RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation

Not to be confused with the Mod noticeboard or RationalWiki:Technical support.

Boardroom lobby Welcome, BoN Use this talk page to bring matters to the attention of the board of trustees, discuss meta matters relevant to mission of the wiki, and to give input on the strategic direction of the wiki. The RationalMedia trustees are: Spud • ApooftGnegiol • DuceMoosolini • Cosmikdebris • Ephrom • Tmtoulouse (operations manager)

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

, (new)

The return of the revenge of the "Are you guys doing okay?" - Version 2.0 (Now in GLORIOUS technicolour!!!)

@Cosmikdebris, Spud, DuceMoosolini, Shabidoo, GeeJayK, and Tmtoulouse

So, uh, yeah. How... how you guys keepin'?

It's been 12 months since I last peeped this place. Any uh... meetings recently? Amongst the Board Members? Any minutes? Tax forms? Fundraising?

Also, @ApooftGnegiol. I guess you are a Board Member now? Congratulations! Or do elections need to take place for it to be made official? I see that campaigning took place. Will there be anything else done with the election?

Peace. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 04:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing happened since campaigning ended; I left a note earlier on the 2023 election results page saying it's time to update things (e.g. as done in 2022 for a likewise uncontested outcome). Later I decided to wait to see if there's any interest in doing anything, before putting more time into this.

There's one more thing I've arrived at since, which would be good to do for the wiki. It lacks the StopForumSpam extension, unlike some other wikis I'm familiar with, and I now think this may be why there's long been a burden of spambot registrations here which are not on the other wikis. I'd now suggest adding it alongside removing the useless captcha. Whenever some action is possible so as to get going working with the software installation. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any email where I can describe and request a removal for GDPR reasons?

Anon727273663 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the RationalWiki:Legal FAQ. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's that time of the year, isn't it?

So, I haven't really been active this month because reality is a bitch. I thought that you guys were already getting worked up about this amazing moment when we had to find volunteers to be part of the board, but to my surprise, this page is pretty dead. Should we start then? @Cosmikdebris sorry for putting this burden on your back, but could you do your magic? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The Trustees really needs a 'secretary' position to keep shit ticking over and know where the figurative keys/chequebook/stopcock is. That scare earlier this year where we almost died due to Trent not paying the server bill really shouldn't have happened [was also unfair, as they were paying the tab personally for ages] was dodged, but then everyone apparently went back to sleep quicker than you could say 'complacency'. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think everyone forgot that the yearly RMF election was supposed to be prepared early July. By now, seems best to place it a month later, nominations opening early August instead of early July.

As for what current board members are up to, all the discussion has ended up on Discord. There was a first main meeting late 2023, with minutes available, but such are lacking for the follow-up ones, which have been fairly frequent but often not very well-attended (sometimes turning out only a discussion among the 2 or 3 who attended on rescheduling so more can meet), and usually amounting to discussing what we'd like to do without being able to get things moving (because it depends on receiving answers from people who are busy or unavailable). Time easily goes by with little done for a group in such a situation.

Bad news, the email account long ago set up for official purposes was suspended because Trent simply didn't take action to keep it active and ownership of it had stayed with him (no one knew to do anything about those two things before it happened). No new news on that as of the last meeting. So no one knows whether things like the official non-profit status of the organization is in order, since all incoming email (including responses to that filing) has simply been lost for now.

Good news, Cosmikdebris and maybe myself later may get server access. He's kind of busy, unfortunately, so little seems to happen over the summer. But the new "planned changes" page has been made in preparation for getting going and improving how the MediaWiki software is configured. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Better less late than more, so I set things up for 2024 nominations today. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, the priority should be getting a working email, server access, ensure legal compliance, etc as these things are the most critical for RWs survival. Next step (I assume) is to document everything so if a key person vanishes (for example, a sudden death) so we won't have pick up from the start. Lastly, I think it might be an idea for the RMF to be a bit more public in their thinking/needs - the former so we know that shit is happening and the latter that non-trustees might very well be able to help (fix issues, give suggestions etc). KarmaPolice (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Money pot

So the donation link currently goes to a fund primarily dedicated to server upkeep, yes? Wouldn't it be prudent to set up a legal fund as well? We should probably set up a banner for that, too, once it's set up. Carthage (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need two pots of money. Just clarify the donation page and descriptions for future fundraisers to indicate that the donations will be used for keeping the servers online and legal expenses (and whatever foundation-related expenses that may arise). —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree in the respect the server fund perhaps should be renamed something like 'general upkeep fund' which includes the server fees but also stuff like the media insurance premiums BobJ mentioned at the Bar, paying for routine software updates [if we can't find a volunteer to do it, hire someone to!] and I feel perhaps even having a small retainer to someone simply to handle the admin stuff [like, say answering the bleeding RW emails and ensuring legal compliance?]. I get these are gonna require RW having a longer shoestring but I think it's gotten to the point we can't afford to continue not doing this stuff.

But if RW is going into a particular bit of lawfare it would seem wise to have a different, separate fund for that, just like say, an animal nonprofit might set up a separate fund to fundraise for a new stable block or replacement for the van. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take for the 'Donations so far' to update? Not showing my (admittedly small) contribution to show: over 24 hours now. Scream!! (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for it updating slower than usual. It's manual, it was set up that way in the current absence of "real" software to interface with PayPal and show numbers. I've sent a message to the treasurer and it'll be updated later today. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RationalWiki has been sued

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello editors and readers of RationalWiki,

This August, we were sued by one Nassim Haramein due to an article we had written about him. Regardless of the merits of his case, at this time, nobody on the board or named in the lawsuit has the time available to research solutions to this and endure a legal fight, so, for the time being, we have deleted the article in question and also hidden all revisions and logs from public view. We have also prevented the article from being recreated.

This decision is not final. We are in the process of contacting various legal aid organizations to see what we can do about countering this lawsuit. Until we hear back from them, the article will stay down.

These actions are an official decision by the Board of Directors. No moderator or tech may undo them.

Sincerely

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not discuss Nassim Haramein himself in your responses to this post. We got sued precisely because he didn't like what we had to say about him on this site. Regardless of what you think of him or his case, the Board doesn't want to give more ammunition to him.

Two questions. I've always wondered why his page would be taken down AFTER he sued. Presumably the worst has already happened, and hiding it only makes it look like there IS actionable stuff in it. Two, this was NOT done with Kent Hoviad. (or however you spell his name) What changed here? Revolverman (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

In practice, nothing. The current makeup of the Board is just more spineless than last time, and more importantly, the people who did all the work for us to weather previous lawsuits (Trent and David Gerard) aren't really available to do that anymore. This is a volunteer-run organization, and the Board simply doesn't have the quality of volunteers we need right now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My one comment for now is that it's a pity that New Mexico's anti-SLAPP suit laws are quite weak. BobJohnson (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there's no shortage of motherfuckers who wanna sue us. Let's hope this doesn't create a precedent. Carthage (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in the American court system, the RationalWiki foundation itself, as well as operators of the platform, should be protected of user-generated content via Section 230. So I'm a bit surprised by the board's decision here. It's as if the Foundation can't afford any legal help now?

"Ya said not to", BUT I will note that the lawsuit seemed to have come about when a user added an edit describing Haramein's history of suing his critics. So, yeah, I don't like the "look" here, especially given that while New Mexico's anti-SLAPP laws are weak, New Mexico has a pretty decent "plantiff pays court costs for frivolous lawsuits solely intended for harassment" law.[1] BobJohnson (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also don't like it, as a current board member not named in the lawsuit. The timing with that article edit may be a coincidence. Apparently, some legal threat was sent months earlier, a cease-and-desist letter I haven't seen. It may have been lost email, or maybe Trent did receive it in some form, I currently don't know. Later came a kind of, "we filed this lawsuit, and we have an offer we think you should accept to make it all go away" shared with the board where I can't publicly disclose details at present while it's considered. But in reading the legal text, some things look plain weird, and I think the lawsuit could be challenged successfully if only the effort was made. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As for timing, it could be that ours was/is the top search result on Google. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The complaint for damages actually mentions "appears at the top of Google search results" in the US. Just before it mentions "has cost Mr. Haramein millions of dollars of lost investments in his private companies, and millions of dollars of lost donations to his non-profit organizations." There's affidavits about the latter too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree, it sets a bad precedent if this isn't challenged [assuming that the suit has no real legal grounds]. I am going to assume here that's is perfectly fine to say, let possibly sympathetic persons online know of this? Plus, consider starting a 'fighting fund' donation campaign. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if you think you can contact other people or organizations for help, please do. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of also general 'kicking up a stink'. There are gonna be people who realistically can't do any more than that [I mean, the only legal bod I know is in English law and retired, so useless]. Ideally, push won't come to shove but it if does getting the word out that said shove is happening might be wise... KarmaPolice (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there no lawyers currently active on the wiki? Carthage (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Obligatory "this is not legal advice" but for possible future reference, it seems to me the SPEECH Act could cover certain cases filed abroad (which does not apply here). Chillpilled (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency; I have suppressed the page history at the request of the Board. If need be, we can pin this to the bar for a while? -- Techpriest (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's more than just finding a lawyer, it's finding a lawyer who's a member of the bar association in New Mexico where the suit was filed. Electronic Frontier Foundation might at least be able to give initial advice. Bongolian (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The good news is, this is in the US court system, so fuck whoever, it is impossible to say any amount of argument, let alone sourced argument, is not allowed. Any jokes, this site also has satire protections. This is a dumb lawsuit, it will be massively difficult to move forward. I understand the private archiving. It's not hiding it, if that's a concern. Hiding it from the public site that made it? It's now a legal thing and evidence and it must not change from what is documented as evidence for court, fucking with it is the incorrect move. And when this all blows over, maybe Barbara Streisand will finally shake the heat. Torrent (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the Board should look over the offending page and compare to what the suer has complained about first [if they've not done already]. Chances are, the will be no merit in the case but it's one of those things that doing a 'are you really sure?' check before engaging in battle is wise [I mean, they might merely object to one single line/claim which in fact there isn't any evidence to back up or warrant as 'honest opinion']. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a list of things the suer takes issue with. The short version is, almost every claim in the article making the suer's claims seem questionable is listed. The article was not one of RW's best, it was somewhat rough, lacking in detail. I've yet to look into all the details, though I've looked into some. Key questions for the suer include, but are not limited to: is the suer's work properly peer-reviewed or not? Do mainstream scientists dismiss his work or not? Is a particular paper debunked or not (I've found the things linked in the article's older refs on that, despite even web.archive.org having now had them scrubbed)? And on and on. Note that opining on whether such claims are true or false, at least if you do it in a way the suer dislikes, attracts legal attention here and across the web.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: The suer claims that after a time in March this year, the article was sneakily edited in a way not reflected in the history or "fossil record" as RW labels it. I've checked web.archive.org, and snapshots currently present there, made in January and June this year disprove the allegation. (Only a single grammar fix was made between the two.) This is among the few truly "weird" things that really stand out in the lawsuit's claims. (I'm currently guessing that Nassim's lawyers have a hand in web.archive.org removing snapshots of some other things, but hopefully this evidence will remain in place while this matter is ongoing.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, none of the above should really matter much IMHO for this case. Section 230 is pretty clear cut: in the United States, barring various illegal material, you can't sue a platform for user-generated content. Wikipedia gets sued for defamation all the time, and by and large, because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, US cases are largely a non-starter.[2] Hell, defamation cases even for places like Kiwi Farms are a non-starter in the United States. So I like Bongolian's advice regarding reaching out to the EFF, as this type of thing tends to be their "bread and butter" (same with the ACLU). (As a long shot, maybe even the Wikimedia Foundation for advice only?)

