Comments on: Why Wikipedia News Works

By: Delia

Delia — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:44:01 +0000

Jon, I just came up with that example to make it clear why I didn’t find your definition for a publisher on the web to be accurate. But it’s no big deal to me… (just a theoretical issue…) Good luck with PONAR! D.

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:36:17 +0000

I’d be surprised if your publishing software lacked that feaure. I know I risk being seen as a free-speech heretic (I am more of a “realist”) by saying this, but there are certain types of speech which are unprotectable and are thus deemed for removal. They mostly include copyright violations, though as you know with PONAR I am including sexual slander as well.

Not that if you can’t remove it yourself, and if the content is a copyright violation, your ISP can shut your site down as part of the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

(I realize, too, that I am a bit of a heretic to the citmedia movement for pushing the point that responsibilities come with rights. But I think that Jimbo Wales and Craig Newmark understand this– through their everyday attention to their respective trolls– though I could be wrong.)

By: Delia

Delia — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:39:10 +0000

re: ” But when it comes down to a question of authority, they have the sole ability to remove content”

well… not necessarily, at least it doesn’t seem so to me: the ability to remove content seems to be *additional* to the basic function of a publisher on the web: say I used software that allowed me to post on my blog but not to remove any content (no deletions, no alterations) — would that make me NOT a publisher? D.

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:00:42 +0000

Ah, semantics. Obviously a publisher has many responsibilities. But when it comes down to a question of authority, they have the sole ability to remove content. A censor, by contrast, only has that single authority.

By: Delia

Delia — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:16:38 +0000

Jon, that’s a *publisher* on the web in your view? I could have sworn that was the definition of a censor … (re: “The person with the ability to remove content”) D.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:30:17 +0000

Interesting distinction…

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:22:09 +0000

re:
For the most part, the people exercising the authority are able to do so by general agreement in the community, not by fiat.

I don’t believe that’s the case, or if it is, a significant difference. In any democratic system (this era we’re living in nonwithstanding), an authority figure simply cannot go on ignoring the will of the community.

Certainly, the distinction with Wikipedia is that the editor-authority does not assign articles to be written by particular individuals. They do have lockdown privileges. (In a recent discussion about PONAR, one of your fellow Fellows asked me what I meant by “publisher” on the web. I explained, “The person with the ability to remove content.”)