Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-07/From the editor

== Some views ==

Hi Ral. I'd like to thank you for publishing this. I don't have any problems myself with how this was handled, but I can see that others might and why you were concerned. Do you think there might be a possibility in future cases (hopefully very few) of doing very limited coverage? Of saying that the Signpost can't directly cover the story, but then providing a link to some external coverage? Could you now, for instance, compare how the Signpost covered this with how other Wikipedia-specific news outlets covered this? Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this type of thing is likely to happen again, I think the Signpost should establish its own policy in order for there to be full disclosure to the reader. While this is going to sound harsh, the SP needs to determine whether it is an independent news source or whether it will be subordinate to the wants and demands of the WMF. I think now is the time to hash this out while there are no lawsuits or threats.

I know the SP uses the following disclaimer on controversial articles:

Editor's note: The Wikipedia Signpost is an independent, community newspaper, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. The contents of this page are that of their authors alone, and may not reflect the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation.

But is this really the case if the WMF can prevent the SP from writing about certain events? How is the SP not affiliated with the WMF when editorial control on controversial issues does not rest with the editor but with the board and its lawyer?

I am in favor of an open discussion with Mike Godwin to determine what the rules and limits are here. Since the SP is hosted on the WMF's servers, can it ever be independent? If so, then let's be independent. If not, let's not pretend we are. KnightLago (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establish policy, and back it up with organizational changes if necessary. If the Signpost is to be truly independent, this means moving to its own web host and requiring nobody who serves in key Wikimedia Foundation and/or Wikipedia committees be anything more than a contributor to the Signpost. On the other hand, there may be a desire to have a newsletter that is officially not independent. Maybe Wikipedia needs both. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an independent newsletter, the WikiZine is independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. At the time, I considered ways that I could avoid the conflict. I do own WikipediaSignpost.com, but I think a move to external servers would result in fairly decreased traffic, and a lot less people reading.

I should make it clear that the main factor behind my decision not to publish was my belief that it could have a serious impact on the lawsuit, and the agreement of the Foundation was just a confirmation for me. Section 230 clearly applies to Wikimedia, but if a plaintiff were to present the "Wikipedia Signpost" saying something, it might be misread as a blog of the Foundation, or some other formal newsletter.

I guess I consider the Signpost independent in every instance except where legal concerns of the Foundation limit what we can, or should, publish. This is obviously not ideal, but I think we've shown that we're not afraid to cover stories, even when they portray the Foundation in a negative light. While I certainly understand your concerns, I categorically reject any beliefs that the Signpost will ever be subordinate to the Foundation. If ever a case were to occur where the Foundation pressed me to hold a story that I didn't think could have a significant impact on a lawsuit, I would run the story, even if it meant having it subsequently deleted by the Office, or resulted in actions against me. I don't believe such a case would be likely to occur, however; in prior interactions, the Foundation has been incredibly supportive of the division between us. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you handled this situation exactly right; it's far more important for Wikipedia - and contributors to Wikipedia - that the Signpost not become entangled in a lawsuit. Nor do I think that a formal policy, or a change of hosting, is necessary; the history of the Signpost has demonstrated that the current situation works perfectly fine in terms of independence. And WP:NOT seems worth mentioning here - Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy; precedent plus common sense seems to me to provide quite adequate guidance for any future situations. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that your handling of the situation was ideal. There is such a thing as responsible reporting, and this is what happened in this case, because you were not contacted by the Foundation with a gag order; on the other hand, you voluntarily contacted them to verify whether running the story would complicate the situation, because you had that doubt to start. That's not lack of independence in my view; it is simply cooperation between two entities (the Foundation and the Signpost), similar to the cooperation that occurs between a reporter and an anonymous source. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, in the name of freedom and independence, SP should not comment on matters which are sub judice, particularly when the issues relate to our various projects/ WMF. Ral315, in my personal opinion, you did not do anything unusual, and should not carry this inside your conscience. --Bhadani (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the SP inform the public about issues related to the WMF? Informing the public is the SP's goal. Next, where does this selective censorship end? Say next month there is another issue related to WMF governance or personnel, does the SP not cover the issue because there are potential outside implications? As I stated above, I would like to see an open discussion and a policy established as to when the SP will/will not cover something. I also think Ral has done a great job with the SP and you should not let this issue weigh on your conscious. Freedom of the presses is an old and complex conundrum. KnightLago (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bhadani's view. We don't want to end up in a situation where Signpost editors are being accused of prejudicing court proceedings, and I think they did the right thing here (especially noting it was not a censorship decision, as they intended to publish as soon as sub judice no longer applied). Orderinchaos 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe you ultimately did the right thing, I believe the Foundation's actions were clearly misguided and probably overhasty, and only cast a very bad light on the entire thing, as the widely reported reappearance of the Wikinews article on Wikileaks demonstrates (Streisand effect anybody?). In my opinion, you should ask a clear-cut yes/no in such cases where there the information is clearly relevant tothe community. After all, the suit was already well known amongst a section of the userbase anyway, and it was far, far more likely that legally sensitive (at least as far as notoriously trigger-happy Bauer is concerned) statements would be made on talk pages than in the SP article. Circeus (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support your decision in the difficult position in which you were put. It is an excellent thing that you have now told us what happened, and put the good of the whole Wikimedia project first. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and presumably the WMF just argued that they do not control the content.Judge dismisses defamation suit. At the same time Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia, IF an editor feels the need to publish an article the process is to publish it, we have processes for the community to delete it if required. Jeepday (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED is a content guideline. As such it bears no relevance to the signpost. The primary reason the SP is maintains as much neutrality as possible (e.g. by not having opinion articles) is out of tradition. Circeus (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is a difference between the policies used to govern Wikipedia content and relations with the governing legal jurisdiction. It is madness to put Wikipedia's internal policies on a pedestal and overrule the laws and legal practices of the law of the land. I think it was perfectly reasonable for Ral to delay publication until after the legal situation was sorted out. -- Arwel (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ral315, I think that in this case, you handled it well. None of us want to contribute to anything that would harm Wikimedia or any of its projects, so I think you chose to err on the side of caution. Good job.

