Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1267401600

2024-08-14T19:57:20Z

UTurn to 1267401600

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:57, 14 August 2024
(No difference)

Jon Awbrey: Undo revision 745 by 8.24.3.117 (Talk)

2010-01-14T02:44:20Z

Undo revision 745 by 8.24.3.117 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 14 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Issue Definition =		==Issue Definition==

	Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the providers of these services decide to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process? Is there any notion of due process whatsoever?		Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the providers of these services decide to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process? Is there any notion of due process whatsoever?

	''~~Related:~~'' ~~Is a website a place~~ of ~~"public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and~~ the ~~Americans with Disabilities Act~~?		;Question
			: The term ''due process'' implies an analogy to legal proceedings that may or may not be apt for all interactive media sites.
			: Are there more fitting terms of contractual or ethical obligation, explicit or implied promise, truth in advertising, or just plain good faith that might apply to the particular case?

	== Gmail ==		;Related
			: Is a website a place of "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?

			;Also
			: What rights do users have, or reasonably believe they have, with respect to the content they store, distribute, or publish via services like Gmail or Facebook?

			===Gmail===

			The main concern for users who are banned from Gmail would seem to be recovering the content stored in their account. Google does not appear to guarantee that they will allow a banned user to recover their content; at the same time, they could do so, apparently at their sole discretion. Are there any accounts of Google banning Gmail users, and if there are, what has been Google's disposition of the contents of their mailboxes?

	From GMail's [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en Terms of Service]		From GMail's [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en Terms of Service]
Line 19:		Line 29:
	8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...		8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...

	== Facebook ==		===Facebook===

	Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.		Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.

	~~== Wikipedia ==~~		A user banned from Facebook likely faces three concerns. The first is control over the continued publication of their material after the account has been banned, which depends on whether or not Facebook continues to publish content created from banned accounts. The second is access to private or semiprivate information either stored in the banned user's account itself, or in other Facebook accounts to which that user had access by virtue of Facebook's social-network-based security. The third is ongoing access to Facebook's social networking features.

	~~Wikipedia allows most users~~ to ~~edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or~~ banned, ~~so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made~~ for ~~banned users who use their talk pages "abusively~~,~~" i.e., to insult other users, or to post obscene or gratuitously explicit material. Arguably, this rule is also sometimes (though rarely) used to silence critics or further anger~~ the ~~blocked user~~.		Facebook does not seem to discuss, with anyone, not even the banned user, the reason for any bans it imposes, so the risk of being defamed by Facebook by virtue of having been banned by them seems minimal.

	Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds.		===Wikipedia===

			;Questions
			: Are Encyclopedias like Butter or Orange Juice? That is, does the use of the term "encyclopedia", in conjunction with valorized terms like "knowledge" and "policy", constitute a claim of "suitability for a particular purpose", all fine-print disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding?
			: Are users of Wikipedia solely responsible for their expectations that Wikipedia Management will maintain "knowledge" and operate according to their advertised "policies"?
			: Or does the Wikimedia Foundation incur a legal obligation to conduct its operations in specific ways by dint of its advertising, fund-raising, and promotional activities, all of which it does under a tax-advantaged status?

			Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.

			Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. Given that the so-called "courtesy" is typically extended arbitrarily, without consultation, and even against the request of the user in question, it may be seen as a measure to protect the actions of Wikipedia management from open scrutiny. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds.

	Wikipedia's "Arbitrators" have been quite consistent over the years in insisting that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process does not guarantee "due process", and have consistently said that attempting to do so would hinder, rather than assist, their function. However, recently Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, took the Arbitration Committee, in its entirety, to task for making and publishing a decision (to remove certain privileges from a user) that "not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/], suggesting that at least Mr. Godwin believes that Wikipedia should offer some semblance of due process within its community governance scheme. However, there is, as of yet, no indication that Wikipedia's community desires for its dispute resolution process to ensure due process to disputants. At least one external commentator[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207760] mentioned the remote possibility of someone bringing legal action against Wikipedia via a mechanism similar to a New York Article 78 proceeding.		Wikipedia's "Arbitrators" have been quite consistent over the years in insisting that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process does not guarantee "due process", and have consistently said that attempting to do so would hinder, rather than assist, their function. However, recently Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, took the Arbitration Committee, in its entirety, to task for making and publishing a decision (to remove certain privileges from a user) that "not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/], suggesting that at least Mr. Godwin believes that Wikipedia should offer some semblance of due process within its community governance scheme. However, there is, as of yet, no indication that Wikipedia's community desires for its dispute resolution process to ensure due process to disputants. At least one external commentator[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207760] mentioned the remote possibility of someone bringing legal action against Wikipedia via a mechanism similar to a New York Article 78 proceeding.

	Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.		Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.

			;Comment 1
			: Re: "the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there"
			: This statement is not only false but exhibits a lack of familiarity with the realities of Wikipedian activities. [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

			==Moot Court==

			As a lay observer of these discussions who found himself forced — beginning willy but mostly nilly some five years ago — to take an interest in the realities of Wikipedia politics and subculture, I find that most of the assertions that remote observers make about Wikipedia are pure and simple wishful thinking, dreamily detached from the concrete realities of what actually goes on there.

			The most typical excuse for "Due Process" that we find in Wikipedia is not conducted in the powdered wiggery of the Arbitration Committee, the kangaroo court of last resort, but commonly ends with the defendant hanging from one of the lower rungs of the dispute resolution ladder, often in effigy, though the results of the lynching are hardly improved by the presence of the celebrant.

			For instance, if you'll forgive me for citing a case that I have the most intimate acquaintance with:

			* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134&oldid=78423288#User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam The Case of the Exploratory Spiel-Lurker]

			Signed, [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

8.24.3.117: Not advocacyâ¦

2010-01-14T02:05:25Z

Not advocacyâ¦

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 14 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Issue Definition==		= Issue Definition =

	Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the providers of these services decide to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process? Is there any notion of due process whatsoever?		Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the providers of these services decide to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process? Is there any notion of due process whatsoever?

	~~;Question~~		''Related:'' Is a website a place of "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?
	~~: The term~~ ''~~due process~~'' ~~implies an analogy to legal proceedings that may or may not be apt for all interactive media sites.~~
	~~: Are there more fitting terms~~ of ~~contractual or ethical obligation, explicit or implied promise, truth in advertising, or just plain good faith that might apply to~~ the ~~particular case~~?

	~~;Related~~		== Gmail ==
	~~: Is a website a place of "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?~~

	~~;Also~~
	~~: What rights do users have, or reasonably believe they have, with respect to the content they store, distribute, or publish via services like Gmail or Facebook?~~

	===Gmail===

	The main concern for users who are banned from Gmail would seem to be recovering the content stored in their account. Google does not appear to guarantee that they will allow a banned user to recover their content; at the same time, they could do so, apparently at their sole discretion. Are there any accounts of Google banning Gmail users, and if there are, what has been Google's disposition of the contents of their mailboxes?

	From GMail's [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en Terms of Service]		From GMail's [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en Terms of Service]
Line 29:		Line 19:
	8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...		8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...

	===Facebook===		== Facebook ==

	Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.		Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.

	A user banned from Facebook likely faces three concerns. The first is control over the continued publication of their material after the account has been banned, which depends on whether or not Facebook continues to publish content created from banned accounts. The second is access to private or semiprivate information either stored in the banned user's account itself, or in other Facebook accounts to which that user had access by virtue of Facebook's social-network-based security. The third is ongoing access to Facebook's social networking features.		== Wikipedia ==

	~~Facebook does not seem~~ to ~~discuss~~, ~~with anyone~~, ~~not even the banned user~~, ~~the reason for any bans it imposes~~, so the ~~risk of being defamed by Facebook by virtue of having been banned by them seems minimal~~.		Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively," i.e., to insult other users, or to post obscene or gratuitously explicit material. Arguably, this rule is also sometimes (though rarely) used to silence critics or further anger the blocked user.

	~~===Wikipedia===~~		Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds.

	~~;Questions~~
	: Are Encyclopedias like Butter or Orange Juice? That is, does the use of the term "encyclopedia", in conjunction with valorized terms like "knowledge" and "policy", constitute a claim of "suitability for a particular purpose", all fine-print disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding?
	~~: Are users of Wikipedia solely responsible for their expectations that Wikipedia Management will maintain "knowledge" and operate according to their advertised "policies"?~~
	: Or does the Wikimedia Foundation incur a legal obligation to conduct its operations in specific ways by dint of its advertising, fund-raising, and promotional activities, all of which it does under a tax-advantaged status?

	Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.

	Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. Given that the so-called "courtesy" is typically extended arbitrarily, without consultation, and even against the request of the user in question, it may be seen as a measure to protect the actions of Wikipedia management from open scrutiny. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds.

