The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jimbo Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope"
Rating  1
Moulton
post Tue 30th December 2008, 2:17am
Post #1


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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

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

QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 29th December 2008, 2:53pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th December 2008, 7:48pm) *
Jimbo's recent intervention in Wikiversity, where he declared various academic lines of inquiry (primarily associated with a course on Applied Ethics) to be "Beyond the Scope" of Wikiversity (and all other WMF-funded projects) is probably a bigger issue for Section 230 Immunity than other arguments.
It wasn't the concept of a course on applied ethics that was declared "beyond the scope" of wikiversity, it was the implementation (drawn heavily from your personal disputes).

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

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

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

But to your point about the case studies...

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th December 2008, 4:37pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th December 2008, 11:48am) *
At the same time that Jimbo publishes an appeal to donors to contribute to WMF's mission of bringing the sum of all human knowledge to 21st Century youth, he declares that a wide swath of educational material on Wikiversity is beyond the remit of the project, and he personally expunges it.
An excellent point---falling on deaf ears.

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

That's been predicted for a while now.

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

More than anything, it grieves me to watch these youngsters fall into reprehensible fascistic practices that ethical pioneers fought so hard to eradicate down through the past 4000 years of bloody political history.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Tue 30th December 2008, 2:25am
Post #2


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

----------------
Now playing: Dusty Springfield - I Only Want to Be With You
via FoxyTunes
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 30th December 2008, 3:34am
Post #3


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 29th December 2008, 9:25pm) *
It would probably be better for objectivity and detatchment in a course on ethics if you would have provided examples not directly involving conflicts in which you were a combatant.

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

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

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

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

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

I would have preferred that Wikiversity had demonstrated the integrity of WMF's professed commitment to educational enterprise. But given the remarkable breach of that expectation, I'd rather have Jimbo personally breach it in the dramatic fashion he did than to have some minor official undermine it in a marginal sideshow that not even Kato bothers to take notice of.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 30th December 2008, 4:02am
Post #4


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th December 2008, 9:34pm) *


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


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

BTW the more I listen the less I understand what a "Wikiversity" is suppose to be. Do you teach classes? Conduct research? Publish papers? All I ever see is increasingly convoluted and unkind discussion. At least the Free University alternatives of another era might teach people to speak Arabic or Spanish. Even your own MuseNet (or whatever) taught kids some basic HTML. Wikiversity seems like a complete waste of time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zvook
post Tue 30th December 2008, 4:07am
Post #5


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon 22nd Dec 2008, 3:21am
Member No.: 9,484



Moulton: What's your relationship to John Schmidt?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 30th December 2008, 4:49am
Post #6


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 29th December 2008, 11:02pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 29th December 2008, 9:34pm) *
In doing so, Jimbo clearly swept away any presumption of Section 230 Immunity and dramatically breached the promise set forth in the WMF Mission Statement to bring the "sum of all human knowledge" to the Internet public.
How does not extending "Wikiversity" coverage into certain areas differ from forum discussion boards, which have the strongest claim of Sec 230 immunity, choosing to make make some areas off-topic? All discussion forums set limits of some type in this manner.

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

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

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 29th December 2008, 11:02pm) *
BTW the more I listen the less I understand what a "Wikiversity" is suppose to be. Do you teach classes? Conduct research? Publish papers? All I ever see is increasingly convoluted and unkind discussion. At least the Free University alternatives of another era might teach people to speak Arabic or Spanish. Even your own MuseNet (or whatever) taught kids some basic HTML. Wikiversity seems like a complete waste of time.

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

QUOTE(zvook @ Mon 29th December 2008, 11:07pm) *
Moulton: What's your relationship to John Schmidt?

