Wikipedia disclaimers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikipedia disclaimers

Sebastián González-2
As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia in
english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content is
beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day there's
the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the foundation.

By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all wikipedias,
wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes? The
GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between the
translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?

Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia in
spanish, located at
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad,
does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
legality
of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal
law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
mistaken display of patriotism. As far as I understand (but correct me if
I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins and
users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would answer
to.

What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of the
US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis in
non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal disclaimer
as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the foundation
be enforced?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Casey Brown-3
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sebastián González
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia in
> english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content is
> beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day
> there's
> the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the foundation.
>

The Meta discussion referred to is <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Disclaimers>.  I am not sure
if Alex was considered a "lawyer of the foundation".  He may have just
served in an advisory capacity and that document could have been written
from a community member's perspective.


>
> By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all wikipedias,
> wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes? The
> GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between
> the
> translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
>
> Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia in
> spanish, located at
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad
> ,
> does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> legality
> of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
> maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal
> law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
> part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
> some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
> authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> mistaken display of patriotism. As far as I understand (but correct me if
> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins
> and
> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would
> answer
> to.
>
> What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of
> the
> US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis in
> non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal
> disclaimer
> as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the
> foundation
> be enforced?
>

(CC'ing to Mike to make sure he gets a look at this.)

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Sebastián González-2
Two points.

1) I think whoever you spoke to at Meta was more or less mistaken.
The disclaimers were written by Wikipedians not lawyers (you can look
at their edit history).  However, they are also very old and largely
static.  For example, the general disclaimer has had only ~3
substantive edits in three years.  Possibly the Foundation's lawyer
actually endorsed it at some point, but there is not any record of
that as far as I am aware.  I'll defer the Foundation about whether
they would want to take control of disclaimers moving forward, but
many years ago they were originally written by consensus.

2) The WMF and its projects are subject to US laws.  Period.  Many
non-English projects also strive to comply with laws as existing in
regions that are home to their language, e.g. Russian laws on the
ru-wiki, Italian laws on the it-wiki, etc.  However, given the
physical location of the WMF servers, no project is immune from the
reach of US laws.

-Robert Rohde

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Sebastián González
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia in
> english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content is
> beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day there's
> the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the foundation.
>
> By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all wikipedias,
> wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes? The
> GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between the
> translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
>
> Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia in
> spanish, located at
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad,
> does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> legality
> of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
> maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal
> law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
> part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
> some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
> authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> mistaken display of patriotism. As far as I understand (but correct me if
> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins and
> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would answer
> to.
>
> What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of the
> US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis in
> non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal disclaimer
> as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the foundation
> be enforced?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Sebastián González-2
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sebastián González
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as I understand (but correct me if
> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins and
> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would answer
> to.

Slightly off-topic, but it should be pointed out that the US has the
second or third-largest Hispanophone population in the world.

Thanks,
Richard

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Pharos-3
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sebastián González
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As far as I understand (but correct me if
>> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins and
>> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
>> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
>> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would answer
>> to.
>
> Slightly off-topic, but it should be pointed out that the US has the
> second or third-largest Hispanophone population in the world.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>

OK, 5th, but it is growing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Platonides
In reply to this post by Sebastián González-2
Sebastián González wrote:

> As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia in
> english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content is
> beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day there's
> the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the foundation.
>
> By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all wikipedias,
> wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes? The
> GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between the
> translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
>
> Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia in
> spanish, located at
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad,
> does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> legality
> of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
> maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal
> law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
> part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
> some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
> authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> mistaken display of patriotism.

Diffs? You can see in the history page [1] that it hasn't been received
changes nor edit conflicts recently.
All changes for the last year were minor, as even non-Spanish speakers
can see [2]

Same applies for the talk page: only minor issues (borders, interwikis...).


> As far as I understand (but correct me if
> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins and
> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not erase
> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would answer
> to.

I feel you have personal issues with it. Sorry if it is not, but there
have been too many people coming to this list to complain about X done
(wrongly [3]) on project Y.
Why haven't you noted it on the talk page? Or the Village Pump?

