Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Brad Patrick resigns
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Daniel Brandt
Brad Patrick resigns.

Danny won't explain anything either, but says he plans to run for Trustee in June.
Jaranda
Wow, this is some major shakeup that wikipedia is getting. Two of it's most important people resigned. I wonder what is going on.
Daniel Brandt
It would be a good time for a coup, with Jimmy booked up abroad. Coups usually happen when the prime minister is off traveling somewhere. Didn't I see on IRC the other day that Florence had flown in for a Trustee meeting? In any case, it's either a coup that was simmering for weeks and is just now coming to a head (Brad said he submitted his resignation "some weeks ago"), or it's all a smokescreen and the changes will be cosmetic. Hopefully there will be some formal resolutions from the Board soon that will tell us whether it's important or not.

It's quite possible that Danny and Brad got new job descriptions from the Board, and they just don't like it, mainly because Jimmy doesn't like it. That would be interesting, but not very earth-shaking.

QUOTE
Help wanted: Tenured faculty member (preferably at a law school) with two PhDs needed to terrorize recalcitrant admins with WP:OFFICE, and dazzle the occasional Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with tales of dedicated Wikipedians.
Daniel Brandt
Early, fragmentary evidence suggests that Danny and Brad are pro-Jimbo, and had issues with the Board majority. The following was in response to a question about who will do WP:OFFICE.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...rch/066230.html

QUOTE
We decided to hire Bastique a few days ago as a volunteer coordinator. Bastique will be able to help on such matters. So, not an issue.

On the legal side, I would like to clarify that we are not left alone. We have a network of lawyers helping us. However, we may indeed not have a GC for a while, but we'll probably have soon a legal coordinator. Whether we have a coordinator or not, this will be one of my priority task to find a new lawyer in Florida, in office or not.

Our legal needs go far beyond WP:Office right now :-) For example, most of our contracts or agreements are handled by Lin, a florida lawyer. Trademarks issues are handled in good part by Hugot, a french lawyer. Thorsten, a german lawyer is helping a lot on various issues, such as legal threats in Germany.

Within areas where we need more help are considerations around intellectual property rights, internet law, press law, and international labour law. If you know some wikipedians willing to help on such matters, or lawyers willing to help us pro-bono, please contact me.

anthere


The suggestion by Florence that "we are not left alone" hints at the possibility that the current situation was not directly instigated by the Board majority.

The Board majority definitely has control over the servers:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/028447.html

QUOTE
The Foundation evolves. Some are leaving, some are joining and reinforcing the current team.

Rob was not mentionned till now, but Rob is an important part of the puzzle as well, who will become a bit more important.

Rob Halsell has been our part-time data center technician since December 2006, maintaining servers in our Tampa facility on the recommendation of our previous tech, Kyle Anderson. Since January he has additionally been working on securing and improving the office network in St. Petersburg. With 200+ servers to maintain in Tampa and a growing office staff with the attendant IT needs, we needed him available additional hours. Rob will now be working full-time for the Foundation, under the direction of Brion.

Primary responsibility:
* data center technician at Tampa facility.
* Maintaining servers and network.
* Receiving and setting up hardware.
* Diagnosing and returning failed hardware, working with vendors as necessary on RMAs and fixes.

Secondary responsibility:
* office IT technician in St. Petersburg office.
* Maintaining desktop and server computers and wired and wireless networks.
* Technical support for software and hardware issues in the office.
* Setting up and maintaining backup system for in-office desktop computers and file servers.

Rob is a very smily and talkative person, bringing sunlight in the office.

Welcome Rob

Florence


It's worth noting that Wikipedia is already such an inexcusable anarchy, that as long as the servers are up, it doesn't matter at all if no one answers the phones at the office. The beast will lumber on, even without Jimbo.

Florence was in Florida from approximately March 17 to March 21, according to IRC chatter.
thekohser
QUOTE
If you know some wikipedians willing to help on such matters, or lawyers willing to help us pro-bono, please contact me.

anthere


What person in their right mind, having worked through law school to earn a J.D., would join this trainwreck at this time? And who would DO IT FOR FREE?

