The Wiki Cabal, the newest Wikipedia criticism blog

[Dysklyver]

Oddly the post about me seems very popular too.

Even with the not too subtle PS.

[AndrewForson]

It would be interesting to see something about conflict of laws and the myth of US invulnerability. Right now at WO people are sneering at Graff and his insistence on European law because, they claim, the WMF is a US entity and hence only subject to US laws. I don't know much about law, but I do know that it is not nearly as simple as that.

[Graaf Statler]

And in my second legal blog, I explore how really the realm of copyright is much to big to deal with in a week, but for those who don't mind the incomplete rant against US copyright law, it's there...

Posts about named Wikipedians are much more popular than any other posts, I think that will end up being my main focus.

I have done Chris, Eric, and Adrian now.
(Kudpong, Eric Coldburp, and Ajr)

In general Wikipedians are not interested in legal matters, Dysklyver. They are basely all Ming's and Romaines. Start a Brussels advocating group, change the European regulation in you advantage, find a consensus over legal matters. Swam intelligents.

[Graaf Statler]

It would be interesting to see something about conflict of laws and the myth of US invulnerability. Right now at WO people are sneering at Graff and his insistence on European law because, they claim, the WMF is a US entity and hence only subject to US laws. I don't know much about law, but I do know that it is not nearly as simple as that.

It is as simple as this:

In this instance Graaf is accurately relating the opinion of several European judges. Not that the opinion of judges is really relevant, they simply read the law itself. So as Graaf has already pointed out, he is simply stating that Europe has a different legal system to America, and that the European legal system applies to everyone in Europe, even if they are editing a site based in America. Really this is basic stuff.

(Underlined by me.)

Beside the question if there is a server in Haarlem, Wikipedia-NL a American based project is....

[Dysklyver]

It would be interesting to see something about conflict of laws and the myth of US invulnerability. Right now at WO people are sneering at Graff and his insistence on European law because, they claim, the WMF is a US entity and hence only subject to US laws. I don't know much about law, but I do know that it is not nearly as simple as that.

It is as simple as this:

In this instance Graaf is accurately relating the opinion of several European judges. Not that the opinion of judges is really relevant, they simply read the law itself. So as Graaf has already pointed out, he is simply stating that Europe has a different legal system to America, and that the European legal system applies to everyone in Europe, even if they are editing a site based in America. Really this is basic stuff.

(Underlined by me.)

Beside the question if there is a server in Haarlem, Wikipedia-NL a American based project is....

I have some ideas, but nothing is worse than a half-baked idea so for the moment I will just say that the WMF itself is still US based and in most situations untouchable, the main debate at is the European chapters, the European assets of the WMF, the European trustees themselves, and of course the European editors, all of which are firmly rooted in the realm of the European legal system and it's Napoleonic code. It's not at all clear cut when trying to go after a foreign corporation like the WMF main entity, that's why offshore structures work so well.

[CrowsNest]

I think you might need one of those comment trackers, like GenderDesk has (also WordPress). Real pain to check for new comments otherwise.

[AndrewForson]

[...] for the moment I will just say that the WMF itself is still US based and in most situations untouchable,[...]

Only untouchable in the sense of adherence to US law and in particular S.230 of the CDA. They are certainly vulnerable to accusations of corruption, fraud, breach of trust or similar in their home jurisdiction.

[Graaf Statler]

[...] for the moment I will just say that the WMF itself is still US based and in most situations untouchable,[...]

Only untouchable in the sense of adherence to US law and in particular S.230 of the CDA. They are certainly vulnerable to accusations of corruption, fraud, breach of trust or similar in their home jurisdiction.

This is what I have understand of it. I general, not about WMF, S.230 only protects you in good faith. At the moment you break the law or laws there is not any protection of S.230 anymore. That is what me is told by someone who knew where he was talking about. S.230 doesn't make you immune, that is a huge misunderstanding.

[AndrewForson]

Of course, it may well be that the WMF is in practice untouchable legally for the simple reason that it has millions of dollars in the bank, retains its own staff of lawyers and spends millions a year on outside lawyers. And most of its critics don't.

[CrowsNest]

Given the right issue of principle, money is no barrier, a benefactor will always see you right. c.f. Hulk Hogan and Gawker. And in corporate litigation, you can burn through millions of dollars quite quickly.