to the Review? I need not remind you that you are not under oath, so feel free to spin all sorts of fabulous excuses as I'm sure we won't believe anything you say.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Also, Mr. Godwin, would you be so kind as to persuade SlimVirgin to start posting here again? She's the life of the party.

[HRIP7]

He PMed me that something he'd written had disappeared. Dunno.

PEBKAC, would be my guess.

Repeated from above: 26 minutes after I posted the above (according to the logs), the topic was split to remove Ottava's blatherings. One of Godwin's posts, a reply to Ottava, went into the split thread.

Because of the time difference, I am not at all sure whether we are all talking about the same post. Suffice it to say, the mods here are not deleting Mike Godwin's posts.

Mike sent off two replies in short succession. He may not have realised they got combined into a single post, i.e. this one.

This contains both his answer to dogbiscuit, and the answer to lilburne which he later thought had disappeared.

Hi Mike, welcome to WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

For what little it may be worth, my successor, whose opinion I value, has been nothing but generous in his praise for the work I did and nothing but appreciative of the legacy (of very little legal trouble) that he inherited from me.

I wonder why you left it all behind, then. I'm guessing it came down to you wanting more pay, but Sue wanted to earmark that money for a few more "consultants" she knows from Canada.

[GlassBeadGame]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

[GlassBeadGame]

He PMed me that something he'd written had disappeared. Dunno.

PEBKAC, would be my guess.

Repeated from above: 26 minutes after I posted the above (according to the logs), the topic was split to remove Ottava's blatherings. One of Godwin's posts, a reply to Ottava, went into the split thread.

Because of the time difference, I am not at all sure whether we are all talking about the same post. Suffice it to say, the mods here are not deleting Mike Godwin's posts.

Mike sent off two replies in short succession. He may not have realised they got combined into a single post, i.e. this one.

This contains both his answer to dogbiscuit, and the answer to lilburne which he later thought had disappeared.

Hi Mike, welcome to WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, considering he's new to the internet and older folks have trouble with these things I guess we can all understand.

[gomi]

Mike sent off two replies in short succession. He may not have realised they got combined into a single post, i.e. this one.

This contains both his answer to dogbiscuit, and the answer to lilburne which he later thought had disappeared.

Thanks for that explanation, HRIP, I should have thought of it myself. Subsequent posts within a 10-minute window are combined automagically by the board software.

[Somey]

For what little it may be worth, my successor, whose opinion I value, has been nothing but generous in his praise for the work I did and nothing but appreciative of the legacy (of very little legal trouble) that he inherited from me.

Dare I ask whether or not he's operating under some sort of "non-disparagement" agreement...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Those are becoming more and more common these days.

I personally never saw anything that showed conclusively (to me, anyway) that you were a "bad lawyer," bearing in mind that I'm not a legal professional myself. But in all fairness, it could easily be argued that you had a built-in unfair advantage - given that Wikipedia's prominence and name-recognition (not to mention Section 230 and the anonymity culture in general) might have acted as a kind of intimidation-factor for people who might otherwise have pursued legal action beyond the threatening-letter stage. Not much has happened recently to reduce that advantage, either (IMO).

[mnemonic]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

I really can't talk about internal decision-making regarding that case. (Privilege, etc.) I'll refer you to my friend and colleague Paul Levy of Public Citizen for procedural details about the windup of the Video Professor case.

I can't speak for what EFF chose to do with regard to Video Professor -- I wouldn't be surprised if they filed an amicus brief in that case, regardless of whether they showed up to argue. I don't know that EFF ever took on a role that would have given them standing to argue the case.

As for me, I'm not admitted to practice law in Florida courts, and in fact I was working for WMF in the Washington, DC, area in fall of 2007 (just a few months) after I was hired. We eventually delegated local representation to Squire Sanders, but Squire Sanders was not one of our resources until late summer 2007, at the earliest. I don't doubt that WMF would respond to subpoenas differently now -- because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008. I also implemented policies designed to make us less attractive as a target of litigants seeking information.

I should add that, as I recall, the Video Professor demands regarding WMF predate my actual assumption of duties at Wikimedia Foundation. And in the months between Brad Patrick's departure and my hiring, WMF had no legal representation at all. I'll answer more precise questions if you ask them, and link them to particular dates, provided that doing so doesn't entail revealing privileged information.

For what little it may be worth, my successor, whose opinion I value, has been nothing but generous in his praise for the work I did and nothing but appreciative of the legacy (of very little legal trouble) that he inherited from me.

Dare I ask whether or not he's operating under some sort of "non-disparagement" agreement...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Those are becoming more and more common these days.

I personally never saw anything that showed conclusively (to me, anyway) that you were a "bad lawyer," bearing in mind that I'm not a legal professional myself. But in all fairness, it could easily be argued that you had a built-in unfair advantage - given that Wikipedia's prominence and name-recognition (not to mention Section 230 and the anonymity culture in general) might have acted as a kind of intimidation-factor for people who might otherwise have pursued legal action beyond the threatening-letter stage. Not much has happened recently to reduce that advantage, either (IMO).

Nothing about a non-disparagement agreement, even if Geoff were bound by one, would prevent him from saying something critical to my face, or require him to be as complimentary as he has.

More later, if you need it. Got to go to a lunch meeting now.

[Kelly Martin]

because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008.

Ah, yes, that would be about the time that a Florida court nearly held the WMF in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena, and so the WMF (instead of resisting a discovery motion) merely rolled and handed over the IPs of over a dozen users? I seem to recall that the Board was a bit peeved about that one. It's not as if supervising the performance of local counsel and ensuring that they deal with issues assigned to them in a timely and appropriate manner is something that one would normally expect the General Counsel to be responsible for, whether or not he is licensed to practice law in the state in question.

[GlassBeadGame]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

I really can't talk about internal decision-making regarding that case. (Privilege, etc.) I'll refer you to my friend and colleague Paul Levy of Public Citizen for procedural details about the windup of the Video Professor case.

I can't speak for what EFF chose to do with regard to Video Professor -- I wouldn't be surprised if they filed an amicus brief in that case, regardless of whether they showed up to argue. I don't know that EFF ever took on a role that would have given them standing to argue the case.

As for me, I'm not admitted to practice law in Florida courts, and in fact I was working for WMF in the Washington, DC, area in fall of 2007 (just a few months) after I was hired. We eventually delegated local representation to Squire Sanders, but Squire Sanders was not one of our resources until late summer 2007, at the earliest. I don't doubt that WMF would respond to subpoenas differently now -- because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008. I also implemented policies designed to make us less attractive as a target of litigants seeking information.

I should add that, as I recall, the Video Professor demands regarding WMF predate my actual assumption of duties at Wikimedia Foundation. And in the months between Brad Patrick's departure and my hiring, WMF had no legal representation at all. I'll answer more precise questions if you ask them, and link them to particular dates, provided that doing so doesn't entail revealing privileged information.

The mere appearance at a hearing is not privileged as anyone in the courthouse could see and it is public record. But if you don't remember whether you where employed by WMF or not that is an answer in any event. We can assume you attended no hearings to protect anon Wikipedians.

[EricBarbour]

Ah, yes, that would be about the time that a Florida court nearly held the WMF in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena, and so the WMF (instead of resisting a discovery motion) merely rolled and handed over the IPs of over a dozen users? I seem to recall that the Board was a bit peeved about that one....

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[mnemonic]

because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008.

Ah, yes, that would be about the time that a Florida court nearly held the WMF in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena, and so the WMF (instead of resisting a discovery motion) merely rolled and handed over the IPs of over a dozen users? I seem to recall that the Board was a bit peeved about that one. It's not as if supervising the performance of local counsel and ensuring that they deal with issues assigned to them in a timely and appropriate manner is something that one would normally expect the General Counsel to be responsible for, whether or not he is licensed to practice law in the state in question.

Of course the General Counsel is responsible for supervising outside counsel. I didn't say otherwise. i supervised Squire Sanders, and approved their choices with regard to resolving a problematic situation that arose during the period in which WMF had no legal advice or representation at all. And, going forward, I put a new system in place, and the problem never arose again.

Ah, yes, that would be about the time that a Florida court nearly held the WMF in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena, and so the WMF (instead of resisting a discovery motion) merely rolled and handed over the IPs of over a dozen users? I seem to recall that the Board was a bit peeved about that one....

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Not impossibly, Kelly believes WMF had all legal matters entirely squared away before I showed up and screwed everything up.

If so, that's the first time I've heard that claim.

[Kelly Martin]

Of course the General Counsel is responsible for supervising outside counsel. I didn't say otherwise. i supervised Squire Sanders, and approved their choices with regard to resolving a problematic situation that arose during the period in which WMF had no legal advice or representation at all. And, going forward, I put a new system in place, and the problem never arose again.

Interesting response. I was expecting you to assert privilege and thereby refuse to respond. Thank you for confirming that, while you were its legal counsel, the WMF did, in fact, hand the IP addresses of multiple editors to a third party without first confirming that the editors in question had engaged in conduct inconsistent with Wikimedia's policies, as is expected by most members of Wikimedia's community and at least suggested by the so-called privacy policy. Always nice when I can get confirmation of an unconfirmed rumor.

No matter; that occurred years ago, and in any case you are no longer Wikimedia's counsel, so I'm sure the community no longer needs fear that their personal information will be bandied about so carelessly.