I think they should just make a WikiProject:Legal Department, and the "volunteer community" can just defend Wikipedia from real-world legal threats.

Greg
Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 22nd March 2007, 9:47pm) *
Florence was in Florida from approximately March 17 to March 21, according to IRC chatter.

That just proves how ignorant those IRC users are... everyone knows Florence has always been in Italy!

Anyway...

I wonder if some of the developers will start leaving too? Presumably Jimbo brought most of them on board as well, so if they do start leaving, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them replaced with European contractors. Something like that could be the first step towards moving the whole operation to Europe...

But if I were them, I'd just pack the whole thing up and move it all to one of those remote islands with underground rocket silos, giant lasers, and armies of sexy female cyborgs, just like in the James Bond movies. I suspect it would fit in much better with their collective self-image.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 12:11am) *

QUOTE

If you know some wikipedians willing to help on such matters, or lawyers willing to help us pro-bono, please contact me.

anthere


What person in their right mind, having worked through law school to earn a J.D., would join this trainwreck at this time? And who would DO IT FOR FREE?

I think they should just make a WikiProject:Legal Department, and the "volunteer community" can just defend Wikipedia from real-world legal threats.

Greg


Yeah — We don't need no stinkin' JDs — we got our own brandt of JDs here!

Jonny cool.gif
Daniel Brandt
That's cool, Danny left without any notice. So much for the sweet "thank you and we wish you well" comments all around. I think this establishes that Danny is off of the payroll, entirely out of the office, and ready to build up some respectability on his résumé by getting a job at McDonalds. Maybe Danny and Brad will end up moving to California and joining Wikia, Inc. Stranger things have happened, as we all know...

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/028453.html

QUOTE
The difference is that Brad gave about a month's notice. Danny left last Tuesday with no prior notice. Danny's resignation caused some comment on internal-l. Anthere decided that since we were talking about resignations, this would be a good time to announce Brad's pending resignation, also to internal-l. That is why Brad has chosen this time to make his announcement to foundation-l, simultaneously with Danny's announcement. The close timing is artificial. Brad was careful to make this point on internal-l, so I don't think he will mind me making it here.

-- Tim Starling
JohnA
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

QUOTE
So let's leave the gossip and second-guessing behind us and get on with the
real task at hand--building the largest and most reliable repository of
knowledge ever created.
Danny


It's good stuff whatever he's smoking....
Uly
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 4:11am) *

What person in their right mind, having worked through law school to earn a J.D., would join this trainwreck at this time? And who would DO IT FOR FREE?


Who wouldn't? Wikipedia is fairly high profile, and every slip up gets lots of media coverage. I'd think lots of people would appreciate the chance to build a reputation and get some free publicity if they had sufficient confidence in their legal abilities.

I could be wrong, though! By that logic Brandt shouldn't have any problems finding a Florida lawyer to take his lawsuit on, and from what I've read around the forum that hasn't been the case.
LamontStormstar
Has anyone considered that maybe Wikimedia employees don't get paid that well (most workers there are volunteers) and he left for more money rather than leaving out of shame?
Somey
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 1:16pm) *

Has anyone considered that maybe Wikimedia employees don't get paid that well (most workers there are volunteers) and he left for more money rather than leaving out of shame?

I thought we did, but looking at the above posts, I guess nobody mentioned that possibility (we did with Danny Wool, though).

Then again, nobody mentioned "shame," either...
Somey
Just in from Wired News, who apparently interviewed Mr. Patrick for the story:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/inter...tw=wn_culture_1

QUOTE
"A board that is tasked with the responsibility of running a 501©3 should have the competences to run a 501©3 and get all the help they can from as many people as they can, including outside people, to do that," Patrick said. "I've said before that the board could just as soon have a pie-eating contest or flip a coin or Tiddly Winks to determine who the next board member would be and it would have the same legitimacy as an election."

The nature of that free-for-all, however, is what has made Wikipedia so popular with its community and users. The idea that anyone can contribute to it and anyone can make suggestions about its direction epitomizes the essence of an interactive, internet community. According to Patrick, however, what worked for the Wiki endeavor in the beginning needs to change now that it's maturing into a powerhouse.