Moreover, which is your username? I can't find a Sebastián González on
Spanish Wikipedia, meta, or the local mailing list.


> What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of the
> US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis in
> non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal disclaimer
> as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the foundation
> be enforced?

Maybe you're trying to get a point to introduce fair use on eswiki?
"The servers are in USA, local law is not important" has always been an
argument for fair use, and "there is no fair use in {Spain, Venezuela,
Uruguay...}" against it.

Which is anyway not too relevant. That Spanish Wikipedia has to comply
with US laws isn't an excuse for not obeying the copyright laws of
Spain, Venezuela or Argentina, when relevant. *Specially* when you're on
those countries or a great number of your contributors are. Should we
encourage to disobey their local law?? Maybe on certain matters, on
totalitariam regimes... but copyright is not one of those cases.

Even more, the fact that hypothetically the WMF would win a fair use
case settled on the US, doesn't mean that it should try to force it or
that it would be able to support it. We should not even reach that
point. [4]


[[es:User:Platonides]] ~~~~

1-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&action=history
2-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALimitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&diff=20921118&oldid=12227601&uselang=en
3-http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version
4-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037170.html


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Nikola Smolenski
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 00:24:39 Platonides wrote:

> Sebastián González wrote:
> > What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of
> > the US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can
> > wikis in non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the
> > legal disclaimer as they see fit, or should a version written or
> > supervised by the foundation be enforced?
>
> Maybe you're trying to get a point to introduce fair use on eswiki?
> "The servers are in USA, local law is not important" has always been an
> argument for fair use, and "there is no fair use in {Spain, Venezuela,
> Uruguay...}" against it.
>
> Which is anyway not too relevant. That Spanish Wikipedia has to comply
> with US laws isn't an excuse for not obeying the copyright laws of
> Spain, Venezuela or Argentina, when relevant. *Specially* when you're on
> those countries or a great number of your contributors are. Should we
> encourage to disobey their local law?? Maybe on certain matters, on
> totalitariam regimes... but copyright is not one of those cases.

This is simply not true. From
http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=1373#JD_ES070_A32

32. It shall be lawful to include in one's own work fragments of the works of
others, whether of written, sound or audiovisual character, and also to
include isolated works of three-dimensional, photographic, figurative or
comparable art character, provided that the works concerned have already been
disclosed and that they are included by way of quotation or for analysis,
comment or critical assessment. Such use may only be made for teaching or
research purposes and to the extent justified by the purpose of the
inclusion, and the source and the name of the author of the work shall be
stated.

35.-(1) Any work liable to be seen or heard in the reporting of current events
may be reproduced, distributed and communicated to the public, but only to
the extent justified by the informatory purpose.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Bence Damokos
In reply to this post by Platonides
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sebastián González wrote:
> > As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia
> in
> > english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content
> is
> > beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day
> there's
> > the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the
> foundation.
> >
> > By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all
> wikipedias,
> > wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> > binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes?
> The
> > GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between
> the
> > translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> > disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> > applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
> >
> > Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia
> in
> > spanish, located at
> >
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad
> ,
> > does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> > legality
> > of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
> > maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and
> federal
> > law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
> > part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
> > some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
> > authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> > prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> > mistaken display of patriotism.
>
> Diffs? You can see in the history page [1] that it hasn't been received
> changes nor edit conflicts recently.
> All changes for the last year were minor, as even non-Spanish speakers
> can see [2]
>
> Same applies for the talk page: only minor issues (borders, interwikis...).
>
>
> > As far as I understand (but correct me if
> > I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins
> and
> > users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not
> erase
> > the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> > other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would
> answer
> > to.
>
> I feel you have personal issues with it. Sorry if it is not, but there
> have been too many people coming to this list to complain about X done
> (wrongly [3]) on project Y.
> Why haven't you noted it on the talk page? Or the Village Pump?
>
> Moreover, which is your username? I can't find a Sebastián González on
> Spanish Wikipedia, meta, or the local mailing list.
>
>
> > What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of
> the
> > US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis
> in
> > non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal
> disclaimer
> > as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the
> foundation
> > be enforced?
>
> Maybe you're trying to get a point to introduce fair use on eswiki?
> "The servers are in USA, local law is not important" has always been an
> argument for fair use, and "there is no fair use in {Spain, Venezuela,
> Uruguay...}" against it.
>
> Which is anyway not too relevant. That Spanish Wikipedia has to comply
> with US laws isn't an excuse for not obeying the copyright laws of
> Spain, Venezuela or Argentina, when relevant. *Specially* when you're on
> those countries or a great number of your contributors are. Should we
> encourage to disobey their local law?? Maybe on certain matters, on
> totalitariam regimes... but copyright is not one of those cases.
>
> Even more, the fact that hypothetically the WMF would win a fair use
> case settled on the US, doesn't mean that it should try to force it or
> that it would be able to support it. We should not even reach that
> point. [4]
>
>
> [[es:User:Platonides]] ~~~~
>
> 1-
> http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&action=history
>
> 2-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALimitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&diff=20921118&oldid=12227601&uselang=en
> 3-http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version
>
> 4-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037170.html<http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&action=history2-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALimitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&diff=20921118&oldid=12227601&uselang=en3-http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version4-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037170.html>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I believe the WMF has a policy on the copyright issue (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) solving the
copyright question.

