WAIT! Stop the presses!

WP:SYN says, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

Correct me if I'm interpreting Section 230 incorrectly, but I thought that Wikipedia is not owned by a publisher, but rather an Internet service provider?

That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is a publisher or is owned by one. On the contrary, it means that each individual contributor is a self-publisher.

Yeah, I think published is not a good word, probably should be replaced by something like ''added''.

I think I know who the "lawyer who posts regularly here" is...

That could mean that each individual is a self-publisher...or it could also mean that Wikipedia is the publisher. I believe that it is deliberately left unclear with this kind of situation in mind.

It would depend what the judge hearing the case thought, but Greg does have a good point there.

It think it all depends on accountability, he takes the responsability for what is added in a legal point of view? That person is the publisher.

I really don't see how WP can get away with saying "we're not a publisher", given what they're doing. It seems to me to be quite evident that they are, indeed, publishing information.

However, the actual call would be made by a judge hearing a case. I just happen to think that the status of WP as publisher is pretty self-evident.

I guess it depends on your definition of "published". There's an international standard that prevents descriptions of biological species to be "published" on the web: there has to be a print or downloadable version. Someone can't just write up a paper on a new species and post it on Wikipedia: not only does Wikipedia's original research policy forbid it, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature prevents it (link) By that definition, WP isn't a publisher. Similar rules are in effect for some other scientific fields.

Again, it would depend on how the judge hearing the case would interprete the term "publisher", but I believe that WP is clearly "publishing" articles and is not simply a "service provider".

I don't think that's a very binding rule. It equally prevents a web site that claims to be a publisher (for example, an e-journal from someone who also published hard copy journals) from being called a publisher for this very specific purpose.

A publisher is someone who makes some document available to the public.

Whew, a Section 230 expert has changed the word "published" to "interactively serviced", since Section 230 clearly protects the activity of an "interactive computer service", which is what Wikipedia is. Same as Prodigy, AOL, or Yahoo. Everything is okay now.

That is, until the Foundation starts distributing those paper and CD-ROM copies of the Wikipedia they've been promising.

Greg

New suggested donor quip: "Its cheaper than buying Congresspersons."

But gee, if another Wikipedia editor reverts that, doesn't that suggest that Wikipedia is exerting editorial control over the content?

Laws and legalisms just make my head hurt.

Actually, Section 230 does not provide a definition of the word "publisher", but does provide definitions for "interactive computer service" and "information content provider", which are terms of art in that section (47 U.S.C. sec. 230(f)). Subsection 230( c) specifies those situations in which such providers are not considered "publishers" for purposes of civil liability under state law, or other federal law (47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c, e)).

That's the thing, on paper or CD fact checking will be taken more seriously, the legal consequences I don't think will be the same. ''Interactively serviced'' ? Hehe






Not necessarly, but I do note how easily an important term such as ''publish'' can be added or removed without proper discussion. I mean, would it be not logical for the editors or those who use Wikipedia as source to know if the material is actually published in the proper sense of the term, and by who? The editor or the foundation?



The CDs and a printed copy, would they not be considered as being published by the foundation? They will. Someone had to print the information, and I don't think your definition really apply, a publishing does not necessarly imply the ''production'', you can publish without having to deal with original research. Britannica does publish like other encyclopedia's. While the bounderies on the internet are not clear, when anyone can edit, once that material is recorded on a fixed and closed media like a CD or paper, it will mean that there was some filtration or selection of information and then printed by the foundation. This qualify as a publication as the foundation will have to take the responsability over the content it has printed.

I don't know if it was already posted here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/034529.html

Reverted.

Doesn't publishing require some form of ownership of the media? Not that I disagree with the edit, just that the term ''publishing'' is more than open to disagreement between some editors.

Oh, I thought it was a contributor, apparently not, according to his userpage he was banned. Was it for that edit?

Well, that part was probably written by some random drive-by policy wonk. But I think it shows that most people on Wikipedia would actually agree that Wikipedia is a publisher, until they are told that being a publisher would cause Wikipedia legal issues (at which point they deny it vigorously).

Yes, he was banned as a WR troll!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...tion+230+Expert

Note the interesting comments on the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170908647

Aha!...So this is indeed a sensitive point. I think that Greg has made an interesting discovery here...

I don't see how they can get out of being called a publisher in at least some senses of the word.

That all depends on the lawyers - throw of the dice.

Trying to understand 230 immunity by the common use of the word "publish" rather than as a legal term of art will only lead to confusion. Here is a Harvard Law Review article by Ken Myers that is an excellent summary of Sec 230 from Daniel's site. Here is a table I constructed analyzing a more recent case Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com. The text of the opinion can be found here.

The more WP becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in WP's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. Myers acknowledges this even though he is optimistic about WP's immunity.

Why, thank you, Fiery. Notice that they even whitewashed that interesting discussion that was forming. There will be SILENCE on this matter!

Don't worry, I e-mailed Florence about it. She'll make sure that Wikipedia is not portrayed as a publisher. Right?

Greg

Absolutely. It should be pointed out that section 230 does not say that an interactive computer service is not a publisher, it says that an interactive computer service shall not be treated as a publisher.

It doesn't matter one bit whether or not the WMF actually is a publisher.

That's the WMF ethos, isn't it? Never mind the truth; what do whatever sources we deem reliable say?

True or not, it's the view of the law. FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL v. ROOMMATE.COM even says it:



"Roommate is immune so long as it merely publishes information provided by its members" [emphasis mine].

The important question is not whether or not the WMF is a publisher. The important question is whether or not they are an "information content provider". Is the WMF "responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information", or are they merely there to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content" as their mission statement claims?

Even more than that, Guy. Does WMF have any alternative to rigorously asserting Sec. 230 Immunity? Absolutely. WMF could stand up to the plate and take measures, starting with requiring IRL identities of editors, that would assure that they where showing reasonable care in respect to BLP subjects. This would amount to pursuing a policy of risk management by social responsibility instead of immunity.



Exactly.