Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

IRC office hours/Office hours 2010-02-12

< IRC office hours
  • Feb 12 15:30:12 <cary> Hi everyone
  • Feb 12 15:30:18 <JohnL> Harbin Hot Springs is better than plastic cigs.
  • Feb 12 15:30:19 <mnemonic1> hello, folks
  • Feb 12 15:30:20 <cary> Welcome to today's office hours
  • Feb 12 15:30:25 <cary> featuring Mike Godwin
  • Feb 12 15:30:26 <Bodnotbod> Someone sent me a link to an article on the electric cigarettes. Apparently some of them contain bad chemicals, so do some research if you're considering it.
  • Feb 12 15:30:40 <cary> The Legal Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation
  • Feb 12 15:30:42 <mnemonic1> Bodnotbod, I don't smoke, thank heavens
  • Feb 12 15:30:53 <JohnL> I'm not. I went to Harbin, instead.
  • Feb 12 15:30:55 <cary> Please also join #wikimedia-office-talk for chit-chat
  • Feb 12 15:31:10 <JeffSchoep1> Hi Mike
  • Feb 12 15:31:15 <cary> we'll try to keep this channel on q & a. First I'd like for Mike to say a few words.
  • Feb 12 15:31:22 <mnemonic1> hi, JeffSchoep1
  • Feb 12 15:31:24 <JohnL> Hello, Mike.
  • Feb 12 15:32:05 <darkoneko> oh yeah, I'm online at the right time for once \o/
  • Feb 12 15:32:13 <darkoneko> oops, alreayd started. Hello :)
  • Feb 12 15:32:22 <Philippe|Wiki> OK, Mike's going to say a few words, and then we'll start Q&A
  • Feb 12 15:32:28 <cary> After mike finishes introducing himself we're going to
  • Feb 12 15:32:31 <mnemonic1> i'll just say that i feel good about the year we recently concluded -- a year in which we fended off all significant legal challenges, improved Wikimedia's trademark portfolio and other business assets, and continued to grow our staff and develop strategy for the future
  • Feb 12 15:32:32 <cary> what Philippe|Wiki said
  • Feb 12 15:32:49 <cary> When he's done, please ask questions like so:
  • Feb 12 15:32:52 <mnemonic1> for those of you who don't know me, there's a Wikipedia article about "Mike Godwin" that was accurate last time I looked
  • Feb 12 15:33:02 <mnemonic1> i even look mostly like the pictures there.
  • Feb 12 15:33:18 <cary> QUESTION: Mike, what does a legal counsel for a non-profit do? (SAMPLE)
  • Feb 12 15:33:33 <mnemonic1> i'm the in-house lawyer for Wikimedia Foundation, and everything law-related we do has my fingerprints on it at some point.
  • Feb 12 15:33:46 <JohnL> Question: Mike, What were the legal challenges?
  • Feb 12 15:34:01 <mnemonic1> well, there were these two german murderers....
  • Feb 12 15:34:03 <Philippe|Wiki> (Mike, it might be easiest if you give us some indication when you're done with an answer... "next" or something)
  • Feb 12 15:34:14 <mnemonic1> sure, philippe
  • Feb 12 15:34:48 <mnemonic1> anyway, two German murderers served their time and then tried to sue enwiki to get their names erased from the article about their victim.
  • Feb 12 15:35:09 <mnemonic1> i made sure the story got to EFF and the New York Times, and, amazingly, they no longer are suing us.
  • Feb 12 15:35:15 <derp> odd.
  • Feb 12 15:35:26 <darkoneko> weird :o
  • Feb 12 15:35:36 <Fleetflame> EFF?
  • Feb 12 15:35:48 <cary> Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Feb 12 15:35:52 <Fleetflame> ah, carry on
  • Feb 12 15:35:57 <JohnL> Who court has jurisdiction, and how does one attroney defend worldwide?