Unfortunately, in a state with weak anti-SLAPP laws, you still have to "lawyer up" to combat even weak cases, which costs some combination of time and money. Anti-SLAPP laws (when implemented well) are specifically designed to protect small publishers and individuals from nuisance suits that threaten free speech rights. There's a small Youtube guy who recently did a video critique of Haramein. It is most likely much more immune to SLAPP suit type stuff, because: A) The platform (Google) most certainly has a well-sized legal department that is well aware of Section 230, and B) The individual in question is from Texas, which actually has decent anti-SLAPP laws. BobJohnson (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So, without getting into the weeds, basically the suer objects to the page, period? And yeah, lawyering up is a standard mechanism, even if to write a couple of legaleese letters to 'see the suer off'. One thing I am ignorant of; is the archive.org takedowns a proper memory-holing or simply being taken out of being accessed? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and if we settle instead, his person and works will basically become a taboo subject for the future of RationalWiki as a consequence. On archive.org removed pages, for an example see[3] (for an older source which was used in the article), which simply says "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." at present. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

'Not my field' but would a placeholder statement '[Name] born [date], resident [country] is a [profession]' be allowed? (ie 'A statement of fact cannot be insolent'). Anna Livia (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

it is also against John Doe 1-7 and John Doe 8-1000. They have no idea who they are suing, aside from the people who run but don't own the server space, and then hopefully a thousand people who have used it. It's such a strange legal tantrum, but there is advice when seeking legal advice. And it's just Jurassic Park, 'How can I do this?' Not 'should I do this?' Torrent (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That's another weird thing. Well, no. 1–7 are current and former RMF board trustees, identified in the lawsuit by their RW usernames. No. 8–1000 are anonymous RW users "presently unknown to Plaintiff". The lawsuit alleges that each of no. 1–1000 have "edited" the article the suer takes issue with. Apparently they've gone by the edit history of the article. But it doesn't add up – first of all because the article had less than 340 edits prior to being censored (and you can still see and count these lines now as ones with crossed-out details here). Furthermore, many editors make more than 1 edit. In other words, the lawyers thought it would look impressive to sue an extra order of magnitude or so of anonymous folks. Also, a portion of edits were reverted ones, including by fans of the suer. So now I imagine some courtroom scene in which it's pointed out, "your honor, most of these defendants are imaginary". --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important for the only named defendent to be strong on the suit, and it really sucks if he doesn't have the money to get to court and defend himself. I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but he does not need to extradite himself to blow off this civil law suit, and I hate myself for using the term absolute nothingburger, but the case against fits the language. How do we create a legal a defense that avoids 1000 misplaced lawsuits in New Mexico? It's a lay-up but it might cost consultation hours. It could take longer if we just blow it off, and I don't think it would necessarily escalate to a US Court that is FOR the Pursuant, who is not actually in trouble. Send legal representation, I would hope the rat wiki fund would not cost so much as to make this impossible. It can't be personal wealth that must be put up to defend this site, it's supposed to have the money to fight it. They already got our donations, that's what everybody already does. Torrent (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the named defendant left it up to the rest of the board to decide what to do in response. I think time is more significant than money for him here. He's the guy who's mostly been absent the past years, seldom in touch with the rest of the board. Earlier in this discussion thread, I mentioned a weird claim in the lawsuit where it alleges some shadowy editing of the article leaving no history. There's evidence to firmly disprove that this occurred in the timeframe alleged. But anyway, the lawsuit alleges that the named defendant performed this imaginary editing of the article, and I think he could get himself out of it all quite easily if the rest of us decide to go ahead with a legal fight. I think if the board musters the courage for a legal fight (depending largely on having some help, because time is the no. 1 resource lacking), the claims won't stand a stance. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is, by the way, a link that explains what Rational wiki is up against. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/54534779/Haramein_v_Rationalwiki_Foundation,_Inc_et_al a lawyer who works with a firm called named 'late night law'. Maybe we throw the case and sue every news outlet that can't source their cuckoo bananas takes. It is an impossible case, only a piss baby would get scammed to work with a lawyer who says 'I'll take a piss baby case' I dunno who exactly would be a piss baby, but I know which kinda lawyer they would hire. Torrent (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

But the issue is that even Lionel Hutz'es win cases if they're not defended. The RMF needs to draw up a plan of action with Trent on how it shall be defended - we don't need details as such, but at least the showing of some white smoke that they do have a plan and said wheels are turning [I also think some gustimates of cost is gonna be part of this].

Anyway, I'm unfamiliar with the American legal system - is there actually going to be a trial, or is there a kind of pre-trial 'filtering' where the judge simply reads the docs from each side and rules there and then if there's enough to warrant a trial? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

One side can ask the judge for summary judgement, which is what you described where the judge rules based on the available evidence. But if the judge feels that the case can't be adequately addressed without a trial, then it goes to trial. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, doing nothing to represent oneself in court is the worst option since it gives the judge cause for summary judgment against oneself (RW in this case). Bongolian (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Trent here. This is not a case of the validity of the lawsuit, but of resources. Right now I have no wiggle room at all in my "time" and "effort" slots and the RMF has enough money to pay for its server costs. If we want to be in a position to fight off these kinds of lawsuits we need to expand our fundraising efforts. If the foundation was sitting on an endowment of $100k I would fight the fight and figure it out. There is also the fact that the article was just sorta meh, and not well sourced. If this was about a flagship page or something it might be different. If someone wants to pony up for legal fees I will find the space to lead the charge. Otherwise, we are probably stuck capitulating on this and maybe need to start thinking about options for building a legal defense fund nest egg. 2601:282:1F21:A5D0:959B:7D30:7E5:DA20 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

what is this? A ducking stupid possession horror flick? Trent can't talk here, that's stupid. Where does the money go, Trent? Torrent (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Man, debasebyorself. This is not a difficult case. Pick a DUI defense attorney NOW, they don't cost more than 3k and would love the win. You think Late Night Attorneys are worth 100k? They can at least meet the suit and push it back if time is the issue, all attorneys know how to do that. Torrent (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LOLWUT? This is not a DUI case. You'd want to pick a business defense attorney, ideally one who has knowledge of working with non-profits as well as Internet law. I wouldn't mind seeing an estimated "cost of defense" for this (if possible, it might not be). Obviously there's a difference between whether the site can collectively support a four figure attorney cost vs. six. The problem I've seen with these sort of cases is that they indeed can be expensive, sadly -- something that some small investigative reporting outlets have found out the hard way. Since my "first impression" is that this is more "open and shut" than most defamation cases due to Section 230, maybe the costs can be reduced, but "who knows".

In the future, I would consider having the board look into media liability insurance. Rationalwiki is not *that* different from, say, a non-profit news organization, and quick Googles indicate that there is some resources for that specific sort of org (though I haven't investigated deep nor have priced things out, just throwing out ideas).

I agree that the article was "meh" which doesn't help. It's pretty obvious what Haramein's "schtick" is, and the "schtick" fits Rationalwiki's mission well. Haramein is a little notable within his "schtick"... but otherwise, he is not notable at all outside of it. Certainly I had never heard of this guy until the lawsuit came up. At any rate... this makes writing a well-sourced article using outside analysis links (typical of most RW articles on living figures) impossible... critical analysis just doesn't exist about this guy (outside of one lawsuit-suppressed blog, social media comments, and a YouTube video). Any article written would have to be done using original research (which should be well sourced, of course, but in a different manner), making it a lot tougher to do well. (At least for hobbyist-contributors with time constraints, which is what you typically find in Wiki-spheres.) BobJohnson (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - just did a Google search (European filtering) and the first few pages consist of YT videos, postings to X/Twitter, things to do with manifesting, 'theory of everything' etc. And this and this for starters can be used to counter the claim. Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If RW's defence is as solid as some think it is and this 'summary judgement' thing is a thing - I don't think it will get to an actual trial. As this is a Federal Court, it means the person(s) writing the documents to be submitted don't need to be familiar with the individual state. This, I suspect means asking for an assist from the likes of the EFF, ACLU etc will be of more worth [because they are more likely to have someone who will be able to give a legal opinion on this and won't be extortionate]. Finding someone to do the actual trial if it turns out to be one is gonna be much more of a cost [but again, I'm no lawyer so take the above with a lump o salt].