Do we close the original disclaimer question that it is Wikipedia-edition
specific, and not a WMF document that should be the same in all languages,
or at least referred to as the official version?

- Bence Damokos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-3

While we attempt to act consistently with the laws of other  
jurisdictions, the fact that the Foundation and its projects operate  
under U.S. law requires us to conduct our affairs accordingly. This  
means that when U.S. law is inconsistent with other jurisdictions and  
requires different things from us, we are compelled to choose U.S. law  
as our guide.

This is not an unusual situation or even an imperialistic one -- every  
enterprise that operates across national borders is compelled to  
address the problem of "choice of law." (One of the things we  
routinely do in our business arrangements is decide which law applies.)

I believe the Spanish-language community is making a mistake in not  
translating English-language legal disclaimers, since even if they're  
not translated, the Foundation is compelled to obey American state and  
federal law, and it does not do other communities any good to withhold  
that fact.


--Mike



On Oct 12, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Casey Brown wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sebastián González <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
> As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the  
> wikipedia in
> english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's  
> content is
> beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day  
> there's
> the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the  
> foundation.
>
> The Meta discussion referred to is <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Disclaimers 
> >.  I am not sure if Alex was considered a "lawyer of the  
> foundation".  He may have just served in an advisory capacity and  
> that document could have been written from a community member's  
> perspective.
>
>
> By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all  
> wikipedias,
> wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative  
> purposes? The
> GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement  
> between the
> translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
>
> Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the  
> wikipedia in
> spanish, located at
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad 
> ,
> does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> legality
> of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database  
> is
> maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and  
> federal
> law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being  
> just a
> part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen  
> that
> some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to  
> acknowledge the
> authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> mistaken display of patriotism. As far as I understand (but correct  
> me if
> I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of  
> admins and
> users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not  
> erase
> the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina,  
> Venezuela or
> other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project  
> would answer
> to.
>
> What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the  
> law of the
> US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can  
> wikis in
> non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal  
> disclaimer
> as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the  
> foundation
> be enforced?
>
> (CC'ing to Mike to make sure he gets a look at this.)
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal  
> emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Sebastián González-2
In reply to this post by Platonides
The issue has been discused a year ago, when it was tried to make
"Biographies of living people" an official policy at
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discusi%C3%B3n:Votaciones/2007/Biograf%C3%ADas_de_personas_vivasHowever,
I did not explain in full detail such things because I realize
those are local issues and I did not want to bother with topics wich are
trivial for this channel. The main topics of Wikimedia projects being under
US law or not and if disclaimers have to say X things or can be made up as
users like, is worth being asked here; if this or that proposal should be
official policy at X or Y project, is not. In fact, I'm not even interested
in fair use, my main topics of edit are about history, and I can work very
well with paintings in PD.

I'm not hiding my username. I'm Belgrano at that project, and before the
username change I was Thialfi. I simply couldn't figure out how to configure
things.