  • Feb 12 15:36:00 <JeffSchoep1> Would you take that to mean they feared the Streisand effect kicking in?
  • Feb 12 15:36:03 <mnemonic1> i've also been making sure that our trademark portfolio is growing and well-managed, so we can ensure that content that appears with those trademarks remains free.
  • Feb 12 15:36:18 * cary reminds the participants of the proper way to ask a question
  • Feb 12 15:36:20 <Philippe|Wiki> Just to remind folks: the protocol is this - if you have a question for mike, please precede it with the word: QUESTION:
  • Feb 12 15:36:29 <cary> Using my bot, Philippe|Wiki
  • Feb 12 15:36:31 <Philippe|Wiki> That way Cary can control the queue
  • Feb 12 15:36:40 <mnemonic1> JohnL, to defend worldwide, you have to make a lot of strategic decisions about where and when to fight, which I do.
  • Feb 12 15:36:45 <kibble> Fleetflame, w:Electronic Frontier Foundation. ;-)
  • Feb 12 15:36:52 <Fleetflame> for the record, my question was to the room in general :|
  • Feb 12 15:37:00 <Fleetflame> kthx kibble and o/
  • Feb 12 15:37:07 <OberstPrawitt> QUESTION: Regarding registered marks; are all the projects now covered? And, are issues like votes on project logos problematic?
  • Feb 12 15:37:13 <kibble> :-)
  • Feb 12 15:37:19 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, the problem was that they DIDN'T fear the Streisand effect. Very foolish of them. The killers are now more famous than ever, thanks in part to me.
  • Feb 12 15:37:39 * cary notes that OberstPrawitt is our much loved Brian McNeil
  • Feb 12 15:37:46 <JohnL> QUESTION: It requires a background in international law?
  • Feb 12 15:37:58 <OberstPrawitt> As if Mike doesn't know how to do /whois
  • Feb 12 15:38:37 <cary> <OberstPrawitt> QUESTION: Regarding registered marks; are all the projects now covered? And, are issues like votes on project logos problematic?
  • Feb 12 15:38:40 <JohnL> COMMENT: LOL
  • Feb 12 15:38:41 <mnemonic1> OberstPrawitt, we've focused on protecting the marks that others most want to infringe. Primarily these are the Wikipedia and Wikimedia marks. Wikibooks seems safe for now.
  • Feb 12 15:38:47 <Jusdafax> QUESTION: Mike, what do you see as the greatest problems facing the Foundation in 2010, both at the moment in in the coming months?
  • Feb 12 15:39:31 <mnemonic1> Next?
  • Feb 12 15:39:51 <Philippe|Wiki> Look like QUESTION: Regarding registered marks; are all the projects now covered? And, are issues like votes on project logos problematic?
  • Feb 12 15:39:58 <Philippe|Wiki> bah
  • Feb 12 15:40:00 <Philippe|Wiki> misfire
  • Feb 12 15:40:08 <Philippe|Wiki> JohnL: QUESTION: It requires a background in international law?
  • Feb 12 15:40:11 <cary> yes
  • Feb 12 15:40:28 <WereSpielChequer> QUESTION:Have you been involved in the attempts to get us charitable status in the UK, and do you see it as part of your remit to get us charitable status in the major countries where we fundraise?
  • Feb 12 15:40:41 <mnemonic1> Judasfax, the biggest problem that faces me in particular is that, as we become more and more of a go-to resource on the Web, we become a bigger target, and more people want to sue us. So I do a lot of planning to minimize that potential threat.
  • Feb 12 15:41:18 <cary> < JohnL> QUESTION: It requires a background in international law?
  • Feb 12 15:41:44 <mnemonic1> JohnL, a specific specialty in international law is less important than you might think, although I do know enough to do my job. I'm good at jurisdictional issues -- assessing how and whether to respond to efforts to bring us into foreign courts. (foreign to the USA, that is)
  • Feb 12 15:42:10 <cary> <WereSpielChequer> QUESTION:Have you been involved in the attempts to get us charitable status in the UK, and do you see it as part of your remit to get us charitable status in the major countries where we fundraise?
