I'm starting this thread because there were some useful issues raised as a byproduct of a scummy thread in the Tarpit, now closed.

One of the most common arguments I hear, usually coming out of the mouths of the Cabal, is that 'Wikipedia is NOT a workplace' ergo the very bad things that go on over there are justified. Some replies to this argument:

1. Wikipedia is a workplace. People work there, sometimes in a productive way. It's just that they don't get paid.

2. In any case, not being a workplace does not justify doing bad things. Auschwitz was not a workplace.

3. Wikipedia is a place where certain people have control over private information. It is wrong to abuse that control, if that is the case.

4. Wikipedia is a place which controls the flow of potentially libellous information in articles about living subjects. It is wrong to abuse that control.

5. Wikipedia is to many people a trusted source of information (sadly so). It is wrong to abuse that trust.

6. Many people are addicted to editing on the project. It wrong to abuse them by unfairly blocking them.

7. Many people are addicted to editing on the project. It wrong to abuse them by allowing them to edit at all, without compensation.


Any other arguments?

I think getting paid (and the implication of a dependence on getting paid) is a key point to whether something is a workplace or not. So Wikipedia is not a workplace. But it certainly has some workplace characteristics, and some of the things that apply to workplaces ought to apply to it as well. Which those are is not completely clear to me. I imagine there is case law extant around volunteer activities, the relationship between volunteers and the organization, and so forth, but I'm not aquainted with it. Perhaps One or NYB is (for the US) or someone else (for other countries?)


I agree with 2 through 5 so I snipped them away.

6... no. The premise is true but the conclusion I don't buy. Unfair blocking is wrong (in a utilitarian sense if nothing else, since WP is not a system of justice) but not for that reason. Addiction does not somehow get you additional rights.

7... I don't follow. Are you saying that if someone is addicted, they should only be allowed to edit for pay (but not for free)? Or that if they are addicted the project should then disallow them from editing at all? I'm not sure I agree with either of those. Further, are you saying that there is a duty on the part of any organization to prevent addiction to the things associated with that organization. That seems rather a broad mandate.... what if they're only slightly addicted? How does one reliably distinguish enthusiasm from addiction? What additional responsibility is taken on once a project is responsible for making that determination? Can of worms.

Whilst there are some similarities, the analogy with a workplace is useless.

1) Not being paid is critical. There are no real consequences if one is "fired" or decides to "resign". Your income, house, marriage etc will not suffer if you and wikipedia part company, indeed the chances are that your real world outlook will improve.
2) Whilst if you edit under your real name, you can do damage to your reputation and possibly job-prospects, otherwise there are no ongoing consequences from your wiki-life. Trolls on wikipedia may be Senators or Judges and they bear no transferable responsibility.
3) You have no boss on wikipedia. No one can control you, or threaten you with anything of sonsequence. Nor have you real power over any other wikipedian. Sure, an admin can abuse a block, but see point 1 above.

The comparison is not apt.

Oh, and "Auschwitz was not a workplace"???? You just made the baby Godwin and the English language cry!

I'd also agree that the comparison isn't apt, though WP could be compared to something like a part-time, cash-in-hand, don't-tell-the-tax-people kinda job where you couldn't really give a shite whether you lose it or not because there's plenty more where that came from (or, on WP, plenty more identities/proxies). But that's just me.
Sonsequences be damned.

I thought someone would say that. To break Godwin's law you have to mention the 'H' word (infamous German leader of the 1930's and 40's, caused a major world war).

Also, Godwin's fallacy is has the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad,"" (Thus, Hitler was a vegetarian, ergo vegetarianism is bad).

The argument I used was not of that form. The argument I used is one commonly used in logic, and has the form '"every A is B" is false because some A's are not B'. Thus

(*) 'Any place where people do work but aren't paid is not a workplace'

is disproved by the example of a slave labour camp. For a 'labour camp' by definition is a workplace ('labour' means 'work', Doc). And 'slave labour' is by definition unpaid work.

So, up yours.



Oh that's good. Any time you do anything bad on Wikipedia, you can argue it doesn't matter, because 'Wikipedia is not a workplace'. I was worried for a moment, that's all.

Wikipedia is not a workplace - that's why they don't want you to know where the offices are. It's to avoid confusion.