The issue is that if RW caves on this simply due to lack of resources to fight it, I fear that it will simply open the floodgates to more pissed-off RW subjects filing nusance suits for a grand or two expecting us to cave again. So in my book this smells like to be one of those 'for the principle of the thing' fights [even if the article in question was a bit shit] because well, that principle is basically, what RW is. So I suspect that the 'total costs' of not resisting this will turn out ultimately to be higher than if do we resist. Perhaps a lot higher.

I second BobJ's idea of investigating some form of media liability insurance might be an idea. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I finally get to come back and there's a freaking lawsuit. Oh joy. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Why the fuck is Trent editing as a BoN? It’s unlikely that he has forgotten his credentials (and if he has, the account needs to be stripped of its powers), so my guess is 1. impersonation 2. He is engaged in sockpuppetry and is afraid of some how, some way being outed if he edits logged in, or 3. freaking laziness to the degree of ridiculousness. 15.220.17.4 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

New Mexico statute of limitations for defamation

In New Mexico, the state's civil statute of limitations is three years for personal injury and defamation. This means the filer of the lawsuit cannot do a thing about the edits before August 2021 (note the article was created in 2012). Viewing the article edit history the only edits he can take legal action against are from 8 November 2022 to 12 July 2024 since the defamation lawsuit was filed on 1 August 1, 2024. As noted by @BobJohnson above, the RationalWiki Foundation has immunity under section 230 of the CDA. The RationalWiki Foundation is not liable for third-party content. The lawsuit filer would instead have to identify the John Does who made the edits between 8 November 2022 and 12 July 2024, however, the filer could subpoena the RationalWiki Foundation to provide information that could identify them such as their IP addresses. On the other hand, it seems to filer has no clue about the statute of limitations. Filing against hundreds of John Does makes zero sense since those many other users who made edits was before August 2021. It looks like a frivolous claim. I am not sure why the article was deleted. That is not a good look seeming as you will get more vexatious litigants filing similar frivolous claims against RationalWiki if they see you quickly delete articles when sued. 103.50.33.243 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is practicality. Who is going to pay the lawyer to fight it? A basic retainer for defense against a defamation case like this would likely be in the $5k-$10k. That's up front. If someone is willing to pay the legal retainer I will find an attorney and get cracking. 2601:282:1F21:8BC3:F9BD:9EF1:3066:CB19 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, if it gets to trial. It might end up costing 5-10k but it's also likely to end up costing the suer this too, esp if their lawyer declines to do a no win/no fee on the private conclusion that the chances of the 'win' bit are slim indeed. It might also get thrown out before it gets to trial too. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If it goes to trial its $50k-$75k. The initial retainer, the due before we sign a representation agreement is $5k-$10k. Now if its an easy slam dunk we may not sue the whole retainer and get funds back. But the out-of-pocket cash needs to even get a defamation lawyer is at minimum $5k. Who is going to pay that? If no one is going to pay it we don't get a lawyer and we can't represent ourselves pro-se since we are a corporation. 2601:282:1F21:8BC3:F9BD:9EF1:3066:CB19 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

2601: My advice if you do not have the money is do not hire an attorney to save costs but file as a pro se a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The failure to state a claim should be the RationalWiki Foundation has immunity under section 230 of the CDA - it is not liable for third-party content. You can presumably download the motion to dismiss forms from the court website or download a free template from elsewhere to fill in. Ps. The filer's attorney is a recent law graduate who does not even have a website for his law firm (Late Night Law) which he is the only attorney; all he has is a personal webpage. If you search him online you find zero ratings by clients. The filer is probably his first client and as noted the attorney recently graduated from University of New Mexico School of Law. I could tell he is greatly inexperienced for writing "Does 8-1000" on the complaint which is laughable. 103.50.33.234 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@2601: you're right about no pro se for corporations but the complaint also lists you as a defendant. I see 4 defendants listed on the docket: John Doe 1-7, John Doe 8-1000, RW foundation and yourself.103.50.33.234 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before, but just as a more direct thought: the EFF has a legal assistance page and I think it would be good for someone on the board (heck, I'll even do it on behalf of the board if no one has time and if board members are okay with it) to mail the info@eff.org address with an explanation of the current situation, link to case, etc., with the purpose being to get a list of their "cooperating attorneys" in New Mexico. I doubt that this case is big enough for the EFF to get directly involved (if so, yay, but I really doubt it)... *but* RW is sort of in a unique place where we are a small non-profit wiki whose purpose is, in part, to document Internet disinformation / cranks, and it's possible that there are resources that can offer pro bono or reduced fee services for this type of Section 230 case. Particularly where there seems to be multiple compelling factors that are problematic in this lawsuit. I'm in the position where I *could* help (with enough notice) contribute to a significant chunk of that $5-$10K retainer fee, but if RW starts getting $40k bills simply to file the motion to dismiss this case (as I've seen in this estimate of Section 230 costs for startup companies), that's well out of my ability (and probably everyone else's). I do like the pro se idea as well if it comes down to that. BobJohnson (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The board contacted EFF earlier, very recently hearing back that EFF can't represent us, but "can try to facilitate a referral to our Cooperating Attorneys mailing list. This list comprises attorneys who have volunteered to assist in situations where EFF cannot provide direct support". --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Did the EFF give any particular reason(s) to that why? Just out of interest. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if any were provided. If so, @Cosmikdebris could tell you more. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The likes of the EFF/ACLU might also be able to provide amicus curiae [think that's what it's called] for reasons to dismiss. I mean, this cannot be the first time this sort of situation has come up before, is it? I also wonder if the suer is that pissed at us to stump up $50k+ just to go through with this.... KarmaPolice (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just thought of something. If this limitation statute is right, what's stopping RW simply reverting the offending page to what it was at 31st July '21 and then locking it from further edits? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

From searches on lawsuit databases (PacerMonitor, Courtlistener etc), there were only 3 or 4 previous lawsuits filed against RationalWiki. However, in those cases it seems there were problems with the plaintiff's service of process and the RationalWiki Foundation was not served so they did not have to hire an attorney and the cases were dismissed. For example, looking at the docket for HOVIND v. RATIONLWIKI FOUNDATION, shows the RationalWiki Foundation was never served and the case was dismissed. Looking on Courtlistener the troll Abd ul-Rahman Lomax included the RationalWiki Foundation as a co-defendant in an amended complaint but that was never served either. 64.74.161.243 (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So - any developments? Anna Livia (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's been communicated by other board members. We have a meeting at the beginning of September, though, so then at the latest we'll decide further on what to do next. I'll poke the others again in the meantime. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick update -- we had a dud of a Discord meeting, only 2 of the official 6 board members listed attending (myself one of them), plus another RW member who helps out. We had no news and no basis for making further decisions. (Apparently the road to the foundation organization recovering from the past stagnation -- no meetings at all for a longer time until late 2023 -- is long...) So, the current guess of us in attendance is that the settlement option, earlier tentatively voted for before this whole discussion was launched to announce it, will go ahead -- it basically costs no money but does cost a slice of free speech for RW and RMF. But there's still no further word from Trent, so it's still possible that he may have some positive surprise for us in the next days, but I wouldn't bet on it. By September 11, we should have definite news on what went down, as there's a legal deadline the day before. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Erm, so let me gut this straight - unless Trent actively does something by the 11th we lose by default? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by the 10th (before 11th) as far as I know. But I would bet he does something (he stands to lose too if he doesn't), and he did respond so as to negotiate that timeframe for a further action rather than have a shorter one. The settlement option has already been discussed, and he's expected to facilitate that if we don't have a better option to go with. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Did the Board discuss the little fact that it shall become known that RW coughs and rolls over if you're willing to shell out a grand or two filing a suit? Does the Board believe that the current user shall be the only person to take this opportunity to memory hole a negative article about them? Has there really been zero luck in finding legal assistance of any form - even to simply get an opinion of how solid a '320 defence' would be? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly yes, secondly quite possibly no -- and thirdly so far no luck AFAIK because there's no word of any further action taken to even inquire any further. I agree it all stinks. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest not doing any settlement which would presumably remove the article. RationalWiki has immunity under section 230 of CDA meaning the plaintiff's claim is frivolous and meritless against the RationalMedia Foundation. The problem if you do a settlement is you will get dozens to hundreds of frivolous lawsuits then filed with any person who wants a page removed filing a claim. 149.28.172.182 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said, but it doesn't seem like either the Board is willing to put in the work, or anyone is available to represent us in court. Carthage (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's good advice, and Trent could opt to try to dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous, that's discussed with him above. The last word from Trent is currently above in that discussion. The 4 options: should he do it pro-se, or by acquiring a pro-bono lawyer if possible, or by acquiring funds to hire a lawyer if possible -- or give in if none is viable. We're waiting to hear more, our older board voted-on decision deadline and accompanying meeting passed with no word. If Trent can dismiss the lawsuit, that'd be great news, but I wouldn't currently bet on it. Silence = probably bad news, unless Trent suddenly appears with a positive surprise. I also asked @Cosmikdebris a few times about getting back to the EFF about a referral for a lawyer. After all, Trent may decide based on whether he's offered a lawyer ready to go for our cause, that opportunity may pass if we just keep waiting for him to make a first move by asking us to request one. No word on that yet either. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