However, in light of this decision, you won't need to worry about those concerns anymore. According to the court's decision, the Foundation cannot be held liable for content which others post on its servers. The Signpost clearly falls under that definition. Ergo, you won't have to worry about the Foundation being harmed because of this newsletter. Keep up the good work!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your statement laid it out well. You can be independent up to the point that it hurts the foundation itself and can't go beyond that because Signpost is hosted by the foundation's website, Wikipedia. It's simply a recognition of reality that there are outer limits to your independence. It was a very good move to make that statement as a way of making that reality more transparent.

The only way Signpost could be completely independent is to be on an independent website. And then you'd be paying for your own lawyers and have other problems along with benefits. It seems to me that it's well worth having Signpost on Wikipedia, but a different news outlet with written reports, independent and off this website, would also benefit Wikipedia. One day it'll happen. Both publications would have a role, and neither role is necessarily "dishonorable".

Thanks, by the way, for all the work you do. Noroton (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the foundation was wrong here.

If there is something they would rather was not published then they should not have told you. They should assume anything told to a reporter is going to be published.

I suggest that in future all interviews should be on a wiki page - You post the questions, they edit it to add answers, you post supplementaries and so on. That way it is clear for all that what they are posting is for publication. Filceolaire (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If SP was hosted completely separately from the Foundation and its servers then yes, all the "Foundation was wrong" folks would have a point. But, and it's a big but, that is not the reality here. We can come up with all the "WP is not censored", "open project" comments we want, but at the end of the day in the current reality, if something in SP carries the risk of adversely affecting a lawsuit in which the Foundation is a party, then SP should not publish it. I know all the arguments against this view, and it I know it's an unpopular view, but the Foundation and is projects, including WP, do not exist in their own world or in a vacuum. Lawsuits are a reality of life in the real world and the Foundation has to act in such a way as not to prejudice its legal position in litigation, real or threatened. And before anyone asks, yes I am a lawyer (though not of the litigation ilk)! – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... don't take this the wrong way, but it's not like this is pretending to be hard-hitting investigative journalism. You're doing a great service to the community but it's not like we have any right to expect all sorts of news that could get you in trouble with the Foundation. We might well expect it, but you're not obliged at all to give it since we're not giving any money for it and all that. Good job guys, I love the Signpost. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once was editor of a news website about the goings-on of a massively multiplayer online game. In it, we occasionally satirized the staff of the game. While we were usually on good terms with them, once or twice we published material about them that got on their bad side. They asked us to take down the offending material and in one case sternly reprimanded us (me). This only happened once or twice, and the requests were partially justified, but it still felt like we were being censored. It left a bad taste in my mouth and was one of the reasons I eventually left the project.

