Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 17, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search→Section 230 and Wikipedia: Legal theory before wiki drama
==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
Anthony Dipierro [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60070 has commented] before, that "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 Wikimedia Foundation actually is a publisher." But, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60026 another observer] goes on to state:
:''The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in Wikipedia's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. <nowiki>[Ken]</nowiki> Myers [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf acknowledges this] even though he is optimistic about Wikipedia's immunity.''
One editor of Wikipedia attempted to change policy-related instances of the words "published" and "publisher" to "interactively served", to help clarify Wikipedia's non-role as a publisher. However, this editor was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASection_230_Expert blocked] from ever again editing Wikipedia, and the words "published" and "publisher" were restored. When this block was challenged, the response was:
One editor of Wikipedia attempted to change policy-related instances of the words "published" and "publisher" to "interactively served", to help clarify Wikipedia's non-role as a publisher. However, this editor was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASection_230_Expert blocked] from ever again editing Wikipedia, and the words "published" and "publisher" were restored. When this block was challenged, the response was:
:''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
:''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued. Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.
However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued. Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.