On an entirely unrelated matter, I'm curious where MadRiver, your current shindig, stands on SOPA. As I understand it they're in the content distribution business (although to be honest information about what MadRiver actually does, if anything, is very hard to come by). In any case, most of the businesses in that sphere are at least passively, if not actively, supporting SOPA. Meanwhile, your old friends at the WMF, and of course at the EFF, are aggressively opposing it. So I'm curious where they stand, where you stand, and if this is creating any difficulties for you, either in terms of your personal beliefs or in terms of your professional ethics.

[mnemonic]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

I really can't talk about internal decision-making regarding that case. (Privilege, etc.) I'll refer you to my friend and colleague Paul Levy of Public Citizen for procedural details about the windup of the Video Professor case.

I can't speak for what EFF chose to do with regard to Video Professor -- I wouldn't be surprised if they filed an amicus brief in that case, regardless of whether they showed up to argue. I don't know that EFF ever took on a role that would have given them standing to argue the case.

As for me, I'm not admitted to practice law in Florida courts, and in fact I was working for WMF in the Washington, DC, area in fall of 2007 (just a few months) after I was hired. We eventually delegated local representation to Squire Sanders, but Squire Sanders was not one of our resources until late summer 2007, at the earliest. I don't doubt that WMF would respond to subpoenas differently now -- because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008. I also implemented policies designed to make us less attractive as a target of litigants seeking information.

I should add that, as I recall, the Video Professor demands regarding WMF predate my actual assumption of duties at Wikimedia Foundation. And in the months between Brad Patrick's departure and my hiring, WMF had no legal representation at all. I'll answer more precise questions if you ask them, and link them to particular dates, provided that doing so doesn't entail revealing privileged information.

The mere appearance at a hearing is not privileged as anyone in the courthouse could see and it is public record. But if you don't remember whether you where employed by WMF or not that is an answer in any event. We can assume you attended no hearings to protect anon Wikipedians.

In legal contexts, "appearance" has a different meaning than in normal colloquial English. You seem to have shifted from (a) an implication that I should have showed up at the hearing and argued against the subpoena to (b) the implication that I should have shown up just to sit in the court room and do nothing. This is an odd view of what my role should have been. No doubt if I had attended the hearing and not spoken (not being admitted to practice before the Florida courts), you would be criticizing me for having spent WMF money to fly me to Florida to do nothing but watch.

It seemed prudent not to spend WMF money for something that would not have been particularly productive (having me physically present in the court room).

Perhaps in your own law practice you make different choices. If so, I respect that choice, counselor.

[mnemonic]

Of course the General Counsel is responsible for supervising outside counsel. I didn't say otherwise. i supervised Squire Sanders, and approved their choices with regard to resolving a problematic situation that arose during the period in which WMF had no legal advice or representation at all. And, going forward, I put a new system in place, and the problem never arose again.

Interesting response. I was expecting you to assert privilege and thereby refuse to respond. Thank you for confirming that, while you were its legal counsel, the WMF did, in fact, hand the IP addresses of multiple editors to a third party without first confirming that the editors in question had engaged in conduct inconsistent with Wikimedia's policies, as is expected by most members of Wikimedia's community and at least suggested by the so-called privacy policy.

No matter; that occurred years ago, and in any case you are no longer Wikimedia's counsel, so I'm sure the community no longer needs fear that their personal information will be bandied about so carelessly.

On an entirely unrelated matter, I'm curious where MadRiver, your current shindig, stands on SOPA. As I understand it they're in the content distribution business (although to be honest information about what MadRiver actually does, if anything, is very hard to come by). In any case, most of the businesses in that sphere are at least passively, if not actively, supporting SOPA. Meanwhile, your old friends at the WMF, and of course at the EFF, are aggressively opposing it. So I'm curious where they stand, where you stand, and if this is creating any difficulties for you, either in terms of your personal beliefs or in terms of your professional ethics.

I'm on the record as opposing SOPA, and Mad River, while not formally engaged in the SOPA debate, has supported my work against SOPA, which mostly involves legal consultations with opponent stakeholders about how to fight effectively against SOPA. (And the details of my involvement with SOPA oppoents is, yes, privileged.) You can probably see my public opposition to SOPA on my Twitter feed or LinkedIn feed.

There are a number of Wikimedians who can confirm that I consistently protected user privacy rights to the greatest degree possible, once I was able to put appropriate procedures in place. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose their names to you.

I know you're invested in attacking me, and that's okay -- everybody needs a hobby -- but understand that, yes, I'm limited in the extent to which I can defend myself against those attacks, since defending against them would violate my continuing legal and ethical obligations. Whether it's ethical for you to take advantage of my limitations in this forum is up to you and others here to decide.

I will say that, generally, you have mischaracterized the decision-making process regarding the Video Professor case.

Again, I do love the implication that everything regarding WMF's handling of legal challenges was just fine in the period when WMF had no lawyer at all. Then I showed up and everything went to hell, eh?

For what little it may be worth, my successor, whose opinion I value, has been nothing but generous in his praise for the work I did and nothing but appreciative of the legacy (of very little legal trouble) that he inherited from me.

Dare I ask whether or not he's operating under some sort of "non-disparagement" agreement...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Those are becoming more and more common these days.

I personally never saw anything that showed conclusively (to me, anyway) that you were a "bad lawyer," bearing in mind that I'm not a legal professional myself. But in all fairness, it could easily be argued that you had a built-in unfair advantage - given that Wikipedia's prominence and name-recognition (not to mention Section 230 and the anonymity culture in general) might have acted as a kind of intimidation-factor for people who might otherwise have pursued legal action beyond the threatening-letter stage. Not much has happened recently to reduce that advantage, either (IMO).

Nothing about a (presumed) non-disparagement agreement requires Geoff to be complimentary to me. In fact, nothing about a non-disparagement agreement prevents Geoff from criticizing me directly.

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[Kelly Martin]

I will say that, generally, you have mischaracterized the decision-making process regarding the Video Professor case.

I will say that, generally, you are an idiot, insofar as I don't even know what the Video Professor case is and have never to my knowledge said anything about it. But I shouldn't expect you to check facts before firing off your mouth.

The SOPA question was pure curiosity, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for answering.

[mnemonic]

I will say that, generally, you have mischaracterized the decision-making process regarding the Video Professor case.

I will say that, generally, you are an idiot, insofar as I don't even know what the Video Professor case is and have never to my knowledge said anything about it. But I shouldn't expect you to check facts before firing off your mouth.

The SOPA question was pure curiosity, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for answering.

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

I'm pleased to be such an entertaining "idiot" that you find it amusing to attack me. Is this because you're unwilling to spend your time challenging non-idiots? If so, I understand entirely.

Mike sent off two replies in short succession. He may not have realised they got combined into a single post, i.e. this one.

This contains both his answer to dogbiscuit, and the answer to lilburne which he later thought had disappeared.

Thanks for that explanation, HRIP, I should have thought of it myself. Subsequent posts within a 10-minute window are combined automagically by the board software.

Thanks from me as well. Although I've read WR for a while, this is my first experience posting here.

[Kelly Martin]

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

It is possible that the case in question is the case commonly known as the "Video Professor Case". I don't know, nor do I care. My source within the Foundation did not deign to share the case caption with me, just the timeframe. That you were Wikimedia's general counsel during that timeframe is undisputed. As to the rest, we shall merely agree to disagree.

It would be my preference, to be honest, that you go away. I don't believe that you plan to participate in this forum with the intent to contribute to the meaningful criticism of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and related entities. That would represent a complete about-face from the predilections and behavior you have demonstrated for decades. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[SB_Johnny]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

I really can't talk about internal decision-making regarding that case. (Privilege, etc.) I'll refer you to my friend and colleague Paul Levy of Public Citizen for procedural details about the windup of the Video Professor case.

I can't speak for what EFF chose to do with regard to Video Professor -- I wouldn't be surprised if they filed an amicus brief in that case, regardless of whether they showed up to argue. I don't know that EFF ever took on a role that would have given them standing to argue the case.

As for me, I'm not admitted to practice law in Florida courts, and in fact I was working for WMF in the Washington, DC, area in fall of 2007 (just a few months) after I was hired. We eventually delegated local representation to Squire Sanders, but Squire Sanders was not one of our resources until late summer 2007, at the earliest. I don't doubt that WMF would respond to subpoenas differently now -- because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008. I also implemented policies designed to make us less attractive as a target of litigants seeking information.

I should add that, as I recall, the Video Professor demands regarding WMF predate my actual assumption of duties at Wikimedia Foundation. And in the months between Brad Patrick's departure and my hiring, WMF had no legal representation at all. I'll answer more precise questions if you ask them, and link them to particular dates, provided that doing so doesn't entail revealing privileged information.

The mere appearance at a hearing is not privileged as anyone in the courthouse could see and it is public record. But if you don't remember whether you where employed by WMF or not that is an answer in any event. We can assume you attended no hearings to protect anon Wikipedians.

In legal contexts, "appearance" has a different meaning than in normal colloquial English. You seem to have shifted from (a) an implication that I should have showed up at the hearing and argued against the subpoena to (b) the implication that I should have shown up just to sit in the court room and do nothing. This is an odd view of what my role should have been. No doubt if I had attended the hearing and not spoken (not being admitted to practice before the Florida courts), you would be criticizing me for having spent WMF money to fly me to Florida to do nothing but watch.

It seemed prudent not to spend WMF money for something that would not have been particularly productive (having me physically present in the court room).

Perhaps in your own law practice you make different choices. If so, I respect that choice, counselor.

