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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to your point about the case studies...

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

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

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

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

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

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

An excellent point---falling on deaf ears.

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

That's been predicted for a while now.

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

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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One: Mon 9th February 2009, 10:31pm

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think so, One.

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

[One]

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

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

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

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