"I hold very strongly to the opinion that what we are doing is the most important work of the 21st century," he said. ""But everything that we're doing to help create free knowledge and share it is too important to get wrong. Who has the hubris to say that it's okay to ... turn a blind eye to the essence of good corporate governance and fiduciary responsibility? The idea that we're different because we're Wikipedia doesn't hold water with me."

So, neither shame nor a better job offer... something even better: Pure Corporate WikiDrama!

So far, I'd say the Europeans are beating the Americans by a score of about 4-2, and the third quarter is about to begin.
Skyrocket
For legal advice, The Wikimedia Foundation could just look for editors whose credentials include multiple law degrees, law school professorships, etc.

I'm adding those quals to my user page right now, and I'm trying to strike a good balance between U.S. and foreign degrees, White House Counsel experience, corporate law, trial attorney defending the poor against the depredations of the rich, etc.

Should I tell them I've been a judge, or should I just hint at it?
Daniel Brandt
The best line from the Wired News article:
QUOTE
Wales, when reached by phone, was confused by Patrick's statements.

I think that explains a lot.
Cedric
QUOTE(Skyrocket @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 5:21pm) *

For legal advice, The Wikimedia Foundation could just look for editors whose credentials include multiple law degrees, law school professorships, etc.

I'm adding those quals to my user page right now, and I'm trying to strike a good balance between U.S. and foreign degrees, White House Counsel experience, corporate law, trial attorney defending the poor against the depredations of the rich, etc.

Should I tell them I've been a judge, or should I just hint at it?

No point in half measures. Tell them you are on the U.S. Court of Appeals. happy.gif
Joel Leyden
QUOTE(Cedric @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(Skyrocket @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 5:21pm) *

For legal advice, The Wikimedia Foundation could just look for editors whose credentials include multiple law degrees, law school professorships, etc.

I'm adding those quals to my user page right now, and I'm trying to strike a good balance between U.S. and foreign degrees, White House Counsel experience, corporate law, trial attorney defending the poor against the depredations of the rich, etc.

Should I tell them I've been a judge, or should I just hint at it?

No point in half measures. Tell them you are on the U.S. Court of Appeals. happy.gif


I would have thought that the resignations of Wool and Patrick would have made more noise here.
That the deaths of Rasputin and Machiavelli would have hit a celebratory chord?
The lack of response is telling.
Those here in Wikipedia Review who were placed and supported in power positions by Wool and Patrick remain quiet. In a state of shock. They will not dare dance on Wool's and Patrick's graves.
The distinction between "Red Coats" and "Blue Coats" now becomes clearer at Wikipedia Review.

As for a coup?
The Wikipedia Contest www.wikipediacontest.com is about to begin biggrin.gif
JohnA
I've already got $10 that the Wikimedia Foundation will complain to the powers-that-be that wikipediacontest.com is confusing to internet users that it is an official Wikipedia project when it is nothing of the kind.
anon1234
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 25th March 2007, 1:35pm) *

I've already got $10 that the Wikimedia Foundation will complain to the powers-that-be that wikipediacontest.com is confusing to internet users that it is an official Wikipedia project when it is nothing of the kind.


I don't know about that. Remember that you are posting on a site called "Wikipedia Review.com" which contains both the full name "Wikipedia" and ends in a ".Com" TTD. It may be that they don't have a trademark on Wikipedia and thus it is free for anyone to use. I'm surprised by that actually.
Joel Leyden
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 25th March 2007, 1:35pm) *

I've already got $10 that the Wikimedia Foundation will complain to the powers-that-be that wikipediacontest.com is confusing to internet users that it is an official Wikipedia project when it is nothing of the kind.

Yes, "confusion" is a keyword here ph34r.gif
Skyrocket
QUOTE(Skyrocket @ Fri 23rd March 2007, 6:21pm) *

For legal advice, The Wikimedia Foundation could just look for editors whose credentials include multiple law degrees, law school professorships, etc.

I'm adding those quals to my user page right now, and I'm trying to strike a good balance between U.S. and foreign degrees, White House Counsel experience, corporate law, trial attorney defending the poor against the depredations of the rich, etc.

Should I tell them I've been a judge, or should I just hint at it?

