I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protections under the Act. I don't know that it does, but I think it may, or may head in that direction.
By the way, and by comparison, the federal courts require individual attorney accounts for use of the online filing system (called Pacer), so that an individual attorney must take responsibility for her or his pleadings, and can't hide behind a firm account. Of course, you can always locate an individual attorney, and determine what firm they work for. John Sinclair -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Plourde Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:15 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email and provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users. ________________________________ From: Pharos <[email protected]> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort. Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many other websites. Thanks, Pharos On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask the > person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block > and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The notion > that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[email protected]> > >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hoi, >> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think >> are >> > valuable.. >> > >> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum >> article >> > on Commons >> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the >> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work. >> > >> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference >> > ... I would like to know more good examples.. >> >> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked. >> >> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they >> speaking for the company? >> >> -- >> John Vandenberg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
