Though the foundation does not disclose the nature of the offenses it investigates, it is widely held among Wikipedians that “office actions” apply only to extreme cases: child pornography, pedophilia advocacy, terrorism, realistic threats.
Could the Golden Age of Wikipedia hagiography created by the Women In Red project’s PR now be drawing to a close?
There is now a “Go fund me” page for the lawsuit. Abd says that at this point he is out of pocket $400, which someone has already reimbursed him for, so will not need funds unless the case goes forward.and he now needs about $100 per person to serve the defendants. I count 10 defendants, as Abd says he got the Wikimedia foundation and James Alexander on the same line by mistake, plus a new filing fee of $400, so that is around $1400.
In typical Abd style, there is also a link on his website for those who wish to donate to the WMF instead.
The ruling stems from a previous lawsuit against the Foundation, originally filed in mid-2018. It asserted that a Wikipedia article’s claim about an academic professor was untrue and defamatory, even though it was backed by a citation to a reliable source.
Except the reliable source was gone, due to linkrot, or so they claim. Isn’t there a bot that goes around and archives all the citations? So no reliable source that they could point to? Nah, there’s something they aren’t telling here. Who has the link to the court case?
And isn’t Legal only supposed to support the volunteers when they are acting within policy? Since when is defamation within policy? Are they that afraid of the volunteers?
“One of the necessary aspects of a never-finished encyclopedia is that mistakes will be made…”
Love the passive voice here.
“It is our firm belief that most complaints are better resolved when the subject of an article works with the volunteer editor community to improve it rather than bringing legal action. As such, we will continue to encourage the people who make requests to us to seek community solutions wherever possible.”
LOL, “please talk to the people we know never answer their mail.”
Should be good job security for the legal team. But then the legal model and the business model of an organization are not always on the same path. Where is management in this? Oh, yeah, stuck in a non-existent strategy process.
“It’s almost the cost of doing business for Grindr that there are going to be some people whose lives are going to be ruined by the product.”
A guy is suing a Section 230 platform for not stopping abuse.
Herrick, his friends, and lawyers submitted 100 complaints to Grindr asking it to block J.C., but they received no response. Eventually, Herrick took Grindr to court in an attempt to force it to do something to stop the nightmare. Grindr argued that under federal law, it didn’t have to help Herrick, and in February 2017, a federal judge agreed.
Now Herrick’s lawyers are arguing that the judge got it wrong. On Monday, they took their case before the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, whose decision could have far-reaching consequences on what apps and social media companies must do to combat harassment on their platforms.
…Herrick wasn’t interested in taking down Grindr; he just wanted his life back…
…you have to apply some baseline of moderation or it will become abuse…
Yeah, well now that it’s happened to a dude, maybe there’ll be some action.
“In a surprise decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi may be held responsible for anonymous and allegedly defamatory comments from its readers.”
“The Grand Chamber emphasised a number of factors that led it to rule that Delfi was liable: the “extreme” nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website, the insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question ….[link]
So what is this European Court of Human Rights of which you speak? Whatever it is, Tories hate it. “Hardly surprising, I suppose,” quips a senior British court official. “Our name contains the words ‘European’ and ‘human rights’. Not exactly a winning combination.”
[H/T to Vigilant at Wikipediocracy, discussion here.]