As a twenty-three-year-old sitting member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Essjay Division), and as a prospective Supreme Court nominee, I believe that Wikipedia, a publisher (in every sense of the word), a purveyor of libel and slander, and a serial copyright infringer, has no intellectual property at all, especially a trademark on the generic term "Wikipedia."

All my students agree with me, and my MD/JD/Ph.D (Cantab.) credentials add weight to my pronouncements on this matter. And ALL matters, as a matter of fact. And, as a matter of fact, the facts are what I decree them to be. ALL facts.
Robster
QUOTE(Joel Leyden @ Sun 25th March 2007, 9:23am) *

I would have thought that the resignations of Wool and Patrick would have made more noise here.
That the deaths of Rasputin and Machiavelli would have hit a celebratory chord?
The lack of response is telling.
Those here in Wikipedia Review who were placed and supported in power positions by Wool and Patrick remain quiet. In a state of shock. They will not dare dance on Wool's and Patrick's graves.
The distinction between "Red Coats" and "Blue Coats" now becomes clearer at Wikipedia Review.


I get the sense... more of an undercurrent... that nobody believes that either Mr. Wool or Mr. Patrick have actually left any position of power or authority at the Wikimedia Foundation. They've just taken themselves out of the line of visibility so that when the brown stuff hits the rotating blades, they won't get spattered.

But that's only my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Oh, and as to the Wikipedia Contest. Hello to you, too. smile.gif
Somey
QUOTE(Joel Leyden @ Sun 25th March 2007, 7:23am) *
Those here in Wikipedia Review who were placed and supported in power positions by Wool and Patrick remain quiet. In a state of shock. They will not dare dance on Wool's and Patrick's graves.

Oops - did I not mention that I was placed in my position of power by Danny and Brad? unsure.gif I mean, I just assumed that everyone knew about that! I mean, it's pretty obvious, right? Hard to believe anybody could have been so silly as to be taken in by my clever little ruse... Naturally, I only did it to protect myself (and my family, of course) from all the stalkers and trolls who inhabit Wikipedia and various other Wikimedia Foundation projects. After all, as you're probably aware, I get about 1,700 death threats per hour - more on weekends, naturally - so if anyone has been offended by my use of misinformation, disinformation, or the flying banana formation to protect myself, I sincerely apologize. But not to the stalkers and trolls! I refuse to apologize to them, those naughty, naughty bastards!

Anyway, there's free ice cream treats and chocolate-covered donuts in the lobby, courtesy of the Foundation. Please pay for them on your way out!
Daniel Brandt
I now believe that Brad really wants the hell out. Let's give the Foundation some exposure here so that it can find some legal help. I should explain what I think Florence means by "personality rights" in the last sentence. Every Wikipedian has the right to display an obnoxious and/or evil personality, and no applicant will be considered who does not subscribe to this principle.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/028501.html
The job description from Hell: We need you to put our train wreck back on track
QUOTE
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking a legal coordinator to handle the day-to-day legal needs of the Foundation and to coordinate outside help. The position can be either a full-time or part-time position, and either telecommuting or office-based. Please apply with CV or resume attached to jobs AT wikimedia.org with subject line "Legal Coordinator".

Application deadline: 7th of april
All candidates will be notified of the hiring decision via email by 20th of april at most.

Responsibilities

Coordinate pro bono help, international legal services, legal interns, assistance from the project communities, and outside counsel as necessary
Answer legal requests that come in to the OTRS system and by phone
Handle day-to-day legal needs of the Foundation, such as contracts
Evaluate Foundation policies and operating procedures for compliance with relevant laws
Assist Executive Director with operational tasks as needed
Assist Board of Trustees with legal concerns as needed

Requirements

Licensed to practice law in any U.S. state
Ability to make occasional travel to St. Petersburg, Florida and to other meetings as needed
Strong commitment to organizational values of the Wikimedia Foundation
Strong communication skills
Familiarity with the variety of legal issues facing the Wikimedia Foundation (knowledge about intellectual property law, contract law, libel and personality rights especially helpful)

Florence Devouard
Wikimedia Foundation chair

Somey
How many attorneys are "licensed to practice law in any U.S. state"? Assuming they mean the successful candidate has to have passed the bar in all 50 of them, isn't that, like, an impossible requirement?