My point is, I empathize with your situation. It puts a damper on one's work to be silenced by someone else, even if it's justified. As others have said above, I would try to clarify how independent you are. It seems to me that if Wikimedia claims immunity for Wikipedia's content under Section 230, then they have no legal responsibility for what the Signpost publishes. They may have the authority to censor you if they so desire (since you are housed on their servers), but they shouldn't. In this situation, I see how it may have complicated the legal business of the lawsuit, so I think it was probably right for them to request you not publish it. But not demand. If Wikimedia agrees to restrict its input on the Signpost to non-binding requests, then I would still consider you independent. If not, I wouldn't claim that you're independent. Because to me, if you will ever have to comply with demands from Wikimedia simply because they're demands from Wikimedia (not because you actually think they're good ideas), then you're not independent.

Anyway, complete independence or not, the Signpost is a great publication and I certainly hope it stays around! -kotra (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF deleted an image of its office from its article and then closed the DRV on the image citing OFFICE. Luna covered it on her blog here and has the details. They haven't explained the situation yet, so give them time, but is the SignPost going to be forced not to cover this? No legal issues, and directly related to Wikipedia, the WMF, and its content. KnightLago (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has since been explained: "Most likely, the photo included either private information on a whiteboard, or the street address. Wikimedia has (and has had for quite some time) a policy of keeping the physical street address of the main office private to discourage random people from wandering in off the street or harrassing [sic] the staff."

I've seen the deleted image, and indeed it had the street address (though given such addresses are a matter of public records in other documents, I'm not sure just how it helps: it people really want to harass, they will). Circeus (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reality is that a court may well see any contribution on Signpost as being a contribution by someone connected to the defendent and relevant to the case. If you had published an article on the issue at the time you could potentially have opened up all sorts of problems. By publishing it all at a later date you ensured there was no censorship so there was no loss in delaying publication.

I think media of all kinds have to deal with this kind of issue all the time, and it seems to me you made exactly the right decision. My only advice would be, if it happens in the future you should agree only to DELAY publication, but not to PREVENT publication. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ral,

Because the Signpost is written within the confines of Wikimedia and because I was invited by you to make edits to Signpost articles I didn't author, I have never regarded the Signpost as journalism. I have regarded it as a localized newsletter that is informative, gossipy and entertaining, but is not journalistic. If the Signpost wants genuine independence and to be considered journalism then it needs to liberate and dismiss itself from Wikimedia, for example by creating its own blog that is fully separate from any Wikimedia server or service.

In regards to holding back on the story, I feel you made the correct decision. I don't see what harm it did me not getting to read your story about it. I greatly value freedom of the press. However, it is also important to weigh that freedom in relation to other factors on a case by case basis. In this case, jeopardizing Wikimedia would have been far more harmful than holding back a story that was not essential reading to my online or offline decisions.

Sincerely, an avid reader, Kingturtle (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...although it does a reasonable job of being a bit of both. The key thing though is that that is hosted on servers run by the Foundation. As long as that remains the case, then if the WMF wishes to control its content it can do so. If the Signpost would like to be genuinely independent, then it needs to be hosted elsewhere. Signpost is not a 'state newspaper' of course, but neither can it be a completely independent organ, and readers would bear that in mind, I hope. Splash - tk 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I don't have much to add except my name. Yechiel (Shalom) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many newspapers and journals have faced the issue of what to do in a case where the reporter or editor possesses non-public information that is the subject of pending litigation. In the case of a commerical paper, there is a financial incentive to "scoop" other publications. I think that Signpost should keep non-public information about pending information confidential until it is made public by the court and parties to the litigation. The harm to the public from waiting for this information is much less than the potential harm to the fair litigation process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read what has been written above, I just wanted to drop my thoughts in. I think not mentioning it was completely the right choice- I respect the Foundation's legal concerns, and think we should support them where they ask. As this is a publication for the community (not for the general public) I don't think we need to worry about censorship in any way- the Foundation censoring the Signpost is nothing at all like the government censoring the press. The Signpost is here to foster the community by involving people and informing them of goings-on of the project, which in turn helps improve the encyclopedia. That should be the primary goal- if publishing something may be bad for the project, it should not be published until it is 'safe' to do so. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have all of the details nor really strong opinions but this struck me. It is quite possible that you (Ral) shouldn't have published anything about the case. But, did your decision based on the fact that you had non-public knowledge have to change what the Signpost wrote? Could someone else have done some story? I know such decisions are difficult since the Signpost is not the NYT with a huge staff to write the stories but I think if a writer feels their story would conflict with the WMF because of privileged information they have every right not to write--but there are enough users privy only to public information who could have (guest) written a relevant story. gren グレン 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glas this case was thrown out of court. Defamation of character is only illegal when what is said isn't true. Writer Beware has documentation that can proof Bauer is a big fraud and anyone in the world should be allowed to repeat that. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]