None of you people commenting have had a frivolous traffic citation (or worse, frivolous criminal charges) in the United States and it shows. Or if you did, you were unemployed and had all the time in the world to research laws and represent yourself pro-se, a luxury corporations like the foundation do not enjoy. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, any lawyer in the world would tell you to stop yapping about active litigation on the open internet like this. Leave this business to the board's private discussions. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool question, I've no reason to leave the site.Torrent (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to move the Foundation to a different state with better anti-SLAPP laws, after all of this is over? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Trent here again

We have two choices hire a defamation defense attorney or agree to the settlement. I need $10k to move forward with an attorney. Rmf does not have that money in its coffers. If no one has or is willing to cover the costs of litigation I am left with only one choice. I will monitor this section for specific practical advise or offers to pay. Please keep arguments and doomsaying about future lawsuits to above sections. 2601:8C0:B02:1CA0:2DA3:38C5:EE2F:FD18 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I remembered the last fundraising campaign well exceeded its initial goal. Will some of the money from that campaign be used to fund part of that $10k? 45.67.97.54 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Start an immediate legal costs fund and raise some money. If you do a settlement it is RIP for this site for above mentioned reasons. I can also advise getting rid of the RationalMedia Foundation so you don't have to hire a lawyer in the future - if the website is controlled by one individual and not a cooperation you can just file a pro se defence/motion to dismiss under section 230 of CDA to dismiss frivolous lawsuits and would not need to hire an attorney. 91.242.215.90 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can also advise getting rid of the RationalMedia Foundation so you don't have to hire a lawyer in the future... Then people can go after Trent, or whoever owns the wiki, as an individual and take their personal assets. Do you care to take on that responsibility? Given the liability this wiki has (there are more than a few valid claims one could make about this site, particularly in regards to the laughable privacy policy written in the site's early days when this was basically atheist ED, never mind the infinite frivolous ones), I wouldn't take on that responsibility if converting the site to a viable for-profit institution (for my own personal profit) were on the table. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand thinking about it... You want to return RW to individual ownership? Lets start talking dollars and cents. I'll take on the responsibility as long as I get total control and therefore can mitigate the liabilities as I see fit. Serious offer here. I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to buy the wiki, but no one in their right mind is going to pay that much for what the site has in assets anyway. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The fundraiser idea seems most plausible to me. Selling WP seems implausible, as there are minimal assets. The content is clone-able to the extent of the Creative Commons license, hence of negligible financial value. The only real asset is whatever is fundraised. Future liabilities could be quite high depending on the outcome of the lawsuit. Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There's two things I would see lucrative about buying it: putting ads on the existing site (minus all of the embarrassing shit that is a legal liability and I would delete), or nuking the site and redirecting the domain somewhere that would make me money. But none of that is worth taking on an organization that is in active litigation. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We have two real options; pay up or basically give up commenting on any live person or org. Therefore, it appears a fundraiser is the only thing. Has there really been zero success in finding any legal assistance?

I also suggest we reopen discussions regarding ads right now. It would appear that we do need the money as our 'running costs' are now higher (getting media insurance, keeping a friendly lawyer on speeddial etc) and it might just be that advertising is the lesser evil than being neutered. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We're launching a fundraiser, it will be set up shortly. That's the best we can do to improve our chances right now. I've discussed it with the RMF treasurer. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's up now. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

How are you able to do this without quorum for a board meeting? Do you people want the plaintiff to reach through the corporate veil and take your personal assets? Because that's what happens when corporations don't follow there bylaws. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's also time to seriously consider hitting the reset button and moving to RationalWiki 4.0. There's a lot of trash (inside jokes that aren't funny anymore, etc) still lingering around the site from 15 years ago that serving no purpose but to piss off BlueCoat, Bark, and other automated web filtering services used in educational and corporate networks (because some of it is NSFW), not to mention old Conservapedia shit, some of which of questionable legality (if there's anything that actually encourages vandalism or harassment of people at Conservapedia, that should go bye-bye on the principal of reputation alone, never mind any potential legal claims if its existence on the site were to cause new damages). If there's enough interest to try to raise funds for legal defense, which would be far more expensive than mere server costs, there should be interest in rebuilding the site in a way that is more befitting of the modern internet. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A major thing that needs to be addressed, moving forward, is the privacy policy. There are numerous violations of #4 "If you are logged in with an account then only the information you volunteer about yourself, and your identity, will be made available" scattered throughout the site, and the statute of limitations won't save the foundation if new damages result from continued hosting of those violations. A particular now-banned former board member I won't mention was the king of violating the privacy policy, but he's not the only one. Heck, I remember Trent or someone else with server access posted my IP address years ago when I was a registered user (if anyone is wondering why I don't log in, I just don't need to revive that drama, there's no ban or anything I just don't care for the drama of being a registered user here, including trolling, doxxing, etc). The problems the foundation is facing now is a direct result of trying to take something that was not that serious and build something serious on top of it, like building a home on sand. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Got nothing better to do, Morris? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you had any confidence in that baseless accusation, a very small part of Lumen Technologies' network would have to use a VPN if its users wanted to contribute to RationalWiki. Piss off with your unconstructive ad hominem and get back to serious discussion. And people wonder why the site is being sued for defamation... 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought EFF's cooperating attorneys were an option? Chillpilled (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That might be and option, but that doesn't mean that they'll take the case pro bono. According to the link, it looks like only if EFF itself takes the case would definitively be the case. Since EFF apparently declined to take it, it would be up to individual cooperating attorneys to decide whether to take the case pro bono, for a fee or not at all. Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Still seems worth a shot. Chillpilled (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a chance that we might be able to get a cut-rate from a sympathetic lawyer, if we can make a decent pitch to them for it - while I'm in the UK [and thus my experiences might be of limited worth] I've worked with nonprofits before where they've managed to negotiate discounts with professional trades etc [like a vet charging 'at cost' for an animal sanctuary]. However, this does require some [perhaps significant] shoe-leather expenditure [which is perhaps something we need to appeal for; somebody who has some free hours and is self-confident enough to be reaching out to lawyers to sound them out].

But before we progress, my gut is telling me RW does need some form of sit-down with a professional who can lay out in layperson's a) how strong our defence is and b) a rough flowchart of 'what is going to happen'. Depending on what said lawyer says, we might be then able to re-approach EFF/ACLU/etc with a particular, low/no effort request for help [such as 'do you have a fill-in-the-blanks Section 230 defence amicus curiae you'd let us use?'] to save us on costs.

Lastly, who the hell is Morris? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Morris is a mythical creature used as an excuse to block anyone who insults the legacy of a certain user I referenced (Judge Dredd, aka D, aka Dyskliver, aka EK), as if one banned user is the only person who had beef with this now-banned ex-board member. The creature is also referenced when someone just wants an IP editor to go away. No rhyme or reason to it really. Nutty Roux of all people got accused of being him. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Frivolous "Morris" blocks were a big deal back in the day. It used to be you'd almost certainly be accused of being Morris or Mikey if you edited as a BoN for any long period of time (if things were like they are today, they would be accusing Trent of being one of the two of them). Speaking of @Nutty Roux though... it sure would be good to have him around right now because he is an attorney. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

230 and statute of limitations aside, was there anything actually untrue in the article? It's worth fighting if there was not because the truth doesn't need any of those defenses. You might even be able to talk the plaintiff's counsel into dropping the case if there's no untrue statements. It's a lose-lose situation for the wiki if there were untrue statements because the site's reputation takes a blow either way. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm a paralegal, albeit in a different jurisdiction than New Mexico. But vested in me are the powers of proprietary legal research tools, like PACER and Westlaw. I thought I'd share my thoughts that, in no way, shape, or form, constitute legal advice. The main case on point is a defamation lawsuit that made it up to a New Mexico appellate court, cited as Woodhull v. Meinel, 145 N.M. 533 (N.M. App. 2008). Section 230(c)(1), 47 U.S.C., confers a broad immunity to information providers for information originating from a third party, like RationalWiki. In order to qualify for that immunity, RationalWiki must present factual allegations, which more or less precludes the Foundation from prevailing on a motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Foundation must establish that they are (1) a "provider or user of an interactive computer service," which definitely covers the Foundation, as "mere users of [interactive computer] services" fall under the definition; (2) the claim asserted treats the defendant as the "publisher or speaker of information"; and (3) the published information was "provided by another information content provider." See Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703, 714 (Ct. App. 2002). Element (2) is satisfied based on defendant's allegations in the Complaint for Damages, as he is explicitly alleging the Foundation, et al., made defamatory claims against him on the RationalWiki website. Element (3) will be the trickiest. If RationalWiki, at any point, was at least partly responsible for affirmatively originating defamatory material—instead of mere "exercise of traditional editorial functions" like editing or reviewing before publication—the § 230 defense is gone. Lunaroxas (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Told you so. 2607:FB90:E20B:4A27:A542:52ED:C1C3:40B (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC) (same person as 71)

Told what so?