  • Feb 12 15:42:25 <darkoneko> (future) QUESTION : one current way to fuse 2 articles together is to physically "fuse" their history by moving the 2 pages in the same place to "respect the licence" (according to doers of that). is there a simpler way that wouldn't involve that ?
  • Feb 12 15:42:47 <mnemonic1> WereSpielChequer, I've made myself available to WMUK and other chapters when they've been pursuing nonprofit status (or doing other things that I can help with).
  • Feb 12 15:43:52 <mnemonic1> darkoneko, I don't have a hard answer for you about fusing histories. what you describe seems okay to me, but the people who really need to be approving of it are the rightsholders themselves. (not me or WMF)
  • Feb 12 15:44:11 <mnemonic1> next?
  • Feb 12 15:44:18 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: Obviously, you cannot be qualified to appear before every court in the world. How do you select council to act for you in, say, Edinburgh or Strasbourg?
  • Feb 12 15:44:46 <cary> after that: <OberstPrawitt> QUESTION: Were the owners of wikinews.com ever contacted/menaced?
  • Feb 12 15:44:58 <darkoneko> mnemonic1, the problem with that method is it becoming impossible to make diff in the resulting history, as it's a weird mix of what initially was several articles
  • Feb 12 15:45:24 <darkoneko> that's why I'm gladly recommend them a better way if you have one handy
  • Feb 12 15:45:35 <Mike_lifeguard> darkoneko: equally, copying pages with the history intact is needed
  • Feb 12 15:45:40 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, we probably wouldn't show up at all in the UK (too dangerous). In Strasbourg, if we decided to show up, I'd reach out to my (sizable) network of international law firms to find local counsel if necessary
  • Feb 12 15:45:43 <JohnL> QUESTION: As I understand it, the content (I dislike that word) is free, so when we you talking about licensing, you are interested in attribution for the sake of the contibutors and the Foundation, right?
  • Feb 12 15:46:31 <JohnL> It's heartening to know tht you can.
  • Feb 12 15:46:38 <cary> but first:
  • Feb 12 15:46:39 <cary> <OberstPrawitt> QUESTION: Were the owners of wikinews.com ever contacted/menaced?
  • Feb 12 15:46:49 <geniice> JohnL CC-BY-SA asks more than atribution
  • Feb 12 15:47:04 <BarkingFish> QUESTION: Mike, as Wikibooks expands, as it is with the Wikijunior series which will be publishing hopefully soon, do you foresee having any additional legal issues with a WMF project specifically providing information for children?
  • Feb 12 15:47:10 <Philippe|Wiki> geniice: Let's let Mike answer the questions in here, please, and take chat to -talk? This is a lively one today and it'll keep the logs clear
  • Feb 12 15:47:23 <mnemonic1> we haven't gone after the wikinews.com owners because their disclaimer is so prominent and they link to our project
  • Feb 12 15:47:40 <OberstPrawitt> Yet, the Wikinews mark is registered?
  • Feb 12 15:48:54 <mnemonic1> JohnL, I'm not sure which of my remarks you're referring to, but sometimes I talk about trademark licensing and other times I talk about the CC-BY-SA license. Attribution is mainly important with regard to the latter. With people who partner with us, we make a point of stressing that they need to comply with CC-BY-SA
  • Feb 12 15:49:48 <JohnL> Thanks.
  • Feb 12 15:49:54 <cary> <BarkingFish> QUESTION: Mike, as Wikibooks expands, as it is with the Wikijunior series which will be publishing hopefully soon, do you foresee having any additional legal issues with a WMF project specifically providing information for children?
  • Feb 12 15:49:55 <mnemonic1> BarkingFish, I anticipate that at some point someone will try to provide content to Wikijunior that is considered (by some) to be inappropriate to children. I expect the community will work such issues out without my help.
