Thanks for plugging PC RfC3. I don't know if it's right to call it "final" since policy is never immutable, but it's the final one before we go live with PC level 1 on December 1. Let me know if you have any questions if you are going to do a piece on what PC level 1 is about. Gigs (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although you mention the selection of a three-member commission to resolve any disputes concerning the upcoming election, I don't see any reference in this issue to the upcoming Arbitration Committee election itself. Given that the deadline for candidates to sign up will expire before the next Signpost appears, I wonder if it is possible to do anything to rectify that. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"can be subject to claims from competitors or government authorities": what kind of claims by government authorities? This in my mind is the crucial question, whether such edits are being interpreted by anyone as "illegal", or merely as grounds to be sued by a competitor. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US the FTC has the burden of proof in their enforcement actions, which are civil actions. Generally the FTC seeks injunctions, but under limited circumstances can seek monetary relief. Violations of FTC regulations do not, by themselves, create a cause of action for private lawsuits, but private lawsuits sometimes follow FTC actions.
So to answer your question, it's kind of both. You can be sued by the FTC, customers, or competitors. It's generally not a criminal matter, so I guess it depends on how you define "illegal". All my comments are in relation to the US. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the ruling "complicates" the debate is pure spin on your part. It seems to me to simplify it very nicely: violating the bright line rule puts you at legal risk. I realise some PR people won't like it, but that's completely different from being in any way complicated. I would like you to detail precisely how it makes it more complicated, rather than simpler - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read on your blog, "In Germany you could be prosecuted, and in Britain your competitors may be able to sue you for it" - I thought it was the other way round. Anyway, your statement, "The Signpost article claims with no justification that the ruling “complicates” the issue of COI editing, rather than making it much simpler, i.e. damn well listen to us and don’t do it." is correct. The ruling complicates the issue only for advcocates of corporate editing. --Gnom (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I misunderstand the German ruling, didn't the decision lat considerable emphasis on the fact that the German firm edited anonymous, as an aggravating factor? DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think you're right. But I don't see the ruling as a particularly viable or practical or, indeed, meaningful in the bigger picture. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't turn out to be the precursor to further judicial judgements, either rendering this one as an aberration or modifying it into oblivion. Aside from the multijurisdictional nightmare, the edits are impossible to police; and there are several boundaries the court thinks can be made in practical terms, but that are clearly as boldly etched as fog. So why indulge in the pretence in the first place? For similar reasons, I'm uncomfortable with Jimbo's anti-paid-editing line: it's just unrealistic, even though I'd sooner have zero tolerance for PE on foundation sites if we could identify PE. [PS, Gnom was responsible for the lion's share of the article ... kudos to him. We did help with surface editing and some niggles and conceptual queries, which Gnom dealt with admirably, I believe.] Tony(talk) 11:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Yes, the judgment does emphasise that the edits were made anonymously. But then it also says that noone ever reads the talk pages. So, who ever reads the history? Even fewer people. So if the edits were made from an account that clearly states the business context, the average reader would still not see that part of the article was written by or for a company. I belive that this judgment will in fact be used as a precedent for injunctions in similarly controversial areas where paid editing is used to promote business, thinking of regulated industries like pharmaceutics. --Gnom (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peoples' own interests affect what we think, what we do, and, inevitably, what we write. It is not a character flaw; it is a fact of life. It is true even if for the most honorable, fair-minded person. It is even truer of someone whose duty is to advance the interests of a client or employer.
Just today, I read a post by respected legal blogger. Unlike what he usually writes, this post began with an obviously one-sided statement of the issue in a judicial decision. I suspected from that first line that he or his law firm represented the party that this statement favored. The rest of the piece analyzed why the decision was wrong, with no explanation of why a unanimous 3-judge court decided decided the way it did. At the very end, the author disclosed that his firm was hired to appeal the decision. I read the case myself. Not only did the author slant what he said, but he left out material that any fair report of the decision would include. If that blog post were a Wikipedia article or stub, disclosure of the author's COI still would not give a reader a fair summary of the decision.
The German court was correct to base its decision on what a typical reader would assume and expect. That should be the basis of our policies as well.—Finell03:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I understand that you agree with the court and my reading of the judgment. Actually, I originally considered including a note in my post stating that the law firm I work for has nothing to do with the judgment (although I plan to discuss it with my media law colleagues in one of our next meetings, because, inter alia, it affects how we advise our clients on their social media policies). --Gnom (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done NE Ent 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC) mutter, mutter, what am I now, NYB's personal clerk?
← Back to News and notes