Berlet's confession

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 3rd September 2006, 8:56am)
My reading of the Section 230 mess (and yes, those 33 pages by the Harvard guy, with 200 legal footnoes, will make your head spin), is that the question of Section 230 and Wikimedia Foundation's immunity under 230 has to do with whether the Foundation as an "entity" is just the Trustees and their paid employees, or consists of the larger Wikipedia community.This distinction is relevant in determining whether or not the Foundation plays a role in the "creation or development of content," or whether it is merely a provider of an "interactive Internet service." Wikimedia Foundation itself defines its membership in its bylaws (for voting purposes) as extending broadly into the community....The greater your role in the creation or development of content, as opposed to just being an interactive Internet service, the less immunity you can claim under Section 230.

Wouldn't the answer to these questions be in the various "Policies" relating to how "Policy" is formulated both on the Wikipedia and Wikimedia websites? And not just the instructions on gaining "broad community concensus", but moreso actual real experience with the creation of policy.The Daniel Brant bio was created before WP:BLP. It is a huge error in judgement now to assume that the Brandt bio was created with the same "objective fairness" in mind that now is required for existing bios. Prior to BLP, the name of the game was to slime sources. When the other guy had better sources to support his arguement, and you were on the losing side, trash the sources was virtually the rule of the Wikielite.A study of BLP, from its inception will reveal the Foundation's role in the "creation or development of content". SlimVirgin is questioned here for example, in a key page related to the creation of BLP, and explains her actions,

QUOTE
BLP applies to every page on the website. I'm putting a stop to what's been happening on that talk page. It is for discussing the article only, and it must be done respectfully. Please review WP:BLP very carefully and note that the Foundation takes it seriously, for obvious reasons...

What material did SlimVirgin remove from this talk page?

QUOTE
This material, deleted from the article about you [Berlet], makes it clear that you have accused prominent conservatives of being fascists or neonazis. ... __ [redacted] 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Berlet responded

QUOTE
I have indeed suggested that a handful of "prominent conservatives" have allied themselves with "fascists or neonazis"

Berlet's confession here would certainly violate WP:NOT, yet this is evidence of the ongoing collusion to regulate the creation and development of content.