  • Feb 12 15:50:08 <cary> <Tempodivalse> QUESTION: What would happen if an external site copied content from a project without attribution, and refused to attribute it even after a request? What could be done?
  • Feb 12 15:50:23 <Tempodivalse> QUESTION: What would happen if an external site copied content from a WMF project without attribution, and refused to attribute it even after a request? Would the WMF pursue it legally, or is it the author's own responsibility, since they're technically the copyright holder
  • Feb 12 15:50:28 <Tempodivalse> oops, sorry, dupe posted.
  • Feb 12 15:50:46 <cary> copycat
  • Feb 12 15:51:04 <Philippe|Wiki> (nope, Tempodivalse's version has a trailer on it)
  • Feb 12 15:51:30 <mnemonic1> Tempodivalse, at the Foundation, since we're not the rightsholders, we'd work informally to persuade the external site to change its practices. if the external site is a business partner of ours, we'd enforce our contract requiring them to abide by CC-BY-SA
  • Feb 12 15:51:43 <mnemonic1> (or GFDL if applicable)
  • Feb 12 15:52:03 <mnemonic1> next?
  • Feb 12 15:52:06 <BarkingFish> QUESTION: Mike, I appreciate your reply, but as the foundation's legal counsel, isn't there almost an obligation upon you to ensure that the books are within acceptable legal content?
  • Feb 12 15:52:07 <OberstPrawitt> If some random site, would the WMF file an amicus brief and assist getting CC assistance in challenging the misuse?
  • Feb 12 15:52:36 <cary> After BarkingFish:
  • Feb 12 15:52:36 <cary> <geniice> QUESTION:How much of a legal risk do the deleted content database tables present
  • Feb 12 15:52:52 <mnemonic1> BarkingFish, the Foundation is not and cannot be a content policeman for the projects
  • Feb 12 15:53:14 <BarkingFish> Ok Mike, Thanks.
  • Feb 12 15:53:35 <mnemonic1> geniice, I might understand your question better if you gave an example of what specifically you're worried about
  • Feb 12 15:54:31 <cary> geniice, feel free to elaborate
  • Feb 12 15:54:50 <geniice> At the present time I know the deleted content database tables contain. Insane numbers of copyvios. Quite an interesting selection of lible. Depending on what bugs have been fixed child porn, and some boarderline legal lolicon
  • Feb 12 15:55:14 <Fleetflame> boarderline is a clothing company, geniice :-]
  • Feb 12 15:55:29 <Philippe|Wiki> Fleetflame: chat in -talk, please :)
  • Feb 12 15:55:49 <mnemonic1> copyvios are easy -- we just respond to DMCA takedown notices when they come in. mostly they don't come in.
  • Feb 12 15:55:53 <Fleetflame> Philippe|Wiki: I don't think that qualifies as "chatting" o_x
  • Feb 12 15:56:05 <mnemonic1> libel -- we have Section 230 immunity
  • Feb 12 15:56:19 <mnemonic1> child porn, ditto with regard to Section 230
  • Feb 12 15:56:25 <darkoneko> what's section 230 ?
  • Feb 12 15:56:34 <cary> darkoneko, please phrase the question properly
  • Feb 12 15:56:41 <mnemonic1> there's an article about Section 230 in enwiki
  • Feb 12 15:57:00 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: Once you become aware of a specific piece of libel or child porn, are you obliged to act or does that still destroy your immunity?
  • Feb 12 15:57:08 <darkoneko> oh, I'll check that then
  • Feb 12 15:57:13 <kibble> darkoneko, lazyweb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
  • Feb 12 15:57:18 <mnemonic1> it was the part of the Communications Decency Act we took pains to leave in place after Reno v. ACLU
  • Feb 12 15:57:47 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, mere knowledge of alleged libel or child porn doesn't create an obligation on us to act.