	Wikipedia's "Arbitrators" have been quite consistent over the years in insisting that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process does not guarantee "due process", and have consistently said that attempting to do so would hinder, rather than assist, their function. However, recently Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, took the Arbitration Committee, in its entirety, to task for making and publishing a decision (to remove certain privileges from a user) that "not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/], suggesting that at least Mr. Godwin believes that Wikipedia should offer some semblance of due process within its community governance scheme. However, there is, as of yet, no indication that Wikipedia's community desires for its dispute resolution process to ensure due process to disputants. At least one external commentator[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207760] mentioned the remote possibility of someone bringing legal action against Wikipedia via a mechanism similar to a New York Article 78 proceeding.		Wikipedia's "Arbitrators" have been quite consistent over the years in insisting that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process does not guarantee "due process", and have consistently said that attempting to do so would hinder, rather than assist, their function. However, recently Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, took the Arbitration Committee, in its entirety, to task for making and publishing a decision (to remove certain privileges from a user) that "not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/], suggesting that at least Mr. Godwin believes that Wikipedia should offer some semblance of due process within its community governance scheme. However, there is, as of yet, no indication that Wikipedia's community desires for its dispute resolution process to ensure due process to disputants. At least one external commentator[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207760] mentioned the remote possibility of someone bringing legal action against Wikipedia via a mechanism similar to a New York Article 78 proceeding.

	Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.		Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.

	~~;Comment 1~~
	~~: Re: "the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there"~~
	~~: This statement is not only false but exhibits a lack of familiarity with the realities of Wikipedian activities. [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)~~

	~~==Moot Court==~~

	As a lay observer of these discussions who found himself forced — beginning willy but mostly nilly some five years ago — to take an interest in the realities of Wikipedia politics and subculture, I find that most of the assertions that remote observers make about Wikipedia are pure and simple wishful thinking, dreamily detached from the concrete realities of what actually goes on there.

	The most typical excuse for "Due Process" that we find in Wikipedia is not conducted in the powdered wiggery of the Arbitration Committee, the kangaroo court of last resort, but commonly ends with the defendant hanging from one of the lower rungs of the dispute resolution ladder, often in effigy, though the results of the lynching are hardly improved by the presence of the celebrant.

	~~For instance, if you'll forgive me for citing a case that I have the most intimate acquaintance with:~~

	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134&oldid=78423288#User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam The Case of the Exploratory Spiel-Lurker]

	~~Signed, [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)~~

Jon Awbrey: /* Moot Court */

2010-01-13T04:14:50Z

Moot Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 13 January 2010
Line 58:		Line 58:
	==Moot Court==		==Moot Court==

	As a lay observer of these discussions who found himself forced — beginning willy but mostly nilly some five years ago — to take an interest in the realities of Wikipedia politics and subculture, I find that the ~~preponderance of~~ assertions that remote observers make about Wikipedia ~~amounts~~ pure and simple to wishful thinking, dreamily detached from the concrete realities of what actually goes on there.		As a lay observer of these discussions who found himself forced — beginning willy but mostly nilly some five years ago — to take an interest in the realities of Wikipedia politics and subculture, I find that most of the assertions that remote observers make about Wikipedia are pure and simple wishful thinking, dreamily detached from the concrete realities of what actually goes on there.

	The most typical excuse for "Due Process" that we find in Wikipedia is not conducted in the powdered wiggery of the Arbitration Committee, the kangaroo court of last resort, but commonly ends with the defendant hanging from one of the lower rungs of the dispute resolution ladder, often in effigy, though the results of the lynching are hardly improved by the presence of the celebrant.		The most typical excuse for "Due Process" that we find in Wikipedia is not conducted in the powdered wiggery of the Arbitration Committee, the kangaroo court of last resort, but commonly ends with the defendant hanging from one of the lower rungs of the dispute resolution ladder, often in effigy, though the results of the lynching are hardly improved by the presence of the celebrant.

