Two issues here: wrote:
> To use an example that is sure to make everybody's blood boil: suppose
> you are an admin on an open web site that's located in a country where
> child porn is legal. Someone posts child porn there. Your country's
> police asks you to remove it. You refuse, arguing that your country's
> jurisdiction doesn't apply to the server. I don't really want to be in
> your shoes.
>
> Axel
That only works in a case where there is a legal connection between the
"admin" and the website. In our case, all but one of our "admin's" are just
users. Jimbo would be the only one that could theoretically be compelled to
do anything that would not be immediately restored by another admin in a
nation where the offending material is fine.
Things will get sticky when we have a Wikimedia Foundation though. I imagine
many longtime users from around the world will have legal roles in the
Foundation....
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Again, IANAL
Tomos wrote:
> Ray suggested that it is perfectly legal not to act unless my country
> imposes an obligation to act. In my understanding (which I admit is not
> very deep nor solid), there is such an obligation. There are some cases
> (defamation the most famous, but also others such as harm to a business) in
> which admins were found to be liable.
You are overestimating and confusing the role of Adminship in Wikipedia;
Admins have /no/ special legal responsibilities to do anything. Admins just
have added capabilities to do certain things that we can't trust random users
to do. So the only real Admin we have in a legal sense is Jimbo Wales - who
unless he travels to Japan is outside of Japanese jurisdiction.
Therefore you are /not/ legally compelled to remove material that is perfectly
legal under US/California law. If a Japanese Admin still feels a need to do
so or just goes ahead and does so, then we can remedy the situation by
temporarily disabling the sysop status of the Admin's user account.
> An admin for Japanese wikipedia can be held liable, under japanese legal
> system, basically when
>
> 1) the content harms japanese (wikipedian, reader, or others such as a
> company),
> 2) I am aware of the content's illegality under japanese law, and
> 3) I do not delete the content despite that I have the ability (admin
> privilage) to do so.
See above. Simply put deleting such material would be a violation of our
policy so a Japanese Admin does not really have the ability to do so to begin
with.
> Mav suggested that after the act of submission is made, only illegality
> that matters is that of U.S./California law. I think otherwise, (i.e.
> legality of admins action/inaction also matters) but that aside, if mav is
> right, then some questions arises -- do Japanese admins should learn
> US/California laws in order to perform their legal obligations and protect
> themselves?
As far I know US law can't touch a Japanese citizen so long as that citizen is
outside of US jurisdiction. But a Japanese citizen does need to follow
US/California copyright law to have their work reside on a server in San
Diego. So this is just a Wikipedia policy on what we allow to be on our
server.
> Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a
> japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications
> include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which
> violate privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the
> victim asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some
> peoples' ethical standards.
As long as it is legal under US/California law and is also NPOV and an
encyclopedic topic then the material should stay.
I'm sure Japanese law isn't so draconian that a well-written, NPOV and
encyclopedic article would break Japanese law.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
There's much talk on the debian-legal mailinglist about the GNU FDL.
I've read a few of those mails, and I think some parts might be
important for us, but I'm getting headaches. And I know that when I read
a few more I'll get bellyache. But maybe someone else is interrested
enough in these things:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/
Happy reading!
Kurt
Tomos wrote:
> Similar things, but with different conditions, would apply for admins of
> other language-wikis. So, sometimes, even if the content is perfectly legal
> to host in a U.S. server, it would have to be deleted by an admin in
> another country.
Uh, no. The /only/ thing that counts is the legality of having the material on
a server in the US. What is legal for the user to submit to Wikipedia is
entirely up to the individual user, his or her nation and the amount of risk
the user is willing to take.
The /only/ laws that matter here are the ones of California and the US. So if
the material violates California and US law, /then/, and only then, can it be
deleted on legal grounds. Of course if the user that submitted the material
suddenly realizes that they broke the law of their own nation, then an Admin
should delete the material soon after the user who submitted it asked the
Admin.
> Regarding copyrights, Japanese laws provide different protections for the
> copyright holders and exemptions for users (like that of fair use in the
> U.S.). So, again, what is legal in U.S. context may or may not be legal in
> Japanese context.