  • Feb 12 15:58:19 <Bodnotbod> QUESTION: When you say the WMF cannot be the policeman of content, does this mean that it is the editor that adds the content that would be prosecuted? And that you would refer whoever is making the charge to the editor in question?
  • Feb 12 15:58:20 <JeffSchoep1> Thanks. That was about the only bit I wasn't sure about (it's foreign law to me :p)
  • Feb 12 16:01:16 <mnemonic1> Bodnotbod, it's true that editors who post illegal content would be liable under the law for what they post. WMF generally complies with court orders (almost always when within the US), and we may or may not comply with foreign court orders, depending on the issue and government in question.
  • Feb 12 16:02:02 <mnemonic1> since we do not require wikipedia contributors to list their real names or contact information, however, there is no guarantee that a government seeking a particular editor can find him or her.
  • Feb 12 16:02:19 <darkoneko> ip would be provided probably, tho
  • Feb 12 16:02:22 <AlexandrDmitri> QUESTION: with the opening up of Internet domain names to non Latin scripts, were there / do you foresee any difficulties with protecting Wikimedia sites from being usurped ?
  • Feb 12 16:02:28 <cary> <OberstPrawitt> QUESTION: Would you publish correspondence and response if such was forthcoming from the notorious Carter Fuck libel 'experts'?
  • Feb 12 16:03:22 <Fleetflame> QUESTION: so if a court asked the WMF to give the information (say IP) of an editor because of a lawsuit against the editor, is the foundation required to give it?
  • Feb 12 16:03:59 <BarkingFish> QUESTION: In that case, Mike, do you simply refer any such subpoena requiring information to the relevant ISP, or simply inform the officials placing the subpoena that you don't have the information for them?
  • Feb 12 16:03:59 <mnemonic1> they're not so notorious that i actually know what you're referring to, Brian. but, yes, i reserve the right to publish demand letters from governments and private litigants
  • Feb 12 16:04:14 <OberstPrawitt> w:Carter Ruck
  • Feb 12 16:04:23 <cary> <AlexandrDmitri> QUESTION: with the opening up of Internet domain names to non Latin scripts, were there / do you foresee any difficulties with protecting Wikimedia sites from being usurped ?
  • Feb 12 16:04:30 <cary> then Fleetflame then BarkingFish
  • Feb 12 16:05:25 <mnemonic1> Fleetflame, we're required by a valid subpoena to give over whatever evidence we have. Generally, we don't have much, unless the user has been particularly a problem for us already.
  • Feb 12 16:05:56 <Fleetflame> so you're saying you wouldn't run a checkuser specifically for that?
  • Feb 12 16:06:12 <mnemonic1> as i said above, sometimes i don't comply with foreign process. if the People's Republic of China wanted names of contributors to articles about Falun Gong, for example, i might not comply
  • Feb 12 16:06:23 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: You said you prolly wouldn't surface in the UK due to risk. Bearing in mind the nasty bit of libel law and the nasty lawyers only have effect in England and Wales, would you surface in Scotland or N. Ireland?
  • Feb 12 16:06:34 <JeffSchoep1> *bits
  • Feb 12 16:06:45 <cary> mnemonic1, can we do Alexandr's question?
  • Feb 12 16:06:48 <mnemonic1> Fleetflame, we might run a checkuser in some cases.
  • Feb 12 16:06:52 <BarkingFish> cary: my question is withdrawn
  • Feb 12 16:07:04 <BarkingFish> Answered in the response to fleetflame
  • Feb 12 16:07:09 <cary> which is: QUESTION: with the opening up of Internet domain names to non Latin scripts, were there / do you foresee any difficulties with protecting Wikimedia sites from being usurped ?