Or does she mean "licensed to practice in at least one US state"?
Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 25th March 2007, 7:15pm) *

How many attorneys are "licensed to practice law in any U.S. state"? Assuming they mean the successful candidate has to have passed the bar in all 50 of them, isn't that, like, an impossible requirement?

I agree with you, which is why I assumed that she meant "one or more states." That raises another question: If someone from North Dakota gets this job and is a member of only the North Dakota bar, and telecommutes to his Florida job, is that going to pass muster with the Florida bar?

How many decent bars are there in North Dakota anyway? When I lived there in grade school, my dad was a Lutheran minister and there were lots and lots of Lutherans everywhere, surrounded by wheat fields, but I don't think I ever saw a single bar!
JTM
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 25th March 2007, 9:42pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 25th March 2007, 7:15pm) *

How many attorneys are "licensed to practice law in any U.S. state"? Assuming they mean the successful candidate has to have passed the bar in all 50 of them, isn't that, like, an impossible requirement?

I agree with you, which is why I assumed that she meant "one or more states." That raises another question: If someone from North Dakota gets this job and is a member of only the North Dakota bar, and telecommutes to his Florida job, is that going to pass muster with the Florida bar?



When an attorney works for a corporation that operates in multiple jurisdictions, it's only necessary for an employee-attorney to have one valid law license. The licensing requirement is necessary to protect the Client and if the Client happens to be a large corporation, then there's no need for the usual protections the law requires to protect individual clients. A friend of mine works for a multi-national corporation and is licensed in two states. As it happens, he has worked in a number of different states, but no state where he is actually licensed. If he does go into Court, he usually has local counsel and the Judge grants him pro hac vice status as a matter of course.
Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(JTM @ Sun 25th March 2007, 8:03pm) *

When an attorney works for a corporation that operates in multiple jurisdictions, it's only necessary for an employee-attorney to have one valid law license. The licensing requirement is necessary to protect the Client and if the Client happens to be a large corporation, then there's no need for the usual protections the law requires to protect individual clients. A friend of mine works for a multi-national corporation and is licensed in two states. As it happens, he has worked in a number of different states, but no state where he is actually licensed. If he does go into Court, he usually has local counsel and the Judge grants him pro hac vice status as a matter of course.

Thank you; I never knew that. Now that you've betrayed yourself as 1) a lawyer, and 2) intimately familiar with the phenomenon of Wikipedia, I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on how well Wikipedia would do if they tried to claim Section 230 immunity in defense against a libel or invasion-of-privacy tort, in a case that had the fingerprints of admins all over it for many months, including Jimbo himself? That's a tough one, isn't it?
JTM
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 25th March 2007, 10:36pm) *

QUOTE(JTM @ Sun 25th March 2007, 8:03pm) *

When an attorney works for a corporation that operates in multiple jurisdictions, it's only necessary for an employee-attorney to have one valid law license. The licensing requirement is necessary to protect the Client and if the Client happens to be a large corporation, then there's no need for the usual protections the law requires to protect individual clients. A friend of mine works for a multi-national corporation and is licensed in two states. As it happens, he has worked in a number of different states, but no state where he is actually licensed. If he does go into Court, he usually has local counsel and the Judge grants him pro hac vice status as a matter of course.

Thank you; I never knew that. Now that you've betrayed yourself as 1) a lawyer, and 2) intimately familiar with the phenomenon of Wikipedia, I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on how well Wikipedia would do if they tried to claim Section 230 immunity in defense against a libel or invasion-of-privacy tort, in a case that had the fingerprints of admins all over it for many months, including Jimbo himself? That's a tough one, isn't it?