Plus, in regards to 3), how could RW be the originator of 'defamatory material'? It has no employees or shareholders and even mods/board members who have edited do so as users, not on behalf of RW. It has no editorial functions or even any real functioning 'management' so it's not a publisher. Where would the burden of proof lie here? RW proving it's not a publisher, or the suer proving that it is? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Carthage (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not everybody who disagrees with you is a troll little buddy. From the heart of someone who isn't an attorney but has been involved in plenty of litigation (with and without an attorney)... any attorney worth their weight is going to tell the foundation to forget about 230 if there's anything remotely untrue about the guy's article and he is offering a settlement in which no monetary payment is required (which is the gist I'm getting here... why anyone would sue for damages and not want money is beyond me, but hey) and take the damn settlement, reason being you would literally be spending 5,000-10,000 USD to save libelous content, which does nothing good for the site's reputation. If the suit is completely frivolous, then the foundation doesn't need 230. But as for how the foundation could fail at a 230 defense... who makes up the foundation's board of directors? Being an active member of the community is literally a prerequisite to run for the board, so the board likely takes some responsibility for the site's content due to the members' actively maintaining the content, unlike Wikipedia, the social media giants, webhosts, and content isn't directly attributable to an individual user on a wiki like these hole-in-the-wall forums like KF, the various "chan" sites, Gamewinners, LSPDFR, Mod The Sims, DSL Reports, TorrentFreak, etc. where the owner could say they saw the content and maybe even interacted with it but had nothing to do with it's creation or maintenance other than to host it as part of a discussion on an open forum. I think a 230 defense would be a lot stronger if there were a suit regarding someone's comment on a talk page (like this one). 71.208.249.110 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

'The defence would be a lot stronger if it was on a page which meant fuck all and nobody read', more like. That's akin to saying 'the defence against defemation would be a lot stronger if it was in my personal diary who nobody read and was created by a sole individual'. It might be true, but it would be fairly pointless if you were actually trying to influence anything. The users of RW want to influence the world, by making articles which others then read and then hopefully act on. In fact, that's the crux of the whole case. Therefore, it can be said that RW is being sued because it is RW.

The key issue here isn't that it's not 5-10k to save some second/third rate page. If it was that, I'd be more inclined to settle [perhaps fixing the page for eternity with something snarky] but it isn't. If RW decides to settle or [god forbid] loses the case, it will be effectively declaring open season for the whole 'pissed at us' page to get us to cough again, again and again for the price of filing a suit with a law firm to serve us. But... now I am no lawyer, but if RW does have to go to trial and we win on a 230 defence [or any general defence] this would I suspect be a chilling effect on frivolous/vexatious suits in the same vein which I fear would plague us otherwise. Would a RW in ~2028 where acres of topics were now off-limits [perhaps to the point we couldn't even discuss the reasons for it] due to a welter of successful suits, how would RW's reputation be?

Now, the troll does raise a reasonable point where they question whether anything in the page was untrue. After all, I asked this at the start. However, there is the defence of 'fair comment/criticism' - that if about a public figure other individuals [ie the users of RW] are permitted to comment on their positions etc. What's more, in America there is the secondary protection of 'active malice' [which England doesn't have] which means not only do they need to show the statements were not only untrue, but known to the individuals saying them to be so but did it anyway out of sheer spite.

Lastly, as the entire thing has been hidden, you don't know if any members [past or present] of the Board edited the offending page, and if they had whether they had actually really done anything worthwhile to it. However, the RMF site makes clear 'Board members and officers posting on RationalWiki are not doing so in an official capacity unless specifically stated'. In this case, the only question would be if the judge accepts this [and other statements on the page] as true/correct.

This is why RW needs to listen to a real lawyer, and not some rando BoN being as depressing as a Pumpkins album. Said lawyer will be able to objectively and with a level of professional knowledge tell us how strong our defence(s) will be [because I in fact suspect we might have more than one angle] - sure, they can't say for sure but they'd at least be able to give us a decent guestimate on costs/likeliness of winning etc.

This situation is shit, clearly. But perhaps we should instead see this as a belated 'coming of age' for RW - that after years of users going about slapping targets with a snarky duelling glove somebody has replied 'challenge accepted'. It was bound to happen eventually. What should we do? Put up or shut up? Are we [as a community] going to put our money where our collective mouth is or not? In fact, I'm slightly surprised that it's taken this long for something like this to happen.

And calling someone 'little buddy' marks you as a condescending git. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The board doesn't really want its members to engage in more public in-depth discussion on legalities here, now it's more hoping for the best. But since we have this fundraiser going, I think a few basic questions deserve a response. Firstly, we did follow up with EFF's cooperating attorneys at around the same time as launching the fundraiser, we'll see where that leads. Secondly, part of what's uncertain in the above discussions revolves around the edit history of the offending article. (Personally, I think hiding the history was done prematurely, but we'd need a new consensus to unhide it.) I'll point out that earlier in the article history, some (ex-)board members did some of the writing. That's all before August 2021 (statute of limitations apparently). After that date, only a single revert of a BoN's added text was done by a board member. (This is all separate from the question of truth, which I'll not get into, for that scroll up as there's already earlier discussion on the state of the article.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it'd be too difficult to ask the court (or whatever) to kick the can down the road a bit so as to have more fundraising time. Chillpilled (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there was stuff I could have said but didn't - I only stuck with general 'master of the obvious stuff' [which has no legal strength whatsoever] and only replied to the BoN troll [which I've now had enough of] so to deploy my meagre rhetorical skills in convincing readers that a) RW should fight, b) I think RW can win this therefore c) please help RW in whatever way you can [donating, spreading the word etc]. I only mentioned the suppressed edit history as an example of how the BoN was talking out of their backside [as I don't think the details on that were revealed yet] and if you felt this was a challenge for said reveal, I apologise.

As for asking for kicking the can... I'm not sure it can be done. Looking up the logistics of this, I would guess we need enough [and/or some generous friendly lawyer] to at least get a basic preliminary opinion from a lawyer on the 9th, which means we've kinda got until the end of the 8th [Sunday] for this. Only bonus I can think of is that this being 2024 and not 2014, a lot of this work can be done via Zoom etc [which at least eliminates the physical logistics which can be much more of a pain than you'd think]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The board is wise here, and the best thing KP can do for the wiki right now is shut up. Your 10 cent opinions of the law as someone who has probably never been deeply involved in a US court case mean fuck all, the ones who have actual legal experience here are saying a 230 case isn't as much of a slam dunk as you think it is (only a lawyer is really qualified to say whether it would work or not), and anyone can decree anything on their "about us" page though if that mattered to a hill of beans no plaintiff would ever win a lawsuit of any kind (a past employer I sued, and won against, claimed their company policy is against discrimination, that policy means fuck all without more than a written decree to back it up), so just shut up and stop digging the hole deeper. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You thought of taking your own damn advice? Plus, I never said it was a 'slam-dunk'. I have repeatedly said 'we need a proper lawyers opinion'. And you're not one. Your experience of suing someone over employment law or similar means sod all in respect to defamation cases involving a nonprofit, and what's more it's a different state. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The slam dunk win against the plaintiff is most of their claim falls outside of the statute of limitation for defamation. They filed against a load of John Doe edits made up to 10 years ago.149.28.186.105 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A professional could better answer this than I, but I’m think the statute of limitations might be a slam dunk for the author, but certainly not the foundation. That said, I’m pretty sure the statute of limitations is based on the date/time of the damages, not the date/time of publishing. Consider the mesothelioma lawsuits against companies that processed asbestos decades ago just now being sued for example. 2607:FB91:C61:4CE6:F07F:7A63:2F4:A5AB (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

10-4. My apologies. I was just thinking out loud about possible legal defenses for the Foundation to take. I will continue to donate whatever I can to the Foundation, and if RW is in need of any other assistance from a lay user at any point, let me know. Lunaroxas (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify, I meant that board members are done discussing legal details under these circumstances. I don't mind either of your posts before, Lunaroxas and KarmaPolice.

I also have bad news, and I'm going to apologize for being the main driving force behind starting the fundraiser given how poor the prospects turned out. It looks like we're not going to be able to raise the required funds on time. Thus, we'll probably end up settling despite the members voting with their wallet for a better solution. Apologies also for the lame way in which the board squandered the opportunity to, say, launch a fundraiser a week or so earlier, then the odds would have been different. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up too hard, as someone on the board of multiple 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, as well as being involved in a political party, raising money is not easy. Heck, it can be hard to raise $1,000 in a month if your major donors (usually businesses or individuals with really deep pockets) aren't biting, much less $10,000 in a week. Honestly, it would have taken intervention from something most of you all don't believe in to pull this off. As for KarmaPolice, you can feel free to pull the stick out of your British bastard ass now that things went exactly the way I expected they would (that is actually nice compared to what I want to say to you). 71.208.249.110 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done you, negative, totally-useless myterious has-no-real-other-interests-except-this-issue BoN! Oddly enough, I also predicted that this could happen, but guess what, I hoped it wouldn't and attempted to inject some positivity and drive into the situation so it didn't. If anyone actually gives a toss of what the above persons thinks [despite their stunning myriad of 'achievements' which naturally, cannot be verified], I invite readers to review what other defeatist pearls of dubious 'wisdom' they've offered on this issue since it's turned up.

Anyway, onto the issue. I have a motto; don't blame, learn from the failure. The key one here being; RW needs somebody who can act with at least some authority of the RMF in a speedy fashion - I noticed a couple of days back a BoN account asking about a takedown request at the end of July, if this was the suer [esp if they emailed RMF which nobody was capable of reading] then we could have had a whole month to ready the troops. I think BobJ's idea of media insurance is a very good one [the cost doesn't seem to be huge but it's still a significant bump for RW's budget], and it might be wise for us to continue to look for a suitable lawyer so when [and it is when] we know who to call.

