http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...ed_at_Wikipedia

A brief affair between me and WP

I could not help myself(s)

Darn You! They'll Be Blocking Witty Cindy For A Month!

Jon

Almost as interesting is just a little down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil..._the_editors.3F

Where ChrisO is, in effect, demanding the Foundation foot the bill for civil lawsuits he/she may file against supposed harassers.

I remember some time last year when Durova asked the same kind of question, though I believe it was for lawsuits filed against an editor. None other than Jimbo(?) himself made it clear that editors are all on their own: the foundation isn't going to lift a finger to defend them.

Which is as it should be.

But I find it a continuing source of ill-ease when the Foundation simply doesn't lay out the matter clearly and unambiguously when you login. That even experienced editors, and presumably fully grown adults are left wondering suggests a Clue Page would be a good idea.

One suspects that they suspect this could put a bit of a damper on the flow of warm bodies. The "F" word looms large. (And yes, I mean "fraud".)

Agreed, though obviously the foundation can't defend editors if it hopes to win it's case with the lady from New Jersey suing for defamation. If WMF defends editors engaging in such activities, then it essentially concedes that the editor was acting in WMF's name, and thus WMF is liable.

← I understand that there might be no legal requirement for Arbitrators to reveal their identities, but let us make a reality check here: an Arbitrator occupies one of the most influential positions in the English Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia in one of the most visited websites in the world. (I am not saying "one of the top-ten sites" because that would be the entirety of Wikipedia.) Both the influence of the Arbitrators in Wikipedia and the fame of Wikipedia itself are undisputed facts; it is a very small stretch to say that Wikipedia is a globally influential site. Combining these leads to the plausible conclusion that Arbitrators are influential people in one of the world's most influential websites. On-line or not, I think this means that their positions are responsible enough to warrant a certain level of transparency. We might be on-line, but we are not isolated from the real world; the rules of reality work here as well, and editors ought to remember this at all times. Waltham, The Duke of 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I loved this comment at the bottom of the piece...is this person royalty?

I felt the urge to thank this good chap, so I did. I arranged a company IP. Good show!





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The...e_wisdom_shared

Most dukes aren't royalty.

WMF is liable. Jimbo is editor-in-chief and has last say-so about what goes into Wikipedia. And it's a publication.

The lawyers are going to take about 10 years to figure this out, and the judges 15.

I Really, Really Love The Template!

I think that Somey should make one for all of us:


Plus someone should tell Mr.Pisanz there's a typo in his template.

Jon