The question as to the applicability of the law is still being digested in the Courts and it's impossible to predict how the Courts will ultimately decide whether Wikipedia, affording complete strangers with the same editing privileges as registered long-term users, would ultimately fare. As it stands, this sort of question would have to go to a jury: Did Wikipedia do everything in its power to prevent the wrongful conduct or, by its policies actually encourage the libel? I know what my answer would likely be.
Skyrocket
If I spend a lot of my work time, most of my spare time, most of my family's savings on supporting the work of rogue programmers who penetrate large computer systems and mess them up, do I have a pro hack vice?
Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 25th March 2007, 7:42pm) *
How many decent bars are there in North Dakota anyway? When I lived there in grade school, my dad was a Lutheran minister and there were lots and lots of Lutherans everywhere, surrounded by wheat fields, but I don't think I ever saw a single bar!

I don't think there are any bars, per se... People in North Dakota just go get drunk at the bowling alley, don't they?

It's actually fairly convenient, assuming you also want to go bowling...
Joel Leyden
QUOTE(JTM @ Mon 26th March 2007, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 25th March 2007, 10:36pm) *

QUOTE(JTM @ Sun 25th March 2007, 8:03pm) *

When an attorney works for a corporation that operates in multiple jurisdictions, it's only necessary for an employee-attorney to have one valid law license. The licensing requirement is necessary to protect the Client and if the Client happens to be a large corporation, then there's no need for the usual protections the law requires to protect individual clients. A friend of mine works for a multi-national corporation and is licensed in two states. As it happens, he has worked in a number of different states, but no state where he is actually licensed. If he does go into Court, he usually has local counsel and the Judge grants him pro hac vice status as a matter of course.

Thank you; I never knew that. Now that you've betrayed yourself as 1) a lawyer, and 2) intimately familiar with the phenomenon of Wikipedia, I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on how well Wikipedia would do if they tried to claim Section 230 immunity in defense against a libel or invasion-of-privacy tort, in a case that had the fingerprints of admins all over it for many months, including Jimbo himself? That's a tough one, isn't it?


The question as to the applicability of the law is still being digested in the Courts and it's impossible to predict how the Courts will ultimately decide whether Wikipedia, affording complete strangers with the same editing privileges as registered long-term users, would ultimately fare. As it stands, this sort of question would have to go to a jury: Did Wikipedia do everything in its power to prevent the wrongful conduct or, by its policies actually encourage the libel? I know what my answer would likely be.


So then according to Wikipedia policy and its history of allowing and maintaining factual errors, which further encourages libel and conflict, would one then be clear to encourage others to create additional errors in a Wikipedia environment with open intent?


QUOTE(Joel Leyden @ Mon 26th March 2007, 10:01am) *

QUOTE(JTM @ Mon 26th March 2007, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 25th March 2007, 10:36pm) *

QUOTE(JTM @ Sun 25th March 2007, 8:03pm) *

When an attorney works for a corporation that operates in multiple jurisdictions, it's only necessary for an employee-attorney to have one valid law license. The licensing requirement is necessary to protect the Client and if the Client happens to be a large corporation, then there's no need for the usual protections the law requires to protect individual clients. A friend of mine works for a multi-national corporation and is licensed in two states. As it happens, he has worked in a number of different states, but no state where he is actually licensed. If he does go into Court, he usually has local counsel and the Judge grants him pro hac vice status as a matter of course.

Thank you; I never knew that. Now that you've betrayed yourself as 1) a lawyer, and 2) intimately familiar with the phenomenon of Wikipedia, I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on how well Wikipedia would do if they tried to claim Section 230 immunity in defense against a libel or invasion-of-privacy tort, in a case that had the fingerprints of admins all over it for many months, including Jimbo himself? That's a tough one, isn't it?


The question as to the applicability of the law is still being digested in the Courts and it's impossible to predict how the Courts will ultimately decide whether Wikipedia, affording complete strangers with the same editing privileges as registered long-term users, would ultimately fare. As it stands, this sort of question would have to go to a jury: Did Wikipedia do everything in its power to prevent the wrongful conduct or, by its policies actually encourage the libel? I know what my answer would likely be.


So then according to Wikipedia policy and its history of allowing and maintaining factual errors, which further encourages libel and conflict, would one then be clear to encourage others to create additional errors in a Wikipedia environment with open intent?


Going one step further, if one cannot take legal action against Wikipedia for damages sustained as a result of libel as Wikipedia attempts to shield itself as an Internet Service Provider, then one could libel and slander Wikipedia as it is not a "publisher"?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.