  • Feb 12 16:07:29 <mnemonic1> AlexanderDmitri, we're moving towards registering Cyrillic and other non-Roman domains
  • Feb 12 16:07:53 <mnemonic1> I've already initiated the Cyrillic process for us with .ru domains
  • Feb 12 16:08:24 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep, the reach of UK courts is broader than you think -- they're a threat throughout the EU
  • Feb 12 16:08:40 <mnemonic1> next
  • Feb 12 16:08:53 * cary plays Emperor Palpatine's theme
  • Feb 12 16:09:31 * Philippe|Wiki plays the jeopardy theme song
  • Feb 12 16:09:56 * JeffSchoep1 knows the extent and cross-jurisdictional arguments. Whilst being unconvinced of them, he accepts it could take much fighting to get the jurisdiction wanted.
  • Feb 12 16:10:35 <WereSpielChequer> QUESTION:If an editor stops editing then after three months we no longer have IP logs. Would you ever stall a legal request for an editors IP address until more than three months since their last edit?
  • Feb 12 16:10:37 <Jamesofur> QUESTION: What would the general reasons be for you to refuse to comply with a court order
  • Feb 12 16:10:53 <Jusdafax> Have you been under pressure (that you can talk about here) from politicians, governments, or corporations - in short, the mega-powerful - to sanitize or remove legit and properly sourced information?
  • Feb 12 16:11:07 <JohnL> QUESTION: This is not so much a legal question as a policy question: I have been following Foundation emails, and know that the Foundation is seeking to raise money. Would the culture of the community and the Foundation be open to licensing use of the trademark, as opposed to content, for a fee? It ocurrs to me that use of the trademark, as an attributive reference, becomes more valuable with time.
  • Feb 12 16:11:09 <JeffSchoep1> "One Ukranian suing another Ukranian over a book in Ukrainian published in Ukraine before a London court" - they managed that one, too
  • Feb 12 16:11:28 <cary> one at a time :)
  • Feb 12 16:11:42 <cary> <WereSpielChequer> QUESTION:If an editor stops editing then after three months we no longer have IP logs. Would you ever stall a legal request for an editors IP address until more than three months since their last edit?
  • Feb 12 16:11:45 <mnemonic1> WereSpielChequer, I don't take action deliberately to obstruct government inquiries.
  • Feb 12 16:11:45 <mnemonic1> Jamesofur, I alluded to one reason I might not comply -- a government request from a country with bad human-rights record
  • Feb 12 16:12:00 * JeffSchoep1 may have paraphrased incorrectly, but it essentially stands
  • Feb 12 16:12:21 <Jamesofur> very fair reasoning :)
  • Feb 12 16:12:32 <cary> <JohnL> QUESTION: This is not so much a legal question as a policy question: I have been following Foundation emails, and know that the Foundation is seeking to raise money. Would the culture of the community and the Foundation be open to licensing use of the trademark, as opposed to content, for a fee? It ocurrs to me that use of the trademark, as an attributive reference, becomes more valuable with time.
  • Feb 12 16:12:34 <cary> current question
  • Feb 12 16:12:39 <mnemonic1> Jusdafax, normally, if a corporation is unhappy with us, they make a specific legal threat if they can. but we have some good legal protections in place, so i don't feel particularly threatened by corporations.
  • Feb 12 16:13:02 <Bodnotbod> Heh, US's Human Rights record isn't so hot lately ;o)
  • Feb 12 16:13:08 <OberstPrawitt> JohnL: already done - Orange and Telephonica
  • Feb 12 16:13:25 <mnemonic1> JohnL, we'd want any licensing of the trademarks to be consistent with our mission. So, Wikipedia (tm) textbooks may happen, but Wikipedia (tm) cookies probably won't.
  • Feb 12 16:13:56 <Jamesofur> QUESTION (kind of connected with WereSpiel's) if you become aware that someone is seeking a court order would you generally do the CU or other information gathering then to save the information or do you wait until you are in receipt of the order to gather the information
  • Feb 12 16:14:10 <mnemonic1> Bodnotbod, it doesn't matter whether the USA's own human-rights record is lousy -- we can't disobey US government court orders
  • Feb 12 16:15:10 <mnemonic1> Jamesofur, I generally wait until I have a court order properly served to me. Exceptions: murder threats or suicide threats.
