On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As Wikipedia is becoming more and more a regular part of our > civilization, we may expect more and more regular behavior. We already > had malicious legal attacks in UK, Germany and France (I remember > those three issues). I'm aware of these, and other legal threats as well. By building a position with significant holes, and attribution issue > is still a significant hole, we are making unsustainable construction. My assessment is different from yours. > > If we have, let's say, 10.000.000 of contributors and 1% of them > (100.000) is not happy with Wikipedia because of any reason and 1% of > them (1000) want to sue WMF or whoever and 1% of them can do it, we'll > have 10 big problems. We may fail in just 10% of the cases and we'll > suffer from significant consequences. This is a version of Pascal's Wager. I don't really believe, however, the risk is even as high as you suggest here. We'll be fine. > After the first couple of such processes Wikipedia > recommendations would loose any credibility. I don't consider this a significant risk. > BUT, if you think that there is no reasonable threat to be sued for > "misleading recommendations", it doesn't cost a lot to try that way. > Fixing credibility is much less dangerous than loosing two years > budget. I don't think there's any reasonable threat of this sort. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