Wikipedia is not a Sunday School
Wikipedia is not a Sanctuary for Battered Women
Wikipedia is not a Hospital
Wikipedia is not a Rest Home
Wikipedia is not my Great Aunt Cathy's house (and she's a lovely woman who deserves respect and demands impeccable manners)

and Wikipedia is not a workplace

All of those statements are true, and yet making them is not an excuse for bad behaviour on wikipedia or elsewhere. It is just that one cannot decree what behaviour should be acceptable or unacceptable on wikipedia by reference to any of these analogies. That's why your thread is useless, it is utterly beside the point.

If people do work there, it is a workplace. You people should pay more attention to logic.




You just made that very statement on another thread in the tarpit, with the precise intention of excusing bad behaviour.

Bollocks.

People type there, that doesn't make it a typing pool.
People layout text there, that doesn't make it a graphic design facility.
People learn about ancient Rome there, that doesn't make it a school of classics.
People chat up ladies there, that doesn't make it a dating agency.
People write articles there, that doesn't make it an encyclopedia....

Where did you learn logic? Ah, hold on, maybe the Wikipedia School of Logic?

I agree with that one.

Under the law, Wikipedia is a workplace. People make a joined effort to create a work, and there are working rules. Receiving pay helps to qualify as a workplace, but is not the single deciding factor.

Since it is a workplace, many things that frequently happen on Wikipedia violate the law.

For instance, it is not allowed to ban or block co-workers except in cases where they clearly damage the project. In practice, however, bans and blocks are often part of a scheme to silence the opposition and push an admin's personal view.

Crap. What "Law"?

Under which law? What jurisdiction? Do you have caselaw to cite? If not, I think you're just speculating. If you're right, though, it has far wider applicability than just WP.

In the rare cases that I speculate, I say so explicitly. This comes straight from the USA High Court but it's the same in most jurisdictions; it's a fairly basic concept.

And yes, it does not only apply to WP. Wikipedia is just a tiny bubble in an ocean of similar workplaces.

Of course that won't stop you from attacking me as you have always done on WP, right?

Basic concept? I am legally trained and I'm unaware of it. So, some specific citations? Assertion is unconvincing.

In the UK, the fundamental critirion for becoming an employer and attracting liability is giving directions.

If I have a group of villagers on a litter pick, doing voluntary clean up of the village, I can provide them gloves, bags, simple tools and send them on their way to litter pick as they see fit and they are volunteers doing voluntary work and I attract no liability. If I ask them to pick up litter, say by the railway line over there, I am potentially liable as an employer. Note that recompense is not a factor.

Wikipedia treads a thin line given that there is no direction in one sense. As things become more prescriptive, there could be a problem. As WMF have studiously avoided taking any interest whatsoever in the so called encyclopedia, I suspect they are on safe ground.

OK, but suppose I ask a group of villagers to help me on a litter pick, and then tell them I will only give them gloves if they sleep with me?

Am I to be classed as an employer harassing powerless employees? Or is this a case where they have equally the power to tell me to piss off and then that's the end of it?

I say the latter.

(Anyone for gloves?)

I'm glad you revived this topic from that train wretch of a thread. I wanted to come at this from a somewhat different angel based on this post:



Let's try not go into a Sec. 230 discussion here. Instead let's focus on:

• Other types of responsibility avoidance that this corporate/community division enables (obviously sexual harassment has now been covered);
• Specific examples of inappropriate delegation of responsibilities;
• Examples of how the lack of vetting, training, supervising, and evaluating leads to problems;
• Alternatives models of carrying out functions now improperly delegated to "the community"(contractors, employees, true volunteers);

Flawed premise, flawed conclusion... I've not attacked you before. However, If asking you for a cite is an attack... then yes. Here it is, again:

Do you have a specific case to cite? Give a link. or...you can give it with a docket number, or you can give it as "Madison v. Marbury" or the like... something searchable if you don't have the link yourself.

No cite? == speculation. (If you're a lawyer admitted to some US bar I'd consider it informed speculation. If you're a law student, I'd consider it semi-informed speculation)... whether you say so explicitly or not.

Note: I don't think we in the USA have a "High Court", although we do have a Supreme Court.

Hope that helps.

Yes, that is pretty much the same everywhere. The USA Copyright Law (where this is important) gives several factors including control of the employer over the employee and control of the employer over the work. The USA Supreme Court (indeed not High Court, sorry) provided a relevant interpretation in 'Creative Non-Violence v. Reid', in particluar implying that not all factors need to be present in order to speak of employment.

There are plenty of directions per project. The employers are these individual projects, but WMF is not without responsibility. It can be compared to a holding.