  • Feb 12 16:15:54 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: Do you recommend such threats are always reported to authorities? WP:PITCHFORKS often argues over that.
  • Feb 12 16:17:03 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, I generally recommend that each of us applies common sense in assessing threats we encounter online, and when it makes sense to report such threats to authorities, we each should do so.
  • Feb 12 16:17:26 <mnemonic1> next
  • Feb 12 16:17:32 <Bodnotbod> QUESTION: How does suicide enter a scenario? Do you mean someone who has Wikipedia content about them and is threatening to kill themselves as a result of that content?
  • Feb 12 16:18:27 <mnemonic1> Bodnotbod, there are all sorts of ways people who want to threaten suicide may do so on Wikipedia. i probably can't list (or imagine) them all
  • Feb 12 16:19:01 <Bodnotbod> OK, thanks. I haedn't heard of any instances of that but it is easy to imagine a few.
  • Feb 12 16:19:28 <mnemonic1> next
  • Feb 12 16:19:34 <Jusdafax> QUESTION: Having written one book, do you have plans to write any further ones? Perhaps about your experiences with the WMF?
  • Feb 12 16:19:54 <cary> The memoirs...
  • Feb 12 16:20:25 <mnemonic1> Jusdafax, I'm thinking about another book project, but I would have to develop one that didn't disclose privileged information I received as a function of working for WMF
  • Feb 12 16:20:57 <Jusdafax> quite so
  • Feb 12 16:20:58 <mnemonic1> otherwise, i could tell you great stories about cary and philippe
  • Feb 12 16:21:04 <Jusdafax> LOL
  • Feb 12 16:21:08 <cary> Question if video takes off are we likely to hit any new legal issues or just more of the same?
  • Feb 12 16:21:09 <Philippe|Wiki> it's true.
  • Feb 12 16:21:14 <cary> that's from geniice
  • Feb 12 16:21:27 <OberstPrawitt> we *know* the stories about Cary... The plumbers were in the new offices before you :P
  • Feb 12 16:21:30 <mnemonic1> for example, there's a story behind the stripper poles we've installed in the office, but i can't tell you
  • Feb 12 16:21:43 <Philippe|Wiki> (that was cary)
  • Feb 12 16:21:53 <mnemonic1> now, now, philippe, fess up
  • Feb 12 16:22:17 <Philippe|Wiki> never :)
  • Feb 12 16:22:23 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: Every so often I hear snippets about the WMF possibly applying a BLP policy accross all projects. Might you, and if so how would you ensure it took into account the vastly different missions between, say, Wikinews and Wikipedia?
  • Feb 12 16:22:33 <cary> *cough*
  • Feb 12 16:22:40 <cary> *cough*
  • Feb 12 16:22:47 <mnemonic1> geniice, i think the only new issues for video will be not really be new -- they're there already for the images we use. things like right-of-publicity and freedom of panorama.
  • Feb 12 16:22:57 <cary> JeffSchoep1, that's actually a good question for me.
  • Feb 12 16:23:17 <JeffSchoep1> Lol, whoever (or both!) :p
  • Feb 12 16:23:31 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, a policy spanning all projects won't originate from my department, but i might be tasked with details in implementing it
  • Feb 12 16:23:41 <mnemonic1> i think we are still feeling our way with regard to handling BLPs
  • Feb 12 16:23:55 <cary> JeffSchoep1, there is a task force underway, whose task it is to create policy regarding "Living People" ("biographies" removed)
  • Feb 12 16:24:23 <cary> see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
  • Feb 12 16:24:31 <Bawolff> The solution is just to kill everyone
  • Feb 12 16:24:45 <Bawolff> The we just have biographies of dead people, and all is well in wikiland
  • Feb 12 16:24:47 <OberstPrawitt> Bawolff, I like you... I'll kill you last
  • Feb 12 16:24:55 <ShakataGaNai> see, Bawolff always got a fix for everything
  • Feb 12 16:25:00 <ShakataGaNai> Javascript...blp....