Jon Awbrey: /* Moot Court */

2010-01-13T04:00:44Z

Moot Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 13 January 2010
Line 65:		Line 65:

	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134&oldid=78423288#User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam The Case of the Exploratory Spiel-Lurker]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134&oldid=78423288#User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam The Case of the Exploratory Spiel-Lurker]

			Signed, [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */

2010-01-13T04:00:05Z

Wikipedia

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ;Comment 1
 : Re: "the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there"
-: This statement is not only false but exhibits a complete lack of familiarity with the realities of Wikipedian activities.  [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
+: This statement is not only false but exhibits a lack of familiarity with the realities of Wikipedian activities.  [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */ + comments

2010-01-12T22:06:35Z

Wikipedia: + comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 12 January 2010
Line 51:		Line 51:

	Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.		Wikipedia is unlike Facebook or Gmail in the sense that there is essentially no way to store content on Wikipedia in a nonprivate way, most content stored on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whosoever (much of it even without having an account), and in any case, accounts are extremely easy to obtain. Therefore, the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there, and the damage caused by the loss of one's account rights are mostly reputational in nature and depend almost entirely on how readily one's account can be tied to one's identity, which at Wikipedia is entirely optional. This is entirely unlike Gmail, in which a user might have gigabytes of personal, nonreproduceable correspondence stored in the account, or Facebook, which strongly encourages people to provide sufficient information so as to personally identify themselves.

			;Comment 1
			: Re: "the loss of one's account does not significantly impair one's ability to access, alter, or remove any content one may have chosen to store there"
			: This statement is not only false but exhibits a complete lack of familiarity with the realities of Wikipedian activities. [[User:Jon Awbrey\|Jon Awbrey]] 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */

2010-01-12T14:50:25Z

Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 12 January 2010
Line 41:		Line 41:
	;Questions		;Questions
	: Are Encyclopedias like Butter or Orange Juice? That is, does the use of the term "encyclopedia", in conjunction with valorized terms like "knowledge" and "policy", constitute a claim of "suitability for a particular purpose", all fine-print disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding?		: Are Encyclopedias like Butter or Orange Juice? That is, does the use of the term "encyclopedia", in conjunction with valorized terms like "knowledge" and "policy", constitute a claim of "suitability for a particular purpose", all fine-print disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding?
	: Are users of Wikipedia solely responsible for their expectations that Wikipedia Management will maintain "knowledge" and operate according to their advertised "policies"? Or does the Wikimedia Foundation incur a legal obligation to conduct its operations in specific ways by dint of its advertising, fund-raising, and promotional activities, all of which it does under a tax-advantaged status?		: Are users of Wikipedia solely responsible for their expectations that Wikipedia Management will maintain "knowledge" and operate according to their advertised "policies"?
			: Or does the Wikimedia Foundation incur a legal obligation to conduct its operations in specific ways by dint of its advertising, fund-raising, and promotional activities, all of which it does under a tax-advantaged status?

	Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.		Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */ questions

2010-01-12T14:48:55Z

Wikipedia: questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 12 January 2010
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Wikipedia===		===Wikipedia===

			;Questions
			: Are Encyclopedias like Butter or Orange Juice? That is, does the use of the term "encyclopedia", in conjunction with valorized terms like "knowledge" and "policy", constitute a claim of "suitability for a particular purpose", all fine-print disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding?
			: Are users of Wikipedia solely responsible for their expectations that Wikipedia Management will maintain "knowledge" and operate according to their advertised "policies"? Or does the Wikimedia Foundation incur a legal obligation to conduct its operations in specific ways by dint of its advertising, fund-raising, and promotional activities, all of which it does under a tax-advantaged status?

	Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.		Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively". Given the fact that almost anything can and will be described as "abuse", this is a distinction without a difference. The practical effect is to quell criticism and quash anything that might be considered a right of reply.

Kelly Martin: /* Facebook */ expand facebook

2010-01-11T23:45:20Z

Facebook: expand facebook

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 11 January 2010
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.		Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/facebook_banish.html] In the site's [http://www.facebook.com/help/#/help/?faq=15875 help center], an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.

			A user banned from Facebook likely faces three concerns. The first is control over the continued publication of their material after the account has been banned, which depends on whether or not Facebook continues to publish content created from banned accounts. The second is access to private or semiprivate information either stored in the banned user's account itself, or in other Facebook accounts to which that user had access by virtue of Facebook's social-network-based security. The third is ongoing access to Facebook's social networking features.

			Facebook does not seem to discuss, with anyone, not even the banned user, the reason for any bans it imposes, so the risk of being defamed by Facebook by virtue of having been banned by them seems minimal.

	===Wikipedia===		===Wikipedia===

Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1267401600

Jon Awbrey: Undo revision 745 by 8.24.3.117 (Talk)

8.24.3.117: Not advocacyâ¦

Jon Awbrey: /* Moot Court */

Jon Awbrey: /* Moot Court */

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */ + comments

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */

Jon Awbrey: /* Wikipedia */ questions

Kelly Martin: /* Facebook */ expand facebook

8.24.3.117: Not advocacyâ¦