No! This is /exactly/ the thing that has to be avoided. If an Admin insists on
deleting otherwise acceptable material (meaning it is both encyclopedic and
legal under US law) because it would be illegal to have that material on a
server in the nation of the Admin, then we should seriously reconsider the
Admin's sysop status.
Like I said before we should /not/ have the laws of every nation have veto
power over what we have on our server. Just pause for a moment to consider
what Wikipedia would be like if we started down that road.
Blandopedia - that's what we would be. We would be even more of a joke than
most public school textbooks in the United States (which are de facto
censored by state and local school boards who only approve textbooks that
don't offend a long list of lobbyists both on the right and left).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Ec wrote:
>...
> GNU-FL issues and our principle that the user does not own the content
> also play a role. The contributor's ownership ends when he presses
> "save". At that point the legal jurisdiction is transferred from the
> user's country to the server's country, so where is the admin's liability.
>...
Disclaimer: IANAL
This is incorrect. Here is what people agree to when they submit; "Please note
that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the
GNU Free Documentation License." Nowhere in there does it state that the user
"looses ownership" or even "transferres control" over to anybody else.
In fact the submitter by default keeps copyright ownership but agrees to
license a version of the uploaded text under the terms of the GNU FDL. So if
the submitter is legally able to do this, then Wikipedia has a version of the
submitters text in the GNU FDL.
And due to the nature of the GNU FDL /that version/ can never be changed to a
different license but the person who submitted the text can theoretically
make a different version under any license they wish. But in reality the
submitter has effectively liberated the GNU FDL version of the text (hence it
is free in the Free Software sense).
It is a very important thing that we continue to have things work this way
since if all copyright ownership were given to a single copyright holder
(such as a Wikimedia Foundation or even Jimbo), then it would be possible to
create a proprietary fork of the whole project. The way it is now each and
every person who has ever contributed to Wikipedia would have to agree
licensing a version of their work under a proprietary license in order to
create a proprietary fork.
I for one would drop dead before agreeing to create a proprietary fork of my
30,000 + edits. I'm certain that this sentiment is shared by a majority of
past and present Wikipedia contributors. So because of this (and the fact
that it will be impossible to track down all anonymous contributors)
Wikipedia will never have a proprietary fork.
Wikpedia will always be free. There is a great deal of power in that
statement, no?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Anthere wrote:
>....
>While I can consider ok that others are using
>user names very similar to mine, I think this
>was deliberate attempt to make other believe I
>(Anthere) said this about Aoineko. Hence, that
>is not simple fun, that is direct attack and
>attempt to twist other people perceptions.
>
>I think that is wrong.
>....
I also think that is wrong.
Distorting the messages of other user's is one of the main reasons why Lir was
first banned. Being excessively rude is the reason why DW was banned. But the
available evidence you have provided thus far indicates that Aoineko has
effectively done both of these things /and/ has masqueraded as you in what
you believe is an attempt to discredit you. Utra un-wiki if true.
Aoineko has also admitted to pretending he was you by saying it was a "joke."
However, given how long I remember you complaining about an "imposter" I
would have to say that I tend to suspect a less than jovial motive. There is
/nothing/ funny about pretending to be someone else when it is obvious that
that person (in this case you Anthere) was obviously distressed by this.
I like Lee's post talking about "Procedural default" and await Aoineko's side
of the story.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Testing.
None of my recent emails to this list come back to me as list posts.
(but my emails to individuals work)
could at least one person email me direct if you guys get this.
thanks
- tarquin
As I understand, there are two ways to use an image from another
language-wikipedia.
One is to download it (say, from Meta) and upload (say, to Japanese).
The other is to use the URL of the image. like this:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/c/c0/Japan_global_locator_closeup.png
Is one way more recommended than the other? Is there any discussion of
sharing or not sharing images across language-wikis? I see that the first
takes more storage capacity, while the latter may cause more burden on the
server when a page is downloaded (though I'm not sure).
Thanks for help,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