General Counsel and In-House Counsel would be permitted special appearances in matters concerning their companies, especially if local counsel also appeared. Check the court rules. A day trip to Denver would hardly be wasted travel. I am sure you have spent more on travel on vacuous award dinners. WMF had an important interest in demonstrating to it users that their anon status would not be given up for lack of caring. Just like the ISPs did for their customers when they did attend and defend. It looks like you never filed an appearance, requested a hearing or had local counsel do the same. You are blowing smoke Counselor.

[Vigilant]

I will say that, generally, you have mischaracterized the decision-making process regarding the Video Professor case.

I will say that, generally, you are an idiot, insofar as I don't even know what the Video Professor case is and have never to my knowledge said anything about it. But I shouldn't expect you to check facts before firing off your mouth.

The SOPA question was pure curiosity, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for answering.

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

I'm pleased to be such an entertaining "idiot" that you find it amusing to attack me. Is this because you're unwilling to spend your time challenging non-idiots? If so, I understand entirely.

Mike sent off two replies in short succession. He may not have realised they got combined into a single post, i.e. this one.

This contains both his answer to dogbiscuit, and the answer to lilburne which he later thought had disappeared.

Thanks for that explanation, HRIP, I should have thought of it myself. Subsequent posts within a 10-minute window are combined automagically by the board software.

Thanks from me as well. Although I've read WR for a while, this is my first experience posting here.

Listen not to the Philistines, Mike.

I appreciate you joining and posting here.
You write MOAR BETTAR than most of the rest of this gang of infidels and the subjects you've written about here are more interesting than the usual fluffer-banter.

Please stay. Please write more.

[Somey]

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I just assumed it was because this is where all the "cool people" hang out...?

Then again, it's been demonstrated in the case of Larry Sanger and others that if you leave the WP hierarchy, or "orbit," or whatever, for almost any reason, the Wikipedia people (or "community," if you will) are going to look on you with suspicion and quite possibly ostracize you, even if you're mostly supportive of what they do. Unless you simply disappear altogether, which probably isn't an option for Mr. Godwin here. I'm certainly not suggesting Mr. Godwin is some sort of narcissist when it comes to criticism of himself, as I don't think he is, but WR is probably the most expedient (and maybe even the best) means available of answering critics of his work there, both here and on Wikipedia itself. And if you're a lawyer, you're usually better off answering the critics, if your actions are (or were) defensible at all.

Besides, we're fun people, right? We like to make jokes and wisecracks and stuff, so why not?

[EricBarbour]

Yes, please stay Mike, ignore the occasional poke. The excitement is unbearable.

As for the rest of you.......in re. the Video Professor case, Encyclopedia Dramatica to the rescue!......and have a nice day!........

[mnemonic]

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

It is possible that the case in question is the case commonly known as the "Video Professor Case". I don't know, nor do I care. My source within the Foundation did not deign to share the case caption with me, just the timeframe. That you were Wikimedia's general counsel during that timeframe is undisputed. As to the rest, we shall merely agree to disagree.

It would be my preference, to be honest, that you go away. I don't believe that you plan to participate in this forum with the intent to contribute to the meaningful criticism of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and related entities. That would represent a complete about-face from the predilections and behavior you have demonstrated for decades. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

Well, if your "source within the Foundation" won't tell you what the name of the case is, or who or what was involved in it, but it wasn't the Video Professor case (or maybe it was, you now suggest). In general, it's hard to gesture vaguely at a case and then ask someone to defend his actions regarding it -- I dealt with dozens of legal matters simultaneously in my first months at Wikimedia Foundation, and many hundreds during my entire tenure there. Is your source a lawyer, or are we not allowed even to know that?

I'm startled and oddly pleased that you have either (a) followed my career "for decades" or (b) spent time researching "decades" of my career! It is flattering that I, a mere "idiot," have merited your researching "decades" of my work.

[mnemonic]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

[mnemonic]

So Godwin what was up with Video Professor? The ISP involved required an order to compel after a hearing in which the anons had a chance to be heard before they "gave up" anon info. WMF and EFF appeared to do nothing. Did you even show up in court for a single hearing in that matter?

I really can't talk about internal decision-making regarding that case. (Privilege, etc.) I'll refer you to my friend and colleague Paul Levy of Public Citizen for procedural details about the windup of the Video Professor case.

I can't speak for what EFF chose to do with regard to Video Professor -- I wouldn't be surprised if they filed an amicus brief in that case, regardless of whether they showed up to argue. I don't know that EFF ever took on a role that would have given them standing to argue the case.

As for me, I'm not admitted to practice law in Florida courts, and in fact I was working for WMF in the Washington, DC, area in fall of 2007 (just a few months) after I was hired. We eventually delegated local representation to Squire Sanders, but Squire Sanders was not one of our resources until late summer 2007, at the earliest. I don't doubt that WMF would respond to subpoenas differently now -- because, in fact, we started responding to subpoenas more proactively soon after I relocated to California along with the rest of WMF. That would be January 2008. I also implemented policies designed to make us less attractive as a target of litigants seeking information.

I should add that, as I recall, the Video Professor demands regarding WMF predate my actual assumption of duties at Wikimedia Foundation. And in the months between Brad Patrick's departure and my hiring, WMF had no legal representation at all. I'll answer more precise questions if you ask them, and link them to particular dates, provided that doing so doesn't entail revealing privileged information.

The mere appearance at a hearing is not privileged as anyone in the courthouse could see and it is public record. But if you don't remember whether you where employed by WMF or not that is an answer in any event. We can assume you attended no hearings to protect anon Wikipedians.

In legal contexts, "appearance" has a different meaning than in normal colloquial English. You seem to have shifted from (a) an implication that I should have showed up at the hearing and argued against the subpoena to (b) the implication that I should have shown up just to sit in the court room and do nothing. This is an odd view of what my role should have been. No doubt if I had attended the hearing and not spoken (not being admitted to practice before the Florida courts), you would be criticizing me for having spent WMF money to fly me to Florida to do nothing but watch.

It seemed prudent not to spend WMF money for something that would not have been particularly productive (having me physically present in the court room).

Perhaps in your own law practice you make different choices. If so, I respect that choice, counselor.

General Counsel and In-House Counsel would be permitted special appearances in matters concerning their companies, especially if local counsel also appeared. Check the court rules. A day trip to Denver would hardly be wasted travel. I am sure you have spent more on travel on vacuous award dinners. WMF had an important interest in demonstrating to it users that their anon status would not be given up for lack of caring. Just like the ISPs did for their customers when they did attend and defend. It looks like you never filed an appearance, requested a hearing or had local counsel do the same. You are blowing smoke Counselor.

First of all, I don't spend money on travel to award dinners, and never did. If you want me to show up at an award dinner, you have to pay my expenses at minimum.

Second, I don't dispute that I could have arranged to be "permitted" a "special appearance" (see how you've switched to the legal meaning of "appearance" again? Slippery! But I would have done so
only if it we had had local counsel and if my appearance would have added something useful to challenging the subpoena. Neither was the case.

Many non-lawyers have the quixotic notion that lawyers fly around and show up all over the country
to defend cases or argue them. I can understand how you might get that notion from popular culture (particularly TV lawyer shows). But in reality lawyers supervise or respond to cases (or choose not to respond) at a distance, all the time.

Lurking behind your comments (and Kelly's, maybe) is the notion that the General Counsel was in a position to serve as a defense fund for volunteer editors in general. That has never been the case,
although I made a point of trying to find outside counsel to defend volunteer editors in legal cases from time to time. (On more than one occasion I arranged for EFF or Public Citizen to defend individuals -- that's why it's useful that I have maintained collegial relationships with those organizations.) This is a policy my successors (there are three lawyers in the legal department now) have continued to follow.

My job, of course, was to defend the Wikimedia Foundation during a time of particular abrupt transition and growth, not to serve as a kind of public defender for the Wikimedia community members, who may be in a different legal situation than the Foundation is. I believe that such defense work is valuable, and I've done it from time to time both before and after my tenure at WMF, and WMF leadership supported me in my efforts to ensure, going forward, that individual volunteers were protected, usually by identifying outside resources and colleagues they could turn to.

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[Web Fred]

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

It is possible that the case in question is the case commonly known as the "Video Professor Case". I don't know, nor do I care. My source within the Foundation did not deign to share the case caption with me, just the timeframe. That you were Wikimedia's general counsel during that timeframe is undisputed. As to the rest, we shall merely agree to disagree.

What does one need to do to attain promotion to Brigadier Counsel?

[Web Fred]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Does anyone actually care what is said here?

Especially your contributions?

Well, if your "source within the Foundation" won't tell you what the name of the case is,

Sauce dear boy, sauce.

It refers to a bottle of Heinz Ketchup Kelly managed to nick on an information gathering trip

[mnemonic]

Sorry for my confusion. Apparently you're confused as well, since you seem to be interpreting something I said about the Video Professor case as some kind of admission regarding another case. Perhaps you should state the name of the case you're talking about -- that would help me avoid confusion on my end.

It is possible that the case in question is the case commonly known as the "Video Professor Case". I don't know, nor do I care. My source within the Foundation did not deign to share the case caption with me, just the timeframe. That you were Wikimedia's general counsel during that timeframe is undisputed. As to the rest, we shall merely agree to disagree.

What does one need to do to attain promotion to Brigadier Counsel?

I think to be promoted to Brigadier Counsel, I'd have to prove that I've adopted the Kelly Martin Rule: If You Can't Say Something Un-nice About Wikipedia, Don't Say Anything At All.

[Kelly Martin]

Is your source a lawyer, or are we not allowed even to know that?