It can also be compared to a banana. It is a bad comparison, but since it is only me that is making it it will not matter.

Who is comparing WMF to a holding company?

I'm not sure it helps completely sort matters since it mostly is about copyright but the court did look into what makes a person an employee... and says that it's a combination of factors (without clearly enumerating all of them or giving a formula)

Note that copyright doesn't help determine the matter w.r.t. WP since there's an explicit acknowledgement of copyright assignment when you submit material. If it was implicit, and WMF had asserted ownership, that would have more bearing, I think, as then the work for hire aspect (implicit ownership of work of employees) might be more important.

Interesting case. Got any better cites?

You are confusing four different issues here.

At least. But I'm not a lawyer, just an interested layman.

The key point of that case, as I see it, and why it's a not completely irrelevant cite, is that it does have some bearing on what establishes an employee-employer relationship. But I don't see it as a very good match to WP, it seemed to mostly be a copyright case. Got any better cases? Stuff from employment law might be helpful. Try to get One or NYB interested in this question, I bet they could find some really pertinent cites in a jiffy.

This really comes down to whether liability for inadequate supervision should attach to Wikipedia, or perhaps Wikimedia, for failing to adequately supervise its volunteers.

The Reid test has never been used to condition respondeat superior; rather, RS is based (as I recall it) on principles of agency, which is a broader definition than that of employee. Someone can be your "agent" without being your "employee", and you can be forced to answer for your agent even if they're not your employee. However, agency (as I remember it) requires an ownership or control interest (e.g. as an officer or a member of the governing board) in the principal by the agent, or else either an employment relationship or some other contractual status between the principal and the agent. I think there's little hope of convincing a judge that any random Wikipedian is an agent of Wikimedia for the purpose of a negligent supervision claim, due to the lack of any such defined relationship. Interestingly, I think the ArbCom could potentially be characterized as having this status, because the ArbCom officially acts as the delegated authority of Jimmy Wales, who is unquestionably an agent of the Foundation.

There have been cases of nonprofit agencies being held liable for injuries done to volunteers by the tortious conduct of other volunteers, but I am pretty certain the standard in these cases is gross negligence. That is, the nonprofit must have been grossly negligent in supervising the volunteer in question, and in many cases you'd have a better chance of hitting them in attractive nuisance instead of negligent supervision. Gross negligence is usually very hard to establish, although to be honest I think Jimbo's deliberate indifference comes close at times.

Fundamentally, this comes down to what the duty of care of the Wikimedia Foundation is.

I think a more interesting question is what the duty of care of the Arbitration Committee (as the closest approximation to a governing body that the English Wikipedia has) is, or should be. As the governing body of an unincorporated entity, any liability that does flow to the English Wikipedia would normally attach to each of them jointly and severally. If there is have a duty of care toward Wikipedians or to the public generally, they (and Jimmy Wales, as their titular head) are the people I would be inclined to put "on the hook". And Section 230 provides no shield for them, as they are not a "service provider".

I think the first three paragraphs are a correct analysis if "the community" were seen to be volunteers. This would be true if corporate/community dichotomy was pierced and found to be a mere fiction. This is because volunteers are certainly agents but WMF does not regard "the community" as volunteers. The Last paragraph is correct assuming the dichotomy holds and the community is found to be a common enterprise in itself but still separate from WMF. Any potential plaintiff against "Wikipedia" (deliberately vague here) would have a number of agency theories to advance and they could be used in the alternative.

If nothing else Wikipedia could contribute to some nuanced exam questions for law school use in corporation and agency classes.

1. workplace is only word that should be used for Jimbo/Jimmy Wales and his suporter. Not some random guys/gal al over the net.

2. The idea of Wikipedia has long time go hit an iceberg and sunked.

3. Information can always be misused or silenced, the porn case against Jimbo to name a few.

4. Setup of manc entries are bad, if you try to fixit there is still some one that wants to keep the bad verison.

5. I hate when wikipedia seems to have the best infos about said topic.

6.-7. Edit war are bad, and ually restults in abused powers of Jimbo and his corrupt admin.

4. is a legitimate argument, but doesn't have anything to do with the idea that it's a workplace, nor anything to do with whether there should be standards for how editors (as editors per se, not as people who happen to also be BLP victims) are treated.

3. and 5. also have nothing to do with how editors are treated.

While these are legitimate concerns, they have nothing to do with the "workplace argument" and should not be discredited by putting them in the same discussion.