Out of topic: I did consider posting the topic in there for discussion.
However, the most likely outcome of that would be the first administrator
thinking that the request is correct ad adding the text to the disclaimer,
and later one of the users who refuse to mention the the projects being
under US law would accuse me of trying to deceive he first administrator and
introduce sneak changes without it being noticed. So, before posting in
there I wanted to make sure if it's really a topic subject to local
consensus or if there is a global and official stance. I asked at the forum
in Meta (considering it would be a project-wide type of question), and from
there I had been redirected here. I doubt I would post more mails here
anyway unless redirected again, it's a complicated system and I prefer the
village pumps or talk pages. I know, those are internal issues of no concern
here, I just wanted to explain myself. I think the answers received are
enough to understand the situation I asked in the first place, so this
thread can be finished.

2008/10/13 Platonides <[hidden email]>

> Sebastián González wrote:
> > As I have been informed at Meta, the legal disclaimers of the wikipedia
> in
> > english were formulated by a lawyer of the foundation, and it's content
> is
> > beyond discussion or consensus of the community of users. If one day
> there's
> > the need to modify something of it, it would be decided by the
> foundation.
> >
> > By logic, the same thing would apply to the disclaimers of all
> wikipedias,
> > wich are traductions of the one in english. But are those disclaimers
> > binding documents in the legal sense, or just of informative purposes?
> The
> > GNU free documentation license states "In case of a disagreement between
> the
> > translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
> > disclaimer, the original version will prevail", does something similar
> > applies between disclaimers of wikipedia?
> >
> > Let's provide a working example of this. The disclaimer of the wikipedia
> in
> > spanish, located at
> >
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad
> ,
> > does not include any mention to the paragraph "Jurisdiction and
> > legality
> > of content" of the version in english, wich states that the database is
> > maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and
> federal
> > law of the state of Florida, in the United States. Far from being just a
> > part that was missing due to an incomplete translation, I have seen that
> > some users, including some admins, deliberately refuse to acknowledge the
> > authority of US law over the content of wikipedia, either as a plot to
> > prevent consensus about non-free content from ever happening or as a
> > mistaken display of patriotism.
>
> Diffs? You can see in the history page [1] that it hasn't been received
> changes nor edit conflicts recently.
> All changes for the last year were minor, as even non-Spanish speakers
> can see [2]
>
> Same applies for the talk page: only minor issues (borders, interwikis...).
>
>
> > As far as I understand (but correct me if
> > I'm wrong) being written in spanish and having a huge majority of admins
> and
> > users from spanish speaking countries rather than from the US do not
> erase
> > the ties with the US and turn the laws of Spain, Argentina, Venezuela or
> > other spanish speaking countries into the only ones the project would
> answer
> > to.
>
> I feel you have personal issues with it. Sorry if it is not, but there
> have been too many people coming to this list to complain about X done
> (wrongly [3]) on project Y.
> Why haven't you noted it on the talk page? Or the Village Pump?
>
> Moreover, which is your username? I can't find a Sebastián González on
> Spanish Wikipedia, meta, or the local mailing list.
>
>
> > What's the situation, then? Can those things be done, or does the law of
> the
> > US apply to all projects regardless of users liking it or not? Can wikis
> in
> > non-english languajes be allowed to interpret and write the legal
> disclaimer
> > as they see fit, or should a version written or supervised by the
> foundation
> > be enforced?
>
> Maybe you're trying to get a point to introduce fair use on eswiki?
> "The servers are in USA, local law is not important" has always been an
> argument for fair use, and "there is no fair use in {Spain, Venezuela,
> Uruguay...}" against it.
>
> Which is anyway not too relevant. That Spanish Wikipedia has to comply
> with US laws isn't an excuse for not obeying the copyright laws of
> Spain, Venezuela or Argentina, when relevant. *Specially* when you're on
> those countries or a great number of your contributors are. Should we
> encourage to disobey their local law?? Maybe on certain matters, on
> totalitariam regimes... but copyright is not one of those cases.
>
> Even more, the fact that hypothetically the WMF would win a