" The data of the Wikivoices interviews were never lost. It was not given to Gregory on his request. It will be either published publicly or not published at all. This has been said before and it is now said again. Thanks, GerardM "
Gerard, do you know the reason why the recording would be "not published at all"? What is the fear of posting the raw audio file?
What is being hidden? Which person or persons are in possession of the raw audio file?
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute. Is that the problem? With no other data or logic to support any theory here, I have to only assume that the Foundation is involved in this suppression of the recording. I do note that nobody OFFICIALLY from the Foundation board or staff has publicly assured us that no board or staff member has acted to suppress publication of Episode # 45.
At least when Jimmy Wales was accused by Danny Wool of some questionable Muscovite receipts, Sue Gardner got on CNET video news to assure us that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong." We have no similar assurances regarding Wikivoices Episode # 45. All we have are the e-mails which I hold that support a strong degree of fishy business going on behind the scenes. This hasn't been said before, but I'll be happy to say it again, if repetition will help it sink into any particularly thick skulls.
Greg
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Kohs[email protected] wrote:
" The data of the Wikivoices interviews were never lost. It was not given to Gregory on his request. It will be either published publicly or not published at all. This has been said before and it is now said again. Thanks, GerardM "
Gerard, do you know the reason why the recording would be "not published at all"? What is the fear of posting the raw audio file?
What is being hidden? Which person or persons are in possession of the raw audio file?
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute. Is that the problem? With no other data or logic to support any theory here, I have to only assume that the Foundation is involved in this suppression of the recording. I do note that nobody OFFICIALLY from the Foundation board or staff has publicly assured us that no board or staff member has acted to suppress publication of Episode # 45.
At least when Jimmy Wales was accused by Danny Wool of some questionable Muscovite receipts, Sue Gardner got on CNET video news to assure us that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong." We have no similar assurances regarding Wikivoices Episode # 45. All we have are the e-mails which I hold that support a strong degree of fishy business going on behind the scenes. This hasn't been said before, but I'll be happy to say it again, if repetition will help it sink into any particularly thick skulls.
Greg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm pretty sure the reason it hasn't been released has nothing to do with malice or officially suppressing the record. I think it has more to do with laziness (or lack of time) on part of those who do possess the recording. Unprofessional? Sure. Would I want them to handle an election debate again? Nope. Do I think they're purposefully suppressing release of this? Probably not.
-Chad
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]:
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute. Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]:
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
disrepute.
Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable.
I'll do the publishing, if that's the problem. I'm in the United States, so I'm protected by Section 230 of the CDA.
2009/8/25 Anthony [email protected]:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]:
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
disrepute.
Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable.
I'll do the publishing, if that's the problem. I'm in the United States, so I'm protected by Section 230 of the CDA.
I suggest you run that by a lawyer, my understanding of the CDA is that is isn't that broad.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
2009/8/25 Anthony [email protected]:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected] wrote:
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]:
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
disrepute.
Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable.
I'll do the publishing, if that's the problem. I'm in the United States,
so
I'm protected by Section 230 of the CDA.
I suggest you run that by a lawyer, my understanding of the CDA is that is isn't that broad.
Nah, I promise, I'll publish it. I've read enough case law to be confident that I couldn't be successfully sued for publishing that audio recording. I also trust Greg not to engage in slander, frankly. And I'm pretty much judgement-proof anyway.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
I'm a user of an interactive computer service, and the information was provided by another information content provider.
By the way, has Batzel v. Smith been overturned? If so, maybe I'll reconsider. If not, bring it on. Maybe I can even get the EFF to defend me.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
2009/8/25 Anthony [email protected]:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected] wrote:
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]:
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
disrepute.
Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable.
I'll do the publishing, if that's the problem. I'm in the United
States, so
I'm protected by Section 230 of the CDA.
I suggest you run that by a lawyer, my understanding of the CDA is that is isn't that broad.
Nah, I promise, I'll publish it. I've read enough case law to be confident that I couldn't be successfully sued for publishing that audio recording. I also trust Greg not to engage in slander, frankly. And I'm pretty much judgement-proof anyway.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
I'm a user of an interactive computer service, and the information was provided by another information content provider.
Hoi, There is no reason to not publish it I am aware off. It is not for me to decide what is published but as I am one of the people who was interviewed I may and I do object when any publication is not public.
As to something being hidden. You were at the interview so you know there is nothing that needs hiding. So suggest all you like, we both were there and now the suggestion of something that cannot meet the public eye is rediculous..
Your suggestions that it has anything to do with the WMF the WMF Office is ridiculous and again you know it. When you need assurances that nothing underhand has gone on, I am certainly not as charming as Sue, but I am equally willing to assure you and anything interested that this is the question. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs [email protected]
" The data of the Wikivoices interviews were never lost. It was not given to Gregory on his request. It will be either published publicly or not published at all. This has been said before and it is now said again. Thanks, GerardM "
Gerard, do you know the reason why the recording would be "not published at all"? What is the fear of posting the raw audio file?
What is being hidden? Which person or persons are in possession of the raw audio file?
I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute. Is that the problem? With no other data or logic to support any theory here, I have to only assume that the Foundation is involved in this suppression of the recording. I do note that nobody OFFICIALLY from the Foundation board or staff has publicly assured us that no board or staff member has acted to suppress publication of Episode # 45.
At least when Jimmy Wales was accused by Danny Wool of some questionable Muscovite receipts, Sue Gardner got on CNET video news to assure us that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong." We have no similar assurances regarding Wikivoices Episode # 45. All we have are the e-mails which I hold that support a strong degree of fishy business going on behind the scenes. This hasn't been said before, but I'll be happy to say it again, if repetition will help it sink into any particularly thick skulls.
Greg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l