But really, there's been no luck on the lawyer front? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything I've laid claim to is verifiable if I were willing to post it here (I am not), and none of it is particularly incredible. In fact, it's about as noteworthy as making A-B honor roll in elementary school. Maybe if I were a middle school kid or some bumpkin out in a trailer park in bum fuck egypt having won lawsuits and having served on boards would be cool to fellow classmates/neighbors, but in reality it's nothing that going to get me to pass WP:N any time soon. Seriously, go to hell KP. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What, you come in, piss in our tent and expect us all to say 'yay, thanks for the piss!'? I'm frankly shocked that you 'won' anything, because you appear to be about as positive as Pétain in 1940. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Quit acting like you know anything about me when all you know about me is the grim outlook I have for this site right now. I'm not wrong to have a grim outlook here, I know I'm not the only one looking at the writing on the wall right now. If you want to be a cheerleader, go try out for the team buddy. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You know what, fuck it I will tell you a little bit about myself (even if this comes back to haunt me). I am an aide in the public school system, I get paid a lowly $30,000 a year to be positive and greet kids every day with a smile on my face, because unlike some stupid blog that has an article on internet tough guys while simultaneously playing internet tough guy with your RationalWiki:Pissed at us page with no money in the coffers to defend against a lawsuit and basically one court action away from bankruptcy, they have something to look forward to. And I love doing that, I love doing everything I can to make their day a little brighter. As for the former employer, that was a restaurant that did not fire me but cut my hours for illegal discriminatory reasons that are none of RationalWiki's business. The non-profit boards are school related organizations, again because I love doing everything I can to brighten their day. Can I verify all of this? Yes. Will I? No. As for RationalWiki, I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just saying, as someone who was around this wiki before pipsqueaks like you were even thought of, the days of Nutty, Ace, Trent, Human, Goonie... who the fuck do you think you are trying to turn this site into atheist Wikipedia without some kind of plan for when shit like this happens? This site may have been silly, but it was funny back in the day, now it's just blah, and while I try to go with the flow because I can (by the way, this is not the only issue I've been involved in; I've done content creation with other IPs, I like editing as an IP and not having the drama that comes with an identity here, including numb nuts who is suing the site and multiples Does), I roll my eyes at the clusterfuck this site has become, all the dumbass Chicken Coops and ATM threads over stupid shit... Not everybody here is retarded, but there's way too many fucking retards on here now with a chip on their shoulder, so that's why I'm so negative. Think of it like a drill sergeant in the US Marines tearing down the recruits to build them up stronger. I'm not trying to troll or be nasty, I'm sincerely trying to encourage you people to go check yourselves. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you got a little sugar in your tank. Carthage (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a little maybe. ;) To be honest, I recently had a death in the family, so I'm crankier than usual right now. And overwhelmed with a lot of other bullshit that comes with adulting. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You may want to take a break BoN. :) It's generally the stuff created in the *cough* supposed "non-retarded" era, back when it was full of trolls (who were happy to throw plenty of chicken coops too), that is by and large the most "questionable" content of the site. More recent content tends to be much better sourced, so it would be much harder to argue "defamation" when the articles merely are composed largely of a compilation of primary sources. Though I suppose anyone can hire a lawyer to try given the way this site works.

At any rate, for some reason you don't seem to recognize what this lawsuit really is, from my (disclaimer) "non lawyer" viewpoint: a classic SLAPP suit Damages are not the goal here, censoring information is. If the person in question tried this against Wikipedia... well, they have a small legal team of well paid lawyers, and they'd swat it away as they have many times before (I personally don't think the plaintiff had a strong case at all...). Small outlets don't have that option due to lack of funds. That's the whole point of anti-SLAPP laws, to offer some protection against frivolous defamation lawsuits without going through a full legal process. (Which California has, but New Mexico really doesn't, sadly. This actually would be a possible suggestion of mine here: how easy is it to re-incorporate the Rationalwiki Foundation into a state with better SLAPP protection?)

Normally New Age gurus don't bother spending money filing lawsuits like this, given how their target audience isn't exactly Google search users (I mean, who would buy a 4 figure "crystal" if they were?). This guy just happens to unfortunately like spending money on lawyers for some reason (even though page 2 of said Google search links to a Reddit/YouTube take-down... good luck removing *that* through a defamation suit. So why did he bother? I suppose because the RW link got to page 1...).

I too think this is more of a "wakeup call" to come up with a strategy in the future to deal with potential lawsuits. No need to be a Negative Nancy. BobJohnson (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As a rule, all Wiki pages shall improve over time; not only does more hands equal more polishing, but the mean quality should also go up as the poor-quality stubs etc get AfD'd. Like I've said before, the main issue is that we simply lack the numbers to be really hot on the updates etc [again, this is perhaps where LLMs could be of use to us; checking for linkrot, flagging up stale/dated pages and so on]. Like with WP's criticisms out in the wider world, a decent % of RW criticisms are from an earlier era; stuff marked from the early/mid 10s which complains about it for example 'mainly opinions of ranting rebellious high school students' [which might have been an accurate description then for all I know]. However, unlike WP a significant amount of said 'earlier era' remains for us.

Which was why I instantly dismiss ideas of nuking and starting again. On a simple pragmatic point, a) we'd lose a lot of good content with the bad and b) doing a sort-through for salvaging would be more time than if we did a sort through and removed a lot of the remaining dross.

One thing I do think RW should do better is try to avoid redundancy. For example, to only start on a new RW page if there isn't a reasonably reliable/readable page already available [most often this means checking WP, but on occasion might be another site so it's worth hitting that engine starting with G too].

But BobJ is right [again]; this whole thing does smell like a SLAPP suit to my non-lawyer, purely personal nose. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you to an extent. The old guard was not less retarded, they were just open minded and entertaining to interact with, whereas the current mix is rigid, stuffy, and to be blunt acts like they have a stick up their ass, accusing everybody and their uncle of being sockpuppets or trolls if they don't go with the flow of the cool kids. The problem with your logic here, KP, is that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia from the beginning, like a baby growing into an adult, whereas RationalWiki started as a troll farm with a bone to pick with Conservapedia trying to turn itself into some legitimate source of information, like some pseudo-Darwinistic experiment attempting and failing to demonstrate the evolution of shit into gold. The problem is, there is a lot of shit from the past that would have landed legal issues, including blatant copyright issues ("Conservapirated" etc), that the wiki got away with when no one paid any attention to it, but now that the wiki is scoring high in search results, it's much more likely to be discovered, and even if these older articles are improved, the old stuff is still being hosted on the servers in the Fossil Record and create liability for the organization (which will make any kind of media insurance expensive to obtain). You have the same problems big companies have in messy mergers and acquisitions involving incompatible companies without have actually merged with anything. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The eeyore troll has a point here. Response;

a) I've seen times where RW has responded to complaints about bad pages by doing a decent review of said page and cleaning it up if it required.

b) There is the 'active malice' protection for user comments regarding defamation suits etc.

c) There is nothing stopping RMF deciding to settle with any suits which they believe are legally legitimate.

d) I suspect you're no more an insurance agent than a lawyer, so you don't know if RW is uninsurable or not.

KarmaPolice (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also a catch-22 here that I just thought of, in that probably the reason the foundation has not had many more of these lawsuits is the fact that it doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. If the foundation gets insurance or builds a legal defense fund, that changes. And regardless of how strong your defense is, it takes money to defend against claims, and the problem with the insurance route is that insurance companies will either drop you or significantly increase your rates if there are too many claims. I'll say it again, I know the truth hurts, but there's not really a decent solution here for the wiki, and a lot of this is because, again, people are trying to practice magic here by attempting to turn shit into gold. What I mean is, people are trying to build the site into something it was never envisioned as being, and therefore the bones are not good. It's like retrofitting a building into something that the original structure is not suitable for (like trying to turn an old high school or hospital into a Walmart Supercenter... the structure is in no way compatible with that retrofit, so it would be better to level the school or hospital and build a new Walmart). 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

SLAAP suits aren't about money, it's about silencing people/orgs. A counterpoint to your doomster scenario is that on learning that RW does have actual media insurance, real lawyer lined up, a bit of a 'fighting fund' in reserve etc our SLAPPer decides to not go through with it because like my dueling analogy before, there a chance if we were slapped we'd say 'challenge accepted'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking to the future...

One thing KP is not wrong about is we need to learn from this. First of all, what is the plan for future lawsuits? Insurance as has been proposed? Fundraising for a legal fund? Bending over? Second of all, what exactly would happen if someone successfully procured a judgement against the foundation for an amount that exceeds the foundation's assets (which would not take much, count your blessings that this plaintiff wasn't going for money)? Bankruptcy? 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

From what little I've observed, I think RW backend-wise has been running on inertia for some time. That the 'founding generation' has effectively stepped back [no slight on them for doing this] but nobody has really come through to replace them. This is a frequent issue for nonprofits; that a) folks want to do the 'cool' stuff rather than the 'vital' stuff [say, playing/walking the rescue animals, not cleaning up the crap] and b) due to the very voluntary nature of projects, we have a particular 'skills shortage' [say, an electrician to keep the rescue shelter in-code].

My experience with nonprofits [admittedly UK ones, but same principles ere] is that the #1 way to fix this is... have a paid member of staff. Now, once the 'pump-priming' stage has been done [more on that in a moment] I don't think this staff member would have much to do [check emails, keep up legal compliance stuff, occasionally update the stuff on the RMF site etc] which I suspect rules out any form of actual hiring, but what about seeing if we can't do a 'staffshare' with another nonprofit with a mission somewhat sympathetic to ours?

As RW has been running on inertia for some time, I shall also argue we need some 'pump-priming'; to sort out the more long-term glaring holes and put RW onto a stronger admin base to make us more resilient for the next lawsuit [plus other stuff, like sorting out email, putting in a proper anti-DDoS fix etc]. Yes, perhaps ultimately moving to a state where the anti-SLAPP is more friendly to nonprofits might also be a thing. Again, this will cost money, time and effort.