You're a cheeky one, asking me to reveal information about my sources like that. I've never told Jimbo who my sources in the Foundation are; what makes me think I'd tell you?

Lurking behind your comments (and Kelly's, maybe) is the notion that the General Counsel was in a position to serve as a defense fund for volunteer editors in general. That has never been the case,
although I made a point of trying to find outside counsel to defend volunteer editors in legal cases from time to time.

I've never thought this, of course; I am not stupid. However, many run-of-the-mill Wikipedians (being, frankly, stupid) do seem to labor under the misapprehension that Wikimedia General Counsel is, or ought to be, their personal attorney, and that if they get sued over their Wikipedia meanderings, Wikimedia ought to defend them as they were the beneficiaries of their labors. Who am I to disabuse them of that notion?

[Kelly Martin]

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

I stopped focusing on personalities around that time, having realized that Wikipedia's problems weren't so much due to a good idea being handled badly by the wrong people, but instead a wrongheaded idea altogether. Crowdsourcing only works if you lower the bar on "work" really really low. While most people don't recognize it, eventually we'll realize that Wikipedia is easily the worst thing to happen in the field of knowledge creation and knowledge management in the last century.

[EricBarbour]

I've never thought this, of course; I am not stupid. However, many run-of-the-mill Wikipedians (being, frankly, stupid) do seem to labor under the misapprehension that Wikimedia General Counsel is, or ought to be, their personal attorney, and that if they get sued over their Wikipedia meanderings, Wikimedia ought to defend them as they were the beneficiaries of their labors. Who am I to disabuse them of that notion?

You wouldn't have any, um, specific incidents in mind, would you?.......

[Emperor]

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

Yeah sorry about that. That's just the tone around this place: extreme anger over events that happened years and years ago. Enjoy the hostility.

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

[gomi]

My job, of course, was to defend the Wikimedia Foundation during a time of particular abrupt transition and growth, not to serve as a kind of public defender for the Wikimedia community members, who may be in a different legal situation than the Foundation is. I believe that such defense work is valuable, and I've done it from time to time both before and after my tenure at WMF, and WMF leadership supported me in my efforts to ensure, going forward, that individual volunteers were protected, usually by identifying outside resources and colleagues they could turn to.

I think that using Mr. Godwin as a whipping-boy for all of the perceived failures of Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation is rude and pointless. He no longer works for the WMF, and (as he has pointed out) any truly salacious details, if there are any, would be covered by privilege.

I have an honest question for Mike, and one that I hope is not rude: What did you observe while working with the WMF that would indicate that they are a careful and responsible steward for a public website that has become disproportionately (or perhaps uniquely) important in information delivery on the Internet?

I think that Mike's observations on the effectiveness of Sue Gardner's leadership, the depth and intelligence of the WMF's strategy vis. Wikipedia (if any), the influence of Jimbo Wales on the organization, and similar topics would be illuminating, if he were to choose to share it.

[Web Fred]

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

Define "porn" define "kids"

And Rope Hell is hardly porn, but I can see how bare boobies can make the middle-American apoplectic.

[Web Fred]

I have an honest question for Mike, and one that I hope is not rude: What did you observe while working with the WMF that would indicate that they are a careful and responsible steward for a public website that has become disproportionately (or perhaps uniquely) important in information delivery on the Internet?

And is Sue willing to take one for the team? If you know what I mean wink, wink (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[mnemonic]

My job, of course, was to defend the Wikimedia Foundation during a time of particular abrupt transition and growth, not to serve as a kind of public defender for the Wikimedia community members, who may be in a different legal situation than the Foundation is. I believe that such defense work is valuable, and I've done it from time to time both before and after my tenure at WMF, and WMF leadership supported me in my efforts to ensure, going forward, that individual volunteers were protected, usually by identifying outside resources and colleagues they could turn to.

I think that using Mr. Godwin as a whipping-boy for all of the perceived failures of Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation is rude and pointless. He no longer works for the WMF, and (as he has pointed out) any truly salacious details, if there are any, would be covered by privilege.

I have an honest question for Mike, and one that I hope is not rude: What did you observe while working with the WMF that would indicate that they are a careful and responsible steward for a public website that has become disproportionately (or perhaps uniquely) important in information delivery on the Internet?

I think that Mike's observations on the effectiveness of Sue Gardner's leadership, the depth and intelligence of the WMF's strategy vis. Wikipedia (if any), the influence of Jimbo Wales on the organization, and similar topics would be illuminating, if he were to choose to share it.

I'll give you one leading example: the effort to do outreach to academic and government communities to increase their participation in content creation and correction on Wikipedia headed by Frank Schulenburg, who also travels to conduct Wikipedia University seminars around the world, trying to expand the diversity of our base of contributing users and editors.

I've worked closely with two members of the Legal Team -- Michelle Paulson, whom I brought on as a law clerk a couple of years ago, and Geoff Brigham, who succeeded me as general counsel. It is difficult to overstate how thoughtful and responsible they are, not merely in protecting WMF's operations, but in trying to serve the larger Wikimedia movement.

If you look at this page --

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors

-- you'll see a large number of people whose work you don't know, and who've never been targeted by you, so far as I know, but who are consistently committed to the work of maintaining and improving the Wikimedia-operated projects. Nimish Gautam, for example, or Steven Walling, or Megan Hernandez come to mind. Brion Vibber, one of the longest-term technical people, left WMF for a while, then came back -- he is immensely knowledgeable, the soul of integrity, and, amazingly, is rarely the target of criticism even among Wikipedia's most vociferous critics. I could go on and on. Brandon Harris! Alolita Sharma! I'd happily work with this team again, and I think Wikimedia Foundation is lucky to have it.

I know you want gossip about Jimmy and Sue, but my interactions with them were almost entirely pleasant over the course of my tenure. The same is true for the Board, but I should single out Kat Walsh in particular for her contributions and commitment to free culture and to the Wikimedia movement. She'll probably get re-elected to the Board as long as she keeps deciding to run for a position on it.

This isn't what you want to hear, I know. Even if I knew a lot of juicy gossip (as it happens, I don't know much interesting gossip about the staff), I couldn't share it.

As to Sue's effectiveness as a leader, I think it's clear from the available evidence that the Board regards her as effective. I also know that when she and I came on board in summer of 2007, there was a lot of work that had to be done to build up WMF to steward Wikipedia and the other projects, which had grown in popularity so fast that it was clear WMF was too understaffed (at the time) to keep up. I think Sue was both more aggressive and more effective in implementing those improvements than I would have been in the same position. I'm not sure I can think of anyone who would have done better in that transitional period between the time she and I came on-board and the time I left. So, yes, I think she's been effective.

Again, sorry to displease you -- as I'm certain I have -- by not being critical of anyone at WMF here. (And if you interpret anything here as a negative judgment from me, I promise you that you're misinterpreting it.) I liked the staff a lot, in general. When I was general counsel, I made a point of routinely visiting every department and talking to every single employee, and I found an absurdly high percentage of them to be personable, committed to the mission, and hugely thoughtful and intelligent.

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[thekohser]

...I found an absurdly high percentage of them to be personable, committed to the mission, and hugely thoughtful and intelligent.

Weird, then, how either you abandoned them, or they pushed you out.


You didn't mention Moeller. Maybe he's to blame.

[Zoloft]

Have you noticed the bullying of new editors, and how it's affecting Wikipedia's growth?

Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?

Answering that question shouldn't have any attorney-client privilege problems, as I've never seen any involvement by you or your former colleagues in this issue.

Please point me to a link if you ever stepped in on this bullying problem. I would be pleased to be shown the errors of my beliefs.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[gomi]

Again, sorry to displease you -- as I'm certain I have -- by not being critical of anyone at WMF here.

Thanks for your perspective. I think that if you believe that everyone at the Review is a mindless hater of Wikipedia and everyone associated with it, blindly dismissing anything positive said about it, you haven't read much here, or understood it. I hope that you will educate yourself about the Review while enlightening us on your views of the WMF while you're here.

[The Joy]

I've never thought this, of course; I am not stupid. However, many run-of-the-mill Wikipedians (being, frankly, stupid) do seem to labor under the misapprehension that Wikimedia General Counsel is, or ought to be, their personal attorney, and that if they get sued over their Wikipedia meanderings, Wikimedia ought to defend them as they were the beneficiaries of their labors. Who am I to disabuse them of that notion?

You wouldn't have any, um, specific incidents in mind, would you?.......

The National Portrait Gallery Incident? I believe the General Counsel was involved in advising and/or defending Dcoetzee (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25249&hl

[Somey]

I know you want gossip about Jimmy and Sue...

Don't sweat it. They usually provide their own gossip stuff, or at least Jimbo does. Besides, even if you had some, I figure you're an attorney, right? So unless we're actually paying you, you're going to tell us the opposite of what we want to hear anyway.

Again, sorry to displease you -- as I'm certain I have -- by not being critical of anyone at WMF here.

Oh, that's OK... still, if you think of anything, be sure to let us know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I guess what seems most interesting to me, at least, isn't so much a review/re-hash of your years with the WMF, or how you feel about the quality of the WMF staff (who for the most part seem to be reasonably hard-working folks), so much as your legal-perspective opinions on how the WMF interacts with the actual editors, i.e., the "community," both in the past and in the future.

