There are two possible discussions: 1) a discussion about the legal requirements - please leave this to the legal experts. I'm confident that Mike Godwin keeps an eye onto it, and if he doesn't you could solicit the advice of a legal expert, and bring that advice to him or the WMF ED/board. 2) a discussion on whether we want to make Wikimedia better accessible to people having significant problems with a category of content. - that discussion be held here, if the necessary data is found (as laid out in a previous email).
best, eia 2009/11/18 Delirium <delir...@hackish.org>: > George Herbert wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >> >>> So state it as much as you want. The WMF is a publisher. Under >>> Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher, >>> but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher. >>> >> >> The section 230 that would seem to matter here? >> >> The WMF has all sorts of roles, depending on who you are, how you look >> at it, and what your perspective is (and what day of the month it is, >> etc). Referring to legal issues, one has to remain domain specific >> when using specific terms in a legal sense. >> > > It's also quite unsettled what Section 230 protections consist of to > begin with. Some U.S. courts have applied them *extremely* broadly. One > still-current Circuit Court precedent, which is binding in the distrct > Wikimedia servers are located, is _Batzel v. Smith_ (9th Circuit, 2003), > which holds that a blogger who reposts material emailed to him, even > though he chooses which emails to republish, is entitled to Section 230 > protection by virtue of the mere fact that the material he publishes > originates ultimately with his "users", and is not something he > personally authored. It's hard to imagine any Wikimedia Foundation > activity w.r.t. Wikipedia that doesn't meet at least the _Batzel_ > standard, apart from Wikimedia Foundation employees literally inserting > original content into Wikipedia articles while on the clock. If the > ultimate source of the content is elsewhere, regardless of what > editorial or publishing decisions are made in the middle, it's > Section-230-protected under _Batzel_. Of course, _Batzel_ might be wrong > and overturned in the future, which is the risk of relying too much on > law in this as-yet-unsettled area... > > -Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
