Law.com went to a handful of lawyers to the startup stars to get their unofficial advice on how Craigslist could might have behaved better with counsel in-house, such as wrestling with eBay over the status of the few shares not held by Newmark and Buckmaster. Mike Godwin, general counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, offered that at his organization no one would blog about a lawsuit in progress, as Buckmaster did. Yes, take a lesson from a lawyer who represents the organization founded by über-slut Jimmy Wales: no matter how nutty Craig and Jim's actions are, having a legal team on the payroll to answer for them is the solution. (Photo: miketippett)

Any news organization struggles with covering itself, all the more so when, as with Wikinews, the authors are unpaid volunteers who do not report to anyone. But that difficulty makes the hamhanded approach the Wikimedia Foundation has taken all the worse. Contributor Jason Safoutin recently told Valleywag that Wikimedia administrators, acting at the behest of foundation lawyer Mike Godwin, deleted two articles he wrote, one on a legal case involving literary agent Barbara Bauer, and another looking into Wikimedia Foundation deputy director Erik Möller, the outspoken defender of pedophilia.

But let's return to Wales's supposed interest in the Mormon copyright fracas. Likely he's just concerned with protecting Wikimedia's legal position against the church's claim, which seems specious; the document in question was linked to by Wikinews but not published on the site.

But the document itself is intriguing. A set of directions for church leaders, it was written in part by Lorenzo Snow, who is an ancestor of Michael Snow. Snow, a devout Mormon, serves with Wales on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. On his Wikipedia user page, Snow maintains that he is a devotee of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" principle. But one wonders how he can stay neutral on this particular issue.

Or so says Wikimedia lawyer Mike Godwin, who recently posted this on a foundation mailing list:

I should add that there is a complicating factor with regard to Sec. 230, and that's that while simple removal is protected, it's unclear whether every court would agree that more subtle substantive editing is protected — by engaging in the development of the content of an article, the Foundation and its agents or employees may unintentionally negate Sec. 230 immunity, depending on the scope and substance of the editing. That's a legal question that I'm studiously avoiding investing the Foundation's donated funds in finding an answer to. I'd rather see a richer defendant sort that one out for us.

Marsden, who is seeking to have her biography removed from Wikipedia altogether, writes:

It would appear that the approach you describe directly contradicts the spirit of the CDA, which claims that Internet providers are merely providing a blank bulletin board, where people can post whatever they want. That is only true, however, insofar as the owners of the bulletin board do not interfere with what is posted there. It is my understanding, based on extensive legal consultation, that the moment they decide to take action regarding postings, they are liable for everything that is on it.

Jimmy Wales, my ex-boyfriend and Wikimedia Board member, admits publicly to having my article altered. In other words, he is admitting that he is essentially responsible for the content of the bulletin board—he can influence what it says, and the law says that since he can, he should. In other words, the safe harbour—I am not responsible for what people post on my bulletin board—goes right out the window.

But the question isn't so much Marsden's page, or her individual case. If she does not test the law, someone else will. The larger question is whether Wikipedia loses its legal protections if its board members or employees involve themselves in any way in the editing of the site. The answer may well lie in the courts, thanks to Wales's thoughtless actions. If that happens, Wikipedia will not be the better off for it. But why should Wales care? He got his fling.

Doran's criminal record actually spans four states — Florida, Virginia, Maryland and Texas — and includes theft, petty larceny, more DUIs, passing bad checks, and shooting her boyfriend in the chest. One of Doran's DUIs, a hit and run, resulted in a fatality.

At Wikimedia, Doran rose to COO after starting as a temp. As COO, she had control over much of Wikimedia's finances, an audit of which — due in September — is still pending. "We've never had any documentation of any criminal record on Carolyn Doran's part at all," foundation lawyer Mike Godwin told the Register. How soon until somebody creates a Wikipedia entry and uploads Doran's legal docs? That might help Godwin out.