  • Feb 12 16:25:06 <Jusdafax> QUESTION: Are current laws in the USA strong enought to protect institutions like the WMF from legal issues of the vexatious type, or would you like to see stronger legal protections?
  • Feb 12 16:25:18 <mnemonic1> i'm troubled since i myself am a subject of a BLP
  • Feb 12 16:25:31 <mnemonic1> at least i think i am living
  • Feb 12 16:25:49 <JeffSchoep1> You should probably get that checked
  • Feb 12 16:25:50 * Jamesofur disagrees
  • Feb 12 16:25:56 <mnemonic1> Jusdafax, I'm actually reasonably content at the legal protections WMF takes advantage of in the USA
  • Feb 12 16:26:13 <mnemonic1> next
  • Feb 12 16:26:15 <Jusdafax> good to hear
  • Feb 12 16:26:38 <WereSpielChequer> QUESTION:Have you considered relocating the foundation to a different legal jurisdiction?
  • Feb 12 16:26:51 <ShakataGaNai> Caribian!
  • Feb 12 16:27:00 <OberstPrawitt> No. Sweden or Iceland
  • Feb 12 16:27:04 <NuclearWarfare> QUESTION: Is there anything in particular that you would like the Living Persons task force to keep in mind when drafting their recommendations?
  • Feb 12 16:27:08 <Philippe|Wiki> <koff> -talk <koff>
  • Feb 12 16:27:24 <JeffSchoep1> QUESTION: related to WereSpiel's - Iceland wants to make the world's best press protection laws. Interested?
  • Feb 12 16:27:36 <BarkingFish> QUESTION: As you're no doubt aware, Mike, in relation to BLP, moves are underway to implement a limited version of Flagged Revisions across enwiki. Do you see this in any way assistive to the prevention of possible issue-causing legal errors on BLP, anymore than our current protection system already is?
  • Feb 12 16:28:03 <mnemonic1> JeffSchoep1, I'd love to be invited to visit Iceland, or even to work there, so long as I don't have to invest in their stock market or currency
  • Feb 12 16:28:32 <JeffSchoep1> Including work for the WMF?
  • Feb 12 16:28:50 * cary notes we're coming up on 0030
  • Feb 12 16:28:53 <mnemonic1> WereSpielChequer, we looked at relocating WMF to other countries back in 2007. All our research said this was a bad idea. So we moved to SF instead.
  • Feb 12 16:29:44 <cary> Let's answer NuclearWarfare's question and BarkingFish's question and finish
  • Feb 12 16:29:45 <mnemonic1> NuclearWarfare, my main interest in developing BLP policy is that I hope we don't lock down BLPs so tightly that people feel they can't contribute positively.
  • Feb 12 16:30:58 <mnemonic1> BarkingFish, I am not a huge fan of Flagged Revisions per se, since I think they pose the risk of creating disincentives for contributors, but I'm supportive of experimenting with different implementations of FR to see if they reduce BLP problems.
  • Feb 12 16:31:15 <cary> Okay! That was a great session
  • Feb 12 16:31:20 <cary> thank you Mike for coming!
  • Feb 12 16:31:30 <cary> Thanks everybody for their wonderful questions
  • Feb 12 16:31:30 <mnemonic1> i can continue if people still want to go on -- for another half hour, say
  • Feb 12 16:31:44 <Bodnotbod> Thanks Mike for chatting with us. Thanks to Cary and Philippe for overseeing things.
  • Feb 12 16:31:44 <cary> Sure, it just won't be logged
  • Feb 12 16:31:52 <JeffSchoep1> BarkingFish: You may be interested to know Google News considers Wikinews reliable enough to list now we have FlaggedRevs
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-02-12&oldid=2156886"