So the question is; can RW do this? The main question is, obviously money. Even having a one-hour/week rented staff member and bare-bones media insurance will bump up our running costs by a fair bit, while the pump-priming will cost too. Once again [I know I sound like broken record on this] I think that if we cannot find sufficient generosity from our reader/userbase, we should consider allowing advertising. It's all well and good for us to say piously 'we will never allow ads because we must remain independent' but is this truly a hill worth dying on? As long as we don't have adverts for obvious shite [and I believe we can get this if we ask for it] I do not see how this would be a 'conflict of interest'. RW has [from little stats I've seen] pretty good traffic ratings [though how much of this is editors repeatedly re-loading pages etc and the SB is up for debate] which means we wouldn't need many at all - perhaps say, just one banner.

The other thing I worry about is that of 'donor fatigue'. Again, my experience of nonprofits is that the more frequently hit up folks for donations [be it time, money, stuff etc] the lower the response-rate [we might have been able to make the $10k if we'd not had the server fundraiser before]. And that can get to the point of zero response. Advertising would help this; for example, the ads could cover our running costs [which very well might double with the insurance premium etc] and the begging-bowl would only come out when we needed some 'investment cash' ['upgrading server', 'updating software' etc].

Look, I know my suggestions are not perfect. But we can't let perfect be the enemy of good [or even simply reasonable]. Because I believe this much; the status quo [ie continue as before] is no longer a viable option long-term. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are spot on on all of this. Running a non-profit is not for the faint of heart. I see the same stuff with organizations of all types. I also have seen issues like what is going on now completely destroy organizations. You can't expect too much from volunteers, but unfortunately the world today does. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We could try drumming up more support for the site from people who we think would enjoy it — Lockstin immediately comes to mind for me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Luigi raises a good point; while RW mocks the likes of CP and more obviously CZ for being moribund/zombie respectively, but RW isn't the bastion of health - for example, it was noted that the voter-base for stuff like mod elections was a lot lower than it was a decade ago [if I recall]. While I don't think openly going about pushing ourselves will really work, I do wonder whether we can take some measures to try to increase our readership and convert readers to members.

Off the top of my head, I wonder how RW uses social media to reach out to the wider world, whether we make it clear that we'd like folks to join up and simply chat etc even if they have no real inclination/skill to make articles [perhaps re-purposing the SB 'Back Alley' to be a fluffy land of 'Tangency' while the main SB can continue in it's role of political whining, requests for article help, mocking each other and the occasional counter/trolling zone], sorting out some better 'how to' guides and so on. I also have a bit of a suspicion that we're kinda stuck in the past - I personally don't think we really got to grips to how the 'smartphone era' of the SuperWeb changed the game [esp how some folks will be fact-checking etc during a discussion, which isn't all bad]. But we still don't have a decent mobile mode and editing these chat pages is fucking evil on a smartphone - even if mainpages need to stay 'old school', is there not at least some overlay or something to make a few sections [like the SB] operate more akin to a forum or WhatsApp discussion so it's easier to do from a phone? How about an app - delivering you a star-rated article every day? Even having a mascot which isn't a brain might help [nothing against the brain but I always think of the Brain Spawn in Futurama]; it seems stupid that such a little thing could change things but it does.

Another issue we have is a complete lack of stats. For example, who is reading what? Is there some way we could learn of [for example] 'most searched words by non-users which didn't have a RW page' [if a lot of folks are searching us for X and we don't have a page, it suggests they think we should]. What are our most popular pages? and so on. At the moment we have a very 'if we build it they will come' viewpoint which is all well and good if we bleeding knew if they actually did. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is RationalMedia Foundation even a defendant? lol.

The complaint wrongly lists RationalWiki Foundation aka RationalMedia Foundation as a plaintiff not defendant in section 2: "PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE."

Plaintiff RationalWiki Foundation, Inc. d/b/a RationalMedia Foundation, is a New Mexico nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3), EIN 27-3197280, with its principal place(s) of business located at 530-B Harkle Rd, Ste 100, Santa Fe, NM 87505, and/or 122 Girard Ave NE Albuquerque, NM 87106, and/or 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Ste R, Albuquerque, NM 87110.

This was obviously a mistake but I believe it makes the entire complaint void since they have listed RationalWiki wrongly as a plaintiff in the Parties section. Secondly, excluding this error - the complaint makes no claim whatsoever against the RationalMedia Foundation. Read section DEFENDANTS ARE DEFAMING PLAINTIFF which does not mention the RationalMedia Foundation at all but Defendants Toulouse and John Does 1-1000. 139.180.170.132 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that's interesting... Carthage (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's nothing. These kind of minor clerical errors happen all the time and the courts don't give a shit. I've seen suits filed where the incorrect jursidiction was listed and nobody batted an eye. Now if this screw up happened at the top where is says PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT, then they might care. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, I love how they are listing people as Does when their true identities are publicly known, such as Blue who revealed her IRL identity which was listed on RWW. She had a picture of herself up too, I remember she was a young red headed girl, Miranda something-or-other. Same is true of Goonie, his name was up, his picture was up... I remember has was twenty or thirty something bald guy. Then there was Human... a dark haired guy, middle aged, from the northeast, something-or-other Powell... It's out there somewhere in the wiki (unless this was exclusive to RWW), the lawyer just took the lazy way out and listed them as "Doe." 71.208.249.110 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Legally the RMF is still called the RationalWiki Foundation for reasons that amount to "nobody filed paperwork with the relevant entities to update the registration". This is an irrelevant minute detail. -- Techpriest (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Clerical errors are a dodgy position legal-wise. Sometimes, yes you can get out of suits/trials from using them [ie the old 'found innocent on a technicality' thing you hear] but the issue is you effectively need a lawyer to argue this and due to poor organisational skills of RMF we don't have enough time to either raise the funds for a lawyer or apparently really attempt to find one who'll help us for a cut-rate/pro bono. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The worst-case scenario for the plaintiff here is that they spend ten minutes correcting the error and submitting it as an amended complaint. At that point you better hope you have a rock solid case because then they're going to be pissed off and more demanding in their settlement offers. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia faced as similar problem from He Who Cannot Be Named. His page does not not exist and cannot be created except by an Administrator.[4] It's too bad that EFF was not more active on this since it's not just small-potatoes RW. Maybe EFF is still stinging from their failed defense of the Internet Archive. I agree that reincorporating in a state with better anti-SLAPP laws is a good idea. Bongolian (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Their's was deleted through AfD and salted because people kept recreating it. Anything on Wikipedia that comes as a result of litigation or anything resembling it (DMCA, governmental action, etc) is going to come as an office action and will be labeled as such by someone with "(WMF)" in their user name. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: We're settling (Was: Update: A last fundraising chance)

The board has a last option to consider, which we'll discuss more, combining the funds from this fundraiser with our existing funds. In January we focused on server costs, users donating enough to cover them for the year, when Trent showed up at the last moment and paid that for us. We brought in a bit extra back then too, so we stored up such funds for a bit over a year.

Now, we've brought in enough of a fraction of $10K in this legal defense fundraiser that as of writing, we'd need only a bit over $600 more for our current balance to cover $10K. Thereafter, if the fundraiser continues and members don't suddenly stop donating, odds are we can easily raise enough this year that we won't run into any server bill woes. (That's even if we fail to recover legal costs, for which I am not well-versed in the details.)

So, what does our community think of this idea, of borrowing from our general fund until we can (hopefully) replenish that? Time is short, but your opinions are welcome. Legally all donations just go into one general fund so we could use it to cover any legitimate expenses, but before taking a step like this if we do, it would be best to know that we choose something that the community is fine with. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've said from the start that RW needed a proper legal opinion to at least give RW some heads-up on a) chances of success and b) possible costs. Thinking back to Lunaroxas' points earlier and my own little Google-skim, the 'burden of proof' on this is with the suer - it is possible [speaking purely hypothetically] this lawyer could say there simply isn't enough proof for this to go much further. If we have to pay market rates for this preliminary advice, then so be it.

I will also point out that it's not exactly a 'give $10k to lawyer and it simply vanishes' [if I remember right]. What happens is you lodge these funds with the lawyer and they'll keep a running tally of the work they do and once the 'retainer' and 'bill' become even, they either ask for more cash or give up. If by the end of the case there's cash left in the account, it should be returned to RW. Lastly, I will point out that it's possible for RW to 'do some of the work ourselves' and lower the billable hours - we clearly can't write the legalise and so on, but we can collate all the relevant info in a slim manilla folder instead of delivering them a filing-cabinet of papers to wade through etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake. You don't have the money, and if you drag this lawsuit out the plaintiff will likely insist on cash as part of any future settlement offer. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to throw this out here too, if you notice I entered the chat after it was practically admitted on the internet that the article was crap and not worth defending (that's how any lawyer worth a microorganism's shit is going to paint it). You've practically lost the case because of that. If you want positive, look at the positive... this guy is claiming he lost millions of dollars and doesn't want any money for a settlement, not even his attorney costs. That floors me. He obviously doesn't have beef with the site, he just wants the article gone, whether he has valid reason to feel that way I cannot assess at the moment. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's the purpose of SLAPP suits: censoring critics.

And while the article wasn't great, it wasn't *terrible* either. The problem with Nassim Haramein and his hanger-ons is he is *well* known for this sort of thing, having sued a previous blogger who posted criticisms off the Internet too. (Such activity actually throws quite a big thorn in his "I am a scientist" sheen: what legitimate scientist spends a lot of time suing dissenting opinion on the grounds of spectacular claims of lost revenue? None that I can think of. New Age hucksters, on the other hand...)