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

The way I got to know John Schmidt is interesting. John and a few others at Wikiversity were interested in starting a streaming audio adjunct, but they hadn't persuaded WMF to provide a streaming audio server. As it happened, I had such a streaming audio server that I had previously installed four years ago at Utah State University. I also had installed a rarely used VOIP conferencing bridge there as well. Schmidt and the others were eager to avail themselves of these resources, and I was glad to make them available. Schmidt and I spent a lot of time just chatting on the TeamSpeak Voice Conferencing Bridge, mainly because that was the easiest way for me to talk him through the rigamarole to set up all the other streaming audio services. He got in the habit of leaving his voice connection to TeamSpeak open all day, and we would just chat idly as the spirit moved us. Eventually, as we traded war stories, he decided to do an independent study of the ethical issues I had run into on WP. It was easy for him to interview me via the TeamSpeak voice bridge.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 2nd January 2009, 11:19pm
Post #7


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sat 3rd January 2009, 12:09am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Castle Rock
post Sat 3rd January 2009, 12:37am
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu 13th Sep 2007, 7:27am
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051



QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd January 2009, 3:19pm) *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Sat 3rd January 2009, 1:41am
Post #9


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Fri 2nd January 2009, 7:37pm) *
You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.

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

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

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

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

John von Neumann is credited with inventing the modern stored-program computer, back in the 1940s. Together with Oscar Morgenstern, von Neumann also wrote a book entitled Theory of Games and Economic Choice. Nobel Prize Winner, John Forbes Nash, relied on the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern when he developed the Nash Equilibrium Theorem for the Two-Person Zero-Sum Game. Game Theory, as developed half a century ago by von Neumann, Morgenstern, and Nash, has now evolved considerably. The current state of the theory now embraces not only Game Theory but also Drama Theory. A new book on the subject could be called Theory of Dramas and Egonomic Voice. In 60 years, we go from the Theory of Games and Economic Choice to the Theory of Dramas and Egonomic Voice. Wikipedia is a Post-Modern Theater of Ego-Driven Dramas.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 3rd January 2009, 7:38am
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Fri 2nd January 2009, 7:37pm) *
You might be taking Wikipedia a little bit too seriously. I think you will find that capricious administrators are not unique to Wikipedia. And really how does Wiki-governance really differ from any large dysfunctional organization that poorly supervises those in authority.

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

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

You should listen to Moulton. He's a pest sometimes, but essentially correct.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 30th January 2009, 3:00pm
Post #11


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Letter to Jimbo Wales, Chairman Emeticus

Dear Woolworths Foundation Board of Trustees,

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

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

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

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

(signed)

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

This post has been edited by Moulton: Fri 30th January 2009, 4:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Fri 30th January 2009, 3:24pm
Post #12


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Fri 30th January 2009, 3:32pm
Post #13


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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

Ja³
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 9th February 2009, 4:00am
Post #14


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Scherzophrenia

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

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


This post has been edited by Moulton: Mon 9th February 2009, 12:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Mon 9th February 2009, 4:03am
Post #15


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(WAS 4.250 on Wikiversity)
Hello, Verizon?


Can you hear me now?


----------------
Now playing: Frankie Valli - My Eyes Adored You
via FoxyTunes
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Mon 9th February 2009, 4:08am
Post #16


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



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

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

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

UPDATE: Found it

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain how that law applies to Moulton and Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 9th February 2009, 9:10am
Post #17


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(One @ Fri 30th January 2009, 8:24am) *

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

IMHO, it hasn't been tested properly yet. I want a case where it's clearly argued before the Supreme Court that in fact sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright. Is that what was really intended, and can the law be pushed that far, in light of the very traditional restraints on the 1st Ammendment in areas of defamation and advertising (commercial speech)? I don't think so. But it hasn't been clearly reviewed, and won't be, until somebody out there on the net crosses the line far more eggregiously than WP has. For one thing, a case would force the court to DEFINE "publishing." Not so easy to do, these days.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 9th February 2009, 12:48pm
Post #18


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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

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

To my mind, that is a fraud on the IRS, a fraud on the taxpayers, a fraud on the donors, and a fraud on the impressionable young students who are being inculcated into anachronistic, unscholarly, unethical, and unbecoming practices that are a disgrace to any enterprise purporting to be an authentic learning community.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Mon 9th February 2009, 3:37pm
Post #19


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 9th February 2009, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 30th January 2009, 8:24am) *

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

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

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

It's not fragile.

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

This post has been edited by One: Mon 9th February 2009, 5:51pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Mon 9th February 2009, 3:52pm
Post #20


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 9th February 2009, 4:10am) *

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


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

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st 10 14, 2:10pm