There's a tendency to immediately focus on incidents where IP addresses were turned over, since that seems to inflame people to no end, but what's more interesting to me is this whole question of how the WMF is supposed to respond if and when editors get "out of control," which we saw to some extent with the David Gerard case. And what happens if the legislative regime (not just in the USA, but mostly in the USA) finally catches up with what's actually happening online? Could the WMF survive the repeal of Section 230, for example, in favor of new legislation that would serve to make the WMF completely responsible for Wikipedia's content? I used to think it couldn't, but it has so much money saved up now, who knows.

I think that if you believe that everyone at the Review is a mindless hater of Wikipedia and everyone associated with it, blindly dismissing anything positive said about it, you haven't read much here, or understood it.

Bearing in mind that there are a few here, of course. We have to maintain some level of credibility with the Mindless Hater Community, if only to avoid being lumped in with the Bad Guys.

[EricBarbour]

-- you'll see a large number of people whose work you don't know, and who've never been targeted by you, so far as I know, but who are consistently committed to the work of maintaining and improving the Wikimedia-operated projects. Nimish Gautam, for example, or Steven Walling, or Megan Hernandez come to mind. Brion Vibber, one of the longest-term technical people, left WMF for a while, then came back -- he is immensely knowledgeable, the soul of integrity, and, amazingly, is rarely the target of criticism even among Wikipedia's most vociferous critics. I could go on and on. Brandon Harris! Alolita Sharma!

Yes, I will give you that most of those people are good and dedicated workers.

(Except for Mr. Walling. He's definitely a liar and an abuser. Does the name Robert Rohde ring any bellsies? I've got more, but you'll have to buy the book to see it.)

[mnemonic]

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

Yeah sorry about that. That's just the tone around this place: extreme anger over events that happened years and years ago. Enjoy the hostility.

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

I'm the father of an 18-year-old girl, now a freshman in college. If she wants to look for pornography on the Internet, I'm certain she's smart enough not to turn first to Wikipedia, where there's so little pornography compared to all the other trivial stuff. She doesn't strike me as deeply troubled by the fact that the Internet, which she's had unrestricted access to for many years now, is rife with pornography. I'm not deeply troubled either.

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

[mnemonic]

-- you'll see a large number of people whose work you don't know, and who've never been targeted by you, so far as I know, but who are consistently committed to the work of maintaining and improving the Wikimedia-operated projects. Nimish Gautam, for example, or Steven Walling, or Megan Hernandez come to mind. Brion Vibber, one of the longest-term technical people, left WMF for a while, then came back -- he is immensely knowledgeable, the soul of integrity, and, amazingly, is rarely the target of criticism even among Wikipedia's most vociferous critics. I could go on and on. Brandon Harris! Alolita Sharma!

Yes, I will give you that most of those people are good and dedicated workers.

(Except for Mr. Walling. He's definitely a liar and an abuser. Does the name Robert Rohde ring any bellsies? I've got more, but you'll have to buy the book to see it.)

The WikiEN-l message you sent me to doesn't look like either a lie or abuse to me. I'm reading through the thread, and I see Steven being skeptical of Rohde's data, and about the choices he made regarding what to publish with regard to methodology. Mainly, he says Rohde's dataset is too unmoored (in Rohde's presentation) from methodology for him to evaluate it. He may have been abrupt and somewhat rude in expressing his skepticism, but I don't see him being any ruder than many people in this forum right here.

What's more, I doubt that Steven has any doubt about the falling off of the growth rate of editors and edits now -- it seems to have been independently identified in other studies. You should ask him what his current view is. My experience with Steven lies mainly in working with him in face-to-face environments, and he has been nothing but pleasant in personable in that context. I don't recognize the young man I know in your description of him.

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[mnemonic]

Have you noticed the bullying of new editors, and how it's affecting Wikipedia's growth?

Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?

Answering that question shouldn't have any attorney-client privilege problems, as I've never seen any involvement by you or your former colleagues in this issue.

Please point me to a link if you ever stepped in on this bullying problem. I would be pleased to be shown the errors of my beliefs.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I do think there is a tendency of long-term community members to view newcomers and inexperienced editors with distrust. I experienced that myself, years before I joined WMF, as it happens.

As for stepping in, it depends on what you mean by that. I certainly counseled a large number of people over the years about how to get past the problems facing a newcomer editor.

This post has been edited by mnemonic:

[Zoloft]

Have you noticed the bullying of new editors, and how it's affecting Wikipedia's growth?
Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?
Answering that question shouldn't have any attorney-client privilege problems, as I've never seen any involvement by you or your former colleagues in this issue.

Please point me to a link if you ever stepped in on this bullying problem. I would be pleased to be shown the errors of my beliefs.

I do think there is a tendency of long-term community members to view newcomers and inexperienced editors with distrust. I experienced that myself, years before I joined WMF, as it happens.

As for stepping in, it depends on what you mean by that. I certainly counseled a large number of people over the years about how to get past the problems facing a newcomer editor.

→Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?←

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I do think there is a tendency of long-term community members to view newcomers and inexperienced editors with distrust.

Of course there is. The gratification for long-term community members is control over article content, which they have achieved by either driving away editors with a conflicting POV, or recruiting sufficient allies (through who knows how many sordid deals) that they now control the "consensus" at a given article. Every newcomer, whether experienced or not, is a potential threat to these arrangements.

[mnemonic]

Have you noticed the bullying of new editors, and how it's affecting Wikipedia's growth?
Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?
Answering that question shouldn't have any attorney-client privilege problems, as I've never seen any involvement by you or your former colleagues in this issue.

Please point me to a link if you ever stepped in on this bullying problem. I would be pleased to be shown the errors of my beliefs.

I do think there is a tendency of long-term community members to view newcomers and inexperienced editors with distrust. I experienced that myself, years before I joined WMF, as it happens.

As for stepping in, it depends on what you mean by that. I certainly counseled a large number of people over the years about how to get past the problems facing a newcomer editor.

→Do you have an opinion on how to fix that?←

Cognitive therapy. By which I mean that I think the community of editors needs to become more aware of the extent to which this is a problem, and to proactively address the question of what may be causing the problem. I don't pretend to know what the cause is, but I think a general recognition that new editors are being discouraged is a good first step.

If I recall correctly, Andrew Lih argued in 2007 that there the sheer growth in the number of WP:Policies has itself created a barrier to entry. There may be something to that.

[mnemonic]

I've never thought this, of course; I am not stupid. However, many run-of-the-mill Wikipedians (being, frankly, stupid) do seem to labor under the misapprehension that Wikimedia General Counsel is, or ought to be, their personal attorney, and that if they get sued over their Wikipedia meanderings, Wikimedia ought to defend them as they were the beneficiaries of their labors. Who am I to disabuse them of that notion?

You wouldn't have any, um, specific incidents in mind, would you?.......

To answer the question asked somewhere around here about DCoetzee and the National Portrait Gallery complaint: I didn't represent DCoetzee. I did contact him to tell him about the subpoena received, and, if I recall correctly, arranged for him to be represented by EFF.

[Web Fred]

I've got a question for Mike...

"Upon professional advice, I do not respond or acknowledge Kohs in any way."
-- Jimmy Wales; January 28, 2010

Which "professional"?

You?

[anthony]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

What do you think about it?

[SB_Johnny]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

The most recent thing I can recall is that you had apparently recommended that the WMF use Jack Abramoff's former lobbying firm... was there a subliminal message in that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I suppose you "can't answer" whether you made that recommendation before or after Jimmy started blurting on about what his paid lobbyists would be doing, but I assume we'll find out after the 45 days have passed and we can see the date that they were retained.

[Emperor]

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

Define "porn" define "kids"

And Rope Hell is hardly porn, but I can see how bare boobies can make the middle-American apoplectic.

Define stupid argument.

Jimmy Wales pushes Wikipedia on young students.

If the image in Rope Hell isn't enough for you, find your own. It's not difficult. Or maybe you could tell me what kind of image it would take for you to call it pornography.

This isn't America vs. world. In most countries it's inappropriate to market something as a children's reference book and then include pictures of rape and torture in them.

It's a shame because many people do work hard on Wikipedia, but problems like this mean their efforts are wasted.

[Cedric]

I think that using Mr. Godwin as a whipping-boy for all of the perceived failures of Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation is rude and pointless. He no longer works for the WMF, and (as he has pointed out) any truly salacious details, if there are any, would be covered by privilege.

True enough. The facts are that Wikipedia was already doomed before Godwin was offered the General Counsel job, and that the WMF has never had any managerial control over Wikipedia governance, nor any control over content beyond the very few instances that fall under "WP:OFFICE." When the fall of WP finally comes, it will have little if anything to do with Godwin's actions, or for that matter the actions of any other former or current WMF staff.

It is good fun to laugh at the WMF's whimsical, futile and increasingly desperate efforts to save WP from itself; but important to remember also that none of it matters that much. Unless, of course, you have actually donated to the WMF, in which case more fool you.

[mnemonic]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

The most recent thing I can recall is that you had apparently recommended that the WMF use Jack Abramoff's former lobbying firm... was there a subliminal message in that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I suppose you "can't answer" whether you made that recommendation before or after Jimmy started blurting on about what his paid lobbyists would be doing, but I assume we'll find out after the 45 days have passed and we can see the date that they were retained.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

[Emperor]

Wikimedia Foundation staff can control the ways they promote and market Wikipedia. They can make people aware of what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what it contains. They should view themselves as educators. When asked if Wikipedia should be used by young students, they should have the decency to say "no".

You can ban kids from listening to rock 'n' roll music, but they're going to anyway. It's the same with information, and it's a bad educator that bans their students from reading Wikipedia.

[mnemonic]

Again, sorry to displease you -- as I'm certain I have -- by not being critical of anyone at WMF here.

Thanks for your perspective. I think that if you believe that everyone at the Review is a mindless hater of Wikipedia and everyone associated with it, blindly dismissing anything positive said about it, you haven't read much here, or understood it. I hope that you will educate yourself about the Review while enlightening us on your views of the WMF while you're here.

I wouldn't say "everyone" or "mindless" or "blindly." All I said in the quote you provide here is "you" in a response to a particular individual.

I've sampled Wikipedia Review many times over the last four years. I'm aware that there are differences among you.

I should add that I don't purport to have read everything on WR. Nor do I even try to keep up all currently active topics.

[SB_Johnny]

I don't know why this hasn't been asked before, but here it is: Mr. Godwin, why the fuck are you here?

You've made it clear that you don't care what we say about you (and/or are amused by it), you're no longer on the payroll of the WMF, and you probably have all sorts of options available to you when it comes to ways to spend your free time. So really, why are you here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

The most recent thing I can recall is that you had apparently recommended that the WMF use Jack Abramoff's former lobbying firm... was there a subliminal message in that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I suppose you "can't answer" whether you made that recommendation before or after Jimmy started blurting on about what his paid lobbyists would be doing, but I assume we'll find out after the 45 days have passed and we can see the date that they were retained.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

I don't have time to look into the links today (the sun is shining, so there's hay to be made as the saying goes), but Jimmy said as much when he was canvassing (not "CANVASSING", but the actual meaning of the word) for some sort of protest against SOPA. Perhaps Cla or someone else will have the links handy.

[thekohser]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

Now we're gettin' somewhere.

The question.

The answer.

Had you forgotten about Dow Lohnes, Mike... or is Jimbo lying again?


Edit: Additional reading is available shortly before and after this explanatory post of mine on WR.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If I recall correctly, Andrew Lih argued in 2007 that there the sheer growth in the number of WP:Policies has itself created a barrier to entry. There may be something to that.

The veteran POV-pushers control content by learning how to to game the system. The more Byzantine and abstruse the policies are, the more a seasoned Wikipedian can selectively cite them to confound and frustrate newcomers.

[victim of censorship]

Yes, please stay Mike, ignore the occasional poke. The excitement is unbearable.

As for the rest of you.......in re. the Video Professor case, Encyclopedia Dramatica to the rescue!......and have a nice day!........

Yes please stay long enough so I can have crack at the the ex- wiki lawyer.

Question: How can Wikipedia be dismantle and it's assets distributed to needed Libraries?



This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[tarantino]

Got bored during my holiday break. I thought it might be fun to show up and let you insult me to my face. I notice you have worked through all the old material (Kelly Martin has had to dig into 2007 to find something to throw at me). Surely there's new stuff?

Yeah sorry about that. That's just the tone around this place: extreme anger over events that happened years and years ago. Enjoy the hostility.

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

I'm the father of an 18-year-old girl, now a freshman in college. If she wants to look for pornography on the Internet, I'm certain she's smart enough not to turn first to Wikipedia, where there's so little pornography compared to all the other trivial stuff. She doesn't strike me as deeply troubled by the fact that the Internet, which she's had unrestricted access to for many years now, is rife with pornography. I'm not deeply troubled either.

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

It's not just about accidental exposure to photographs like cock and ball torture, masturbating with a toothbrush, hooking electrodes up to a penis, sticking a fist or a zucchini in an anus or a man ejaculating on a cracker and eating it to grade school children. It's also about having child administrators and editors curating such exhibitions right alongside adults. If that happened somewhere other than online, it would generally end in arrests.

[Emperor]

I'm the father of an 18-year-old girl, now a freshman in college. If she wants to look for pornography on the Internet, I'm certain she's smart enough not to turn first to Wikipedia, where there's so little pornography compared to all the other trivial stuff. She doesn't strike me as deeply troubled by the fact that the Internet, which she's had unrestricted access to for many years now, is rife with pornography. I'm not deeply troubled either.

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

Sorry I missed this reply earlier. Is the thread being rearranged or pre-checked by mods or something?

18 and over, who cares. But 12, 14, 15? Come on! Most parents would be worried about the psychological damage that hardcore pornography can inflict, and would seek to restrict access to it.

Even if your parenting style allows for all the porn your kid wants, surely you must have enough respect for your fellow citizens not to sneak that into public school libraries under the banner of "educational material". Or not.

As for the initiative to allow hiding of images, I'm not holding my breath. Wikipedia is already ten years old. This should have been prioritized the moment the Foundation was set up.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Most online resources such as Google make opting out of porn the default setting.

[Kelly Martin]

Most online resources such as Google make opting out of porn the default setting.

Wikipedia's "wur diffrent" attitude almost mandates that they make opting in the default, just out of spite.

The community is opposed to opt-in, but cannot elucidate a clear explanation why. Jimmy doesn't care enough to press the issue; all he has to do to satisfy his obligations in this matter is appear to make an effort to do something. The actual outcome doesn't matter so much.

[anthony]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

What do you think about it?

Not allowed to answer that one? Surely you have an opinion on it.

[mnemonic]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

Now we're gettin' somewhere.

The question.

The answer.

Had you forgotten about Dow Lohnes, Mike... or is Jimbo lying again?


Edit: Additional reading is available shortly before and after this explanatory post of mine on WR.

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

[mnemonic]

I'm the father of an 18-year-old girl, now a freshman in college. If she wants to look for pornography on the Internet, I'm certain she's smart enough not to turn first to Wikipedia, where there's so little pornography compared to all the other trivial stuff. She doesn't strike me as deeply troubled by the fact that the Internet, which she's had unrestricted access to for many years now, is rife with pornography. I'm not deeply troubled either.

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

Sorry I missed this reply earlier. Is the thread being rearranged or pre-checked by mods or something?

18 and over, who cares. But 12, 14, 15? Come on! Most parents would be worried about the psychological damage that hardcore pornography can inflict, and would seek to restrict access to it.

Even if your parenting style allows for all the porn your kid wants, surely you must have enough respect for your fellow citizens not to sneak that into public school libraries under the banner of "educational material". Or not.

As for the initiative to allow hiding of images, I'm not holding my breath. Wikipedia is already ten years old. This should have been prioritized the moment the Foundation was set up.

I've never restricted my daughter's access to internet content. Both her mother and I made a point of giving her warnings about people who might approach her online, etc., and she apparently paid attention to the warnings. If she has accidentally come across pornography, I doubt it was through Wikipedia. If she has sought out pornography (not the sort of thing a child normally tells a parent unless the parent has already found out), I doubt she went to Wikipedia to do so.

Whether "most parents" are panicky about their children seeing pornography is something I can't claim to know. (I haven't polled "most parents.") But I researched and spoke about the issue extensively when Congress first attempted to censor internet content in 1994-95 and through the passage and later the successful Supreme Court challenge of the Communications Decency Amendment to the omnibus Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. What that research led me to was the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

[RMHED]

Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

exactly so, especially when the media help propel the bandwagon.

[lilburne]

the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

To be fair though non of those featured "Anal cum sluts". The access to pornography by children has never been easier or so extensive, and one wonders whether they understand that most women don't partake in Bakkuka parties.

Also to be fair the limiting factor of porn on wikipedia is the lack of freetard content, and the general inability of the commons uploaders to create their own other than photos of their dicks. Thus they are restricted to what they can steal from temporary flickr accounts.

[RMHED]

The access to pornography by children has never been easier or so extensive,

Lucky bastards, When I think of the efforts I had to go to in order to get hard core porn (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

and one wonders whether they understand that most women don't partake in Bakkuka parties.

Do you mean Bukkake? Anyway no harm in letting them fantasize, they will find out soon enough that reality is somewhat different.

[Web Fred]

the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

To be fair though non of those featured "Anal cum sluts". The access to pornography by children has never been easier or so extensive, and one wonders whether they understand that most women don't partake in Bakkuka parties.

Oh I don't know, there are a few in my circle of friends I could put you in touch with. They could teach you a lot of things I'm sure, maybe even how to spell bukkake.

Also to be fair the limiting factor of porn on wikipedia is the lack of freetard content, and the general inability of the commons uploaders to create their own other than photos of their dicks. Thus they are restricted to what they can steal from temporary flickr accounts.

In this day and age of digital video, phones that can record 1080p video etc it's never been easier to get/make home-brew porn. The hardest aspect these days is knowing how to transcode from 3GP to OGV to upload.

[EricBarbour]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

And he's failing, so far.

The results are unlikely to calm the rhetoric on either side of the debate. With mild support shown overall—the most general question had a median result of 6 (on a scale from 0–10, where 5 was "neutral")—there is probably enough encouragement to ensure that the proposal is not abandoned altogether, and some useful results were gathered with regard to priorities. On the other hand, about 3750 respondents (16% of the sample) gave a score of zero to the broadest question, "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers", the clearest indication yet that a significant body of editors would oppose the implementation proposed by the Foundation regardless of its features. (This result looks set to be endorsed by a poll run in parallel on the German Wikipedia which currently indicates that about fourth-fifths of Wikipedians there are opposed to the measure as stated.) A third group consider the referendum to have been badly mismanaged in a way that would render the result meaningless.

As British Wikimedian Michael Peel commented, the poll probably points towards a "no consensus" result. As a result, the next move of the Foundation is unclear. In all likelihood it will choose to alter the proposed implementation to build a new consensus, since it is dubious as to whether the Foundation could now meaningfully proceed without convincing at least a small proportion of those currently skeptical to the idea. One possible compromise would be on whether or not there was a single global implementation of the filter. User:FT2 added that "enabling on some wikis and not on others" may yet be a good way to "leave more people feeling fairly satisfied".

I would post a complete list of the Commons categories involved, but I don't want them to delete
anything, or to attempt any other kind of "cover-up", until the book is ready.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Web Fred]

If I had to think of the one thing I'm most pissed off about, it would be the WMF promoting the use of Wikipedia in public schools while at the same time knowing it's filled with hardcore pornography (Rope Hell, just for example). How do you live with yourself, knowing that you worked to distribute porn to kids?

Define "porn" define "kids"

And Rope Hell is hardly porn, but I can see how bare boobies can make the middle-American apoplectic.

Define stupid argument.

Religious Americans trying to make out that sex is something that should be hidden?

Jimmy Wales pushes Wikipedia on young students.

Jimkbo is a fucking idiot who only says things to make himself look good by agreeing to what he thinks people want to hear.

If the image in Rope Hell isn't enough for you, find your own. It's not difficult. Or maybe you could tell me what kind of image it would take for you to call it pornography.

Oh I call it pr0n, I just don't worry (or rather didn't worry) about my kids coming into contact with it.

This isn't America vs. world. In most countries it's inappropriate to market something as a children's reference book and then include pictures of rape and torture in them.

It's a shame because many people do work hard on Wikipedia, but problems like this mean their efforts are wasted.

I think it's more harmful to hide sex away from kids and make out that it's something shameful to be avoided, that way when they do come into contact with it they don't know how to handle it and guilt makes its very own introduction. Now on the other hand, America's love affair with violence, now that I have problems with.

This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic:

[Zoloft]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

And he's failing, so far.

The results are unlikely to calm the rhetoric on either side of the debate. With mild support shown overall—the most general question had a median result of 6 (on a scale from 0–10, where 5 was "neutral")—there is probably enough encouragement to ensure that the proposal is not abandoned altogether, and some useful results were gathered with regard to priorities. On the other hand, about 3750 respondents (16% of the sample) gave a score of zero to the broadest question, "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers", the clearest indication yet that a significant body of editors would oppose the implementation proposed by the Foundation regardless of its features. (This result looks set to be endorsed by a poll run in parallel on the German Wikipedia which currently indicates that about fourth-fifths of Wikipedians there are opposed to the measure as stated.) A third group consider the referendum to have been badly mismanaged in a way that would render the result meaningless.

As British Wikimedian Michael Peel commented, the poll probably points towards a "no consensus" result. As a result, the next move of the Foundation is unclear. In all likelihood it will choose to alter the proposed implementation to build a new consensus, since it is dubious as to whether the Foundation could now meaningfully proceed without convincing at least a small proportion of those currently skeptical to the idea. One possible compromise would be on whether or not there was a single global implementation of the filter. User:FT2 added that "enabling on some wikis and not on others" may yet be a good way to "leave more people feeling fairly satisfied".

I would post a complete list of the Commons categories involved, but I don't want them to delete
anything, or to attempt any other kind of "cover-up", until the book is ready.

Last year, a friend of mine's daughter was searching Commons for a public-domain picture of a 'pearl necklace' to use as a Facebook graphic.

The seventh result was a 'pearl necklace' as it's known in porn circles. She showed her father. He was extremely peeved.

His angry letter to the WMF was after Mr. Godwin's time.

[carbuncle]

Most online resources such as Google make opting out of porn the default setting.

Wikipedia's "wur diffrent" attitude almost mandates that they make opting in the default, just out of spite.

The community is opposed to opt-in, but cannot elucidate a clear explanation why. Jimmy doesn't care enough to press the issue; all he has to do to satisfy his obligations in this matter is appear to make an effort to do something. The actual outcome doesn't matter so much.

I can't be bothered to find links, but this seems a good time for me to repeat that the report commissioned by the WMF was going to review and report on "best practices" used by other high profile websites. That was stated in part one of the report. It does not appear to have been done, or at least does not appear anywhere in the report. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[EricBarbour]

I can't be bothered to find links, but this seems a good time for me to repeat that the report commissioned by the WMF was going to review and report on "best practices" used by other high profile websites. That was stated in part one of the report. It does not appear to have been done, or at least does not appear anywhere in the report. Feel free to prove me wrong.

This is the report to the board from September. Note the lack of action.

This is the "discussion". Note that Jayen466 and WereSpiel do most of the talking, and no solid conclusion is ever reached.

This will go nowhere. The "community" will do nothing, until change is forced upon them from outside.

[SB_Johnny]

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

I didn't think you knew Abramoff (you're not a retirement-aged Jew, therefore not qualified to be his target), but apparently (according to one of the amateur researchers who hang out here at the Review) Mr. Abromoff's "company" (yes, scare quotes) had retained Dow Lohnes.

I wasn't suggesting that you had friends in low places, but I was wondering if perhaps you knew about that and were being a bit "cheeky" (your word) in recommending that particular firm because of that particular bit of the firm's history. I guess you weren't.

I won't bother offering my theories and thoughts about that, since a simple question will suffice: when you swap friendly thoughts with the WMF, do you put Jimmy in the loop?

[tarantino]

Religious Americans trying to make out that sex is something that should be hidden?

Biggest four UK ISPs switching to 'opt-in' system for pornography

Pornography clampdown to shield children online

Scotland and the UK enact laws against extreme pornography.

[thekohser]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

Now we're gettin' somewhere.

The question.

The answer.

Had you forgotten about Dow Lohnes, Mike... or is Jimbo lying again?


Edit: Additional reading is available shortly before and after this explanatory post of mine on WR.

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

It seems like we here at the Review didn't have any of our wires "seriously crossed" on this one, then.

[Emperor]

I've never restricted my daughter's access to internet content. Both her mother and I made a point of giving her warnings about people who might approach her online, etc., and she apparently paid attention to the warnings. If she has accidentally come across pornography, I doubt it was through Wikipedia. If she has sought out pornography (not the sort of thing a child normally tells a parent unless the parent has already found out), I doubt she went to Wikipedia to do so.

Whether "most parents" are panicky about their children seeing pornography is something I can't claim to know. (I haven't polled "most parents.") But I researched and spoke about the issue extensively when Congress first attempted to censor internet content in 1994-95 and through the passage and later the successful Supreme Court challenge of the Communications Decency Amendment to the omnibus Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. What that research led me to was the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

The modern world is a scary screwed-up place. Children are mandated to go to school, then given access to porn. So basically the state rips kids out of the home where parents have some measure of control, and indoctrinates them in this anything goes, "sure watch beaver movies all day if you want to" mentality. Nevermind the parents might have their own plan for sex ed. You know better.

I'm not asking for a law restricting porn, but what I am trying to do is raise awareness that the WMF is not respectful of personal value systems.

Don't be surprised if when enough people find out, Wikipedia is restricted from more and more venues. That would be a shame, because some of the content in Wikipedia is actually good.

[SB_Johnny]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more specific about which lobbying firm I'm supposed to have recommended to Jimmy, and when you think this happened? Seems like you got your wires seriously crossed here. Perhaps you could provide some links to indicate what you're talking about.

Now we're gettin' somewhere.

The question.

The answer.

Had you forgotten about Dow Lohnes, Mike... or is Jimbo lying again?


Edit: Additional reading is available shortly before and after this explanatory post of mine on WR.

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

It seems like we here at the Review didn't have any of our wires "seriously crossed" on this one, then.

Is somebody gonna give me +1 internet points? I'm feeling unappreciated. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

I've never restricted my daughter's access to internet content. Both her mother and I made a point of giving her warnings about people who might approach her online, etc., and she apparently paid attention to the warnings. If she has accidentally come across pornography, I doubt it was through Wikipedia. If she has sought out pornography (not the sort of thing a child normally tells a parent unless the parent has already found out), I doubt she went to Wikipedia to do so.

Whether "most parents" are panicky about their children seeing pornography is something I can't claim to know. (I haven't polled "most parents.") But I researched and spoke about the issue extensively when Congress first attempted to censor internet content in 1994-95 and through the passage and later the successful Supreme Court challenge of the Communications Decency Amendment to the omnibus Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. What that research led me to was the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

Mike, I think the issue is that Wikipedia has become the "go-to source" for a quick answer to an off-the-cuff question. Great for settling bets at the bar, but kinda creepy for 12 year old youngsters asking the kinds of questions that 12 year olds have.

I'm more or less closer to being on your side than on the other, but it makes me uncomfortable when people on your side dismiss the concerns of the people on the other side... there really is a happy middle between puritanism and whatever you call the opposite of puritanism (really not sure what the word would be).

[Abd]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

And he's failing, so far.

The results are unlikely to calm the rhetoric on either side of the debate. With mild support shown overall—the most general question had a median result of 6 (on a scale from 0–10, where 5 was "neutral")—there is probably enough encouragement to ensure that the proposal is not abandoned altogether, and some useful results were gathered with regard to priorities. On the other hand, about 3750 respondents (16% of the sample) gave a score of zero to the broadest question, "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers", the clearest indication yet that a significant body of editors would oppose the implementation proposed by the Foundation regardless of its features. (This result looks set to be endorsed by a poll run in parallel on the German Wikipedia which currently indicates that about fourth-fifths of Wikipedians there are opposed to the measure as stated.) A third group consider the referendum to have been badly mismanaged in a way that would render the result meaningless.

As British Wikimedian Michael Peel commented, the poll probably points towards a "no consensus" result. As a result, the next move of the Foundation is unclear. In all likelihood it will choose to alter the proposed implementation to build a new consensus, since it is dubious as to whether the Foundation could now meaningfully proceed without convincing at least a small proportion of those currently skeptical to the idea. One possible compromise would be on whether or not there was a single global implementation of the filter. User:FT2 added that "enabling on some wikis and not on others" may yet be a good way to "leave more people feeling fairly satisfied".

Sorry, Eric, this response is entirely regarding mnemonic's post. Seems that part of it got deleted?

The most prominent excuse for my original topic ban on Cold fusion was a Range poll that I set up to attempt to find the best version to revert to after Hipocrite managed to wangle a protection of a radical change he'd made. That was quite a feat! Edit warrior goes to RfPP and gets protection because there is revert warring going on. He's the most prominent of the reverters. It got blamed on me, but I hadn't broken a sweat.

Range polls are good but not optimal for decision-making. They are ideal for advising decision-making. Lots of people, with Range polls, will bullet-vote, i.e., vote Approval style, often just voting full range for their favorite and zero for everything other than that. That's okay, as long as the poll itself is not the complete decision-making process. Wikis got stuck on this idea of "consensus," which means something other than what it means in the world of deliberative process. Wikipedians who know that world tend to get ejected quickly.... Long ago, it came to be understood that, broadly, "majority rule" is a highly practical guideline, but there are plenty of caveats. A defined electorate is one of them. If you have 8 million eligible voters, and, for some massive discussion, a few hundred show up, you really know very little. While you have "motivated voters," you don't know anything about the vast majority who have not participated. They might care a great deal, they might not care at all. Most of them don't even know that the question has been asked.

The standard response to this situation is representative democracy, but "the community" rejected even the most libertarian imaginable implementation, when a file structure that would allow ad-hoc representational analysis was proposed with WP:PRX. Even though that was just an experiment, even though it changed nothing about decision-making, even though it did not actually involve voting, it was rejected because "we don't vote," a conceit that is unbelievably obtuse. Of course there is voting on Wikipedia!

But there is practically no way to judge how representative it is.

And any implementation of sane structure around decision-making will alter the balance of power, or at least the oligarchy will perceive it that way, so they will intervene to prevent it. If allowed.

There are basically two ways around this: from the bottom and from the top. From the bottom is difficult, it would take an organized revolution, and most people really, when push comes to shove, don't care enough. Perhaps. Perhaps I've merely been an ineffective advocate.

The other solution would come from the top, from someone with authority who sees the value of having an intelligent, awake community as a "partner."

Problems like the image filter have a practically infinite number of possible solutions. To find something that is optimal will take a great deal of back-and-forth, unless some leader gets lucky and hits on it. The necessary discussions cannot take place on a large scale, it becomes way too inefficient. Open commentary, yes, but not in the middle of negotiations!

[Cedric]

I'm more or less closer to being on your side than on the other, but it makes me uncomfortable when people on your side dismiss the concerns of the people on the other side... there really is a happy middle between puritanism and whatever you call the opposite of puritanism (really not sure what the word would be).

Moellerism?

[HRIP7]

I can't be bothered to find links, but this seems a good time for me to repeat that the report commissioned by the WMF was going to review and report on "best practices" used by other high profile websites. That was stated in part one of the report. It does not appear to have been done, or at least does not appear anywhere in the report. Feel free to prove me wrong.

This is the report to the board from September. Note the lack of action.

This is the "discussion". Note that Jayen466 and WereSpiel do most of the talking, and no solid conclusion is ever reached.

This will go nowhere. The "community" will do nothing, until change is forced upon them from outside.

It think Sue said – some time after it became clear that a category-based filter was off the agenda – that the work on selecting and implementing a new filter design would begin this month.

[Kelly Martin]

It think Sue said – some time after it became clear that a category-based filter was off the agenda – that the work on selecting and implementing a new filter design would begin this month.

Wanna make book on how long it takes Teh Communiteh to reject the next design?

[Peter Damian]

What that research led me to was the conclusion that we were seeing a social panic, similar to the social panics that accompanied introduction of television, the movies, telephones, and automobiles. I still think that's the case. Generally, social panics lead to bad lawmaking.

Isn't social panic a form of crowdsourcing? If not, why not? What about the social panics I remember from my younger days, such as CND, then 'Protest and Survive'. This was a panic that accompanied the introduction of long-range missiles containing warheads that could devastate whole cities.

Then there was a social panic that accompanied the introduction of 'Collaterised Debt Obligations', which were a sort of warhead that could (and did) devastate the debt markets. This social panic is still continuing with 'Occupy Wall Street', let me remind you. Ask Sue Gardner about that.

Aren't there really two sorts of panic. The sort that you think needless and trivial, and the sort you are concerned about?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[SB_Johnny]

[Lively but off-topic discussion of internet porn, children, and parents moved here.]

I'm more or less closer to being on your side than on the other, but it makes me uncomfortable when people on your side dismiss the concerns of the people on the other side... there really is a happy middle between puritanism and whatever you call the opposite of puritanism (really not sure what the word would be).

Moellerism?

Bingo.

[victim of censorship]

If you're worried about accidental exposure to porn (I assume you're talking about explicit imagery here) you have somehow missed the development that the Board and the executive director have been driving an initiative to enable users to turn off images that might be offensive. One of the biggest supporters of this initiative, I understand, is Jimmy.

And he's failing, so far.

The results are unlikely to calm the rhetoric on either side of the debate. With mild support shown overall—the most general question had a median result of 6 (on a scale from 0–10, where 5 was "neutral")—there is probably enough encouragement to ensure that the proposal is not abandoned altogether, and some useful results were gathered with regard to priorities. On the other hand, about 3750 respondents (16% of the sample) gave a score of zero to the broadest question, "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers", the clearest indication yet that a significant body of editors would oppose the implementation proposed by the Foundation regardless of its features. (This result looks set to be endorsed by a poll run in parallel on the German Wikipedia which currently indicates that about fourth-fifths of Wikipedians there are opposed to the measure as stated.) A third group consider the referendum to have been badly mismanaged in a way that would render the result meaningless.

As British Wikimedian Michael Peel commented, the poll probably points towards a "no consensus" result. As a result, the next move of the Foundation is unclear. In all likelihood it will choose to alter the proposed implementation to build a new consensus, since it is dubious as to whether the Foundation could now meaningfully proceed without convincing at least a small proportion of those currently skeptical to the idea. One possible compromise would be on whether or not there was a single global implementation of the filter. User:FT2 added that "enabling on some wikis and not on others" may yet be a good way to "leave more people feeling fairly satisfied".

I would post a complete list of the Commons categories involved, but I don't want them to delete
anything, or to attempt any other kind of "cover-up", until the book is ready.

Last year, a friend of mine's daughter was searching Commons for a public-domain picture of a 'pearl necklace' to use as a Facebook graphic.

The seventh result was a 'pearl necklace' as it's known in porn circles. She showed her father. He was extremely peeved.

His angry letter to the WMF was after Mr. Godwin's time.

Back by popular demand... Why wiki is evil and should be banned from k-12 schools.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[EricBarbour]

Moellerism?

All those who want "Moellerism" to be the New Wikipedia-Crazy-Bullshit Coined Word for 2012, raise your hands!

[SB_Johnny]

Moellerism?

All those who want "Moellerism" to be the New Wikipedia-Crazy-Bullshit Coined Word for 2012, raise your hands!

"Sycopath" was better, I think.

[mnemonic]

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

I didn't think you knew Abramoff (you're not a retirement-aged Jew, therefore not qualified to be his target), but apparently (according to one of the amateur researchers who hang out here at the Review) Mr. Abromoff's "company" (yes, scare quotes) had retained Dow Lohnes.

I wasn't suggesting that you had friends in low places, but I was wondering if perhaps you knew about that and were being a bit "cheeky" (your word) in recommending that particular firm because of that particular bit of the firm's history. I guess you weren't.

I won't bother offering my theories and thoughts about that, since a simple question will suffice: when you swap friendly thoughts with the WMF, do you put Jimmy in the loop?

Just about all of my communications with WMF is mediated by my successor, Geoff Brigham, or by Michelle Paulson. Jimmy is sometimes on cc lists when I share information about some issues, e.g., SOPA and PIPA.

There's no question I recommended Dow Lohnes, where my friend Jim Burger, formerly at the General Counsel's office at Apple, has worked for years. But I didn't consult Jimmy about this -- I recommended Dow Lohnes to Geoff and Michelle at WMF's legal department. What confused me is what the connection to Jack Abramoff is supposed to be. Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and for Greenberg Traurig. If he did something with Dow Lohnes, I don't know about it. And, I should add, I don't know Abramoff.

I didn't think you knew Abramoff (you're not a retirement-aged Jew, therefore not qualified to be his target), but apparently (according to one of the amateur researchers who hang out here at the Review) Mr. Abromoff's "company" (yes, scare quotes) had retained Dow Lohnes.

I wasn't suggesting that you had friends in low places, but I was wondering if perhaps you knew about that and were being a bit "cheeky" (your word) in recommending that particular firm because of that particular bit of the firm's history. I guess you weren't.

I won't bother offering my theories and thoughts about that, since a simple question will suffice: when you swap friendly thoughts with the WMF, do you put Jimmy in the loop?

Just about all of my communications with WMF is mediated by my successor, Geoff Brigham, or by Michelle Paulson. Jimmy is sometimes on cc lists when I share information about some issues, e.g., SOPA and PIPA.

And, by the way, "cheeky" is not my word. It's actually WR's.