I disagree with a lot of what you are saying about liability of articles -- Section 230 in essence means that (in the United States) the foundation is not responsible for user-generated content, and methinks I'd need a ^{[citation needed]} here for your "exceptions" (yes there are exceptions to Section 230, but none I can think of applied to the article -- the bar for "defamation" is pretty high in the US, and from what I recall, though it wasn't great, nothing in the article was *wrong*). But it matters little if RW has no strategy (or funds) for legal issues, unfortunately. BobJohnson (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally think talking to a real, breathing lawyer is better than Eeyore on this. Even if RW has to pay upto a grand for the privilege. If I understand right, it's quite possible to ask for said view but then conclude we can't really go further on this. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The final choice has been made. We're settling. The reason is, simply put, that the situation in New Mexico concerning legal costs and such simply sucks too much. We would have probably ended up spending the whole $10K on the early dismissal stages. If it drags out, and even worse goes to hearings, the cost would be more like $50K according to Trent, with no chance of getting that back even if we won. It simply doesn't seem worth it, the board has agreed. Sorry, that's how it ended up. We'll end the current fundraiser today.

Yet, we're also now looking at the long-term and trying to ensure this kind of situation doesn't repeat. A medium-term proposal is to reincorporate in a proper anti-SLAPP state, which Trent also finds an excellent idea (New Mexico was initially chosen simply because he lives there). Also, in other states the prospects of finding pro-bono or low-fee lawyers can be better, another factor in the long term. We're also thinking, as Trent mentioned earlier, that a longer-term legal defense reserve of funds is a great idea to have, too, in case things get bad in the future. We'll be discussing that and other ideas with you.

I don't like this situation, but it doesn't have to spell doom, or an avalanche of SLAPP suits in the future. There's the chance of turning our trajectory around.

The cost of settling in practice means that the topic of Nassim Haramein becomes taboo on RationalWiki in the future, at least in articles. That means not only removing the old article, but not being able to make a new and better one either, and also not being able to say much about that one topic in other articles either. We simply have to pass the torch on potential such coverage to other skeptics who may be interested. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Try to nail down as tight a settlement as possible. If it's too loose or vague, it's quite possible that a kind of 'privilege escalation' could result in which not only is [redacted's] bio page verboten, but also anywhere they work, and org they've had dealings with or even the subjects they deal in. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is a part of the settlement not talking negatively about the guy on RationalWiki ever again? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Basically, it looks like we're going to have to moderate comments about the guy in the future too. I think it will have to extend to talk pages as well. The whole matter concerns the businesses of the guy too. Beyond that, sorry to say, we're not really at liberty to discuss the details of the settlement. It's a done deal as soon as it's signed and sent. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

…Oof. So we're stuck not being able to touch a crank because he can throw more legal weight around than us?! That sucks.

I don't really have a budget for donations, but I could try to rally support elsewhere. Lockstin's still on the table. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this battle is lost, Luigi. Time for us to retreat in good order, and make sure this situation doesn't happen again. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Something else the board needs to address is the Does. Does (no pun intended) the settlement mean that anyone who edited the article (and therefore a "Doe" in the case) cannot talk about this man, including on other sites (such as Wikipedia)? Heck, I may have edited it in distant memory (vandalism reversion, etc), maybe I am one of the Does. If he wants to come after me, have at it, but bear in mind I will move to quash his subpoena: https://www.lumen.com/en-us/about/legal/trust-center/trust-and-safety-third-party-faqs.html. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you that the deal is between the plaintiff and the foundation, and obviously, the foundation can't control what any real and imaginary randos (random does) do outside this website. For us board members it may be prudent to watch our step a little extra because lawyers may look at us funny, however. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I will only say I personally suspect they won't give a damn about the Does - I'll be surprised if they're even mentioned. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, you can certainly take action to ensure the foundation is not caught with its pants down again, but you will never ensure that valid lawsuits never happen, much less bullshit ones. There's a reason why large organizations have so much seemingly silly "cover my ass" policies, such as appliance manufacturers warning consumers not to attempt to bathe their children in the washing machine, and school buses not being allowed to turn right on red despite it being perfectly legal in my state. SLAPP litigation aside, if that data breach that happened here a few years ago happened on Wikipedia today, there would almost certainly be ambulance chasers coming out of the woodwork. Shit, somebody could have a friend use the email-to-sms gateway to cause RationalWiki to send "unsolicited" text messages to their phone and file a damned TCPA lawsuit (that kind of shit is unfortunately very common and difficult for organizations to avoid; it's an easy $500 for someone). For that matter, you could file a frivilous Doe lawsuit against me in North Korea court and have my ISP served, and there's no guarantee that I wouldn't be put in a position where I have to settle (though it would be highly, highly unlikely). You just have to prepare for this kind of shit and not be caught with your pants down. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So what variant of 'A statement of fact cannot be insolent' can be made RW-appropriate to cover situations such as this? Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's relevant if truthfulness were to be evaluated in some legal setting. The style of articles may also influence how litigious any people concerned by the contents are. But it's completely irrelevant if a lawsuit is filed by someone who objects, and money is the one decisive factor in being able to even argue things like truthfulness and 'fact isn't insolent'. A settlement that makes a topic taboo also means that statements of fact on the topic can't be used afterwards either, because then it's no longer about whether or not it's defamatory. In an anti-SLAPP state, though, both fact and 'mere opinion' are protected in a whole different way for people without big bucks. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. If you have the green and a Lionel Hutz I could SLAPP over anything, however trivial, true or anodyne. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a thought: does the settlement include successors? If not, we can revive the article once the foundation incorporates in another state? 73.55.14.217 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been inactive since summer, and I come back to see a lawsuit like this. What no active server maintainers does to a project. 2600:387:F:D11:0:0:0:9 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Aint reading allat, so how much yall paid to settled compared to the costs of fighting? 2600:387:F:D11:0:0:0:9 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In case others feel the same, I added a quick summary under a new heading below. But as for your point about server maintainers, doesn't really make sense here, because that type of inactivity didn't cause anything in this situation. (Lack of technical maintenance of the wiki and server itself has "merely" made the wiki clunkier to use than it could be.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(better answer) From I'm what reading, nothing. All the plantiff wanted was that article never be seen again in the wiki compared to $10k+ for fighting the suit.

tl;dr summary version

A "I won't read all that" BoN above asked what it all cost, and what it would have cost to choose differently. Here's some main quotes from the earlier discussion on settling and options, keeping in mind that we can't discuss all the details about the settlement, not being at liberty to do so, and there'll be no further clarifications here.

So, the current guess of us in attendance is that the settlement option, earlier tentatively voted for before this whole discussion was launched to announce it, will go ahead -- it basically costs no money but does cost a slice of free speech for RW and RMF.

The final choice has been made. We're settling. The reason is, simply put, that the situation in New Mexico concerning legal costs and such [for pursuing the alternative] simply sucks too much. We would have probably ended up spending the whole $10K on the early dismissal stages. If it drags out, and even worse goes to hearings, the cost would be more like $50K according to Trent, with no chance of getting that back even if we won. It simply doesn't seem worth it, the board has agreed. Sorry, that's how it ended up. We'll end the current fundraiser today.

Yet, we're also now looking at the long-term and trying to ensure this kind of situation doesn't repeat. A medium-term proposal is to reincorporate in a proper anti-SLAPP state, which Trent also finds an excellent idea (New Mexico was initially chosen simply because he lives there). Also, in other states the prospects of finding pro-bono or low-fee lawyers can be better, another factor in the long term. We're also thinking, as Trent mentioned earlier, that a longer-term legal defense reserve of funds is a great idea to have, too, in case things get bad in the future. We'll be discussing that and other ideas with you.

The cost of settling in practice means that the topic of Nassim Haramein becomes taboo on RationalWiki in the future, at least in articles [actually also on talk pages].

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

How would this lawsuit gone differently if new mexico had stronger anti slap laws? 107.115.227.62 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's Wikipedia's short description of anti-SLAPP law: These laws often function by allowing a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If the plaintiffs fail to meet the burden, their claim is dismissed and the plaintiffs may be required to pay a penalty for bringing the case. It's simpler and cheaper to dismiss that way. (New Mexico's version only applies if the government sues you, so it was totally irrelevant for us.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there is something called "forum shopping," where plaintiffs can take their cases to wherever they think can favor them. Which is easy to justify since websites can be viewed from almost anywhere. --Wellawellawell (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

True - technically. If I argue that I, QuackPill LLC 'lost customers in Iowa' because 'they read RW and then decided to not buy stuff', I could try my luck and file there. But the court might not accept it as the correct place to file. But they just might be able to persuade them to take it [or might just not give a damn].

From my quick look at the relevant law, it would appear that RW would then need to get an Iowa lawyer to file 'dismissal on jurisdictional grounds'. This would come down to how the judge in question reads their crystal ball, but it would then be the suer to have burden of proof what RW did have 'sufficient connections' with Iowa. And I strongly suspect 'you can access the website from Iowa' isn't going to be enough alone. At least with my layperson's reading of [we don't do business in Iowa, nothing we write is explicitly targeting Iowa, we don't have affiliates in Iowa, don't have employees in Iowa, aren't incorporated in Iowa and our head office isn't in Iowa]. Perhaps the only way you'd get this through would be if 'QuackPill LLC' was based in Iowa.

But there is six words for this: media insurance and a legal warchest. It's not a 100% solid defence against forum shopping but it's perhaps a 95% effective one. And that's the best anybody can really hope for. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If the plaintiff just waited another month before filing his page would have vanished from Google anyway. Loads of articles have been deindexed and I can't see this being fixed.149.28.172.61 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wdym you cant see this being fixed? 2600:387:F:D14:0:0:0:4 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of settlement agreement (Update: There is as of the 20th)

Despite unsubstantiated claims the lawsuit was being settled the plaintiff never filed a voluntary dismissal meaning the lawsuit is not formally dismissed and is ongoing. Docket was last updated on September 18 and no voluntary dismissal form was filed by the plaintiff. 108.61.168.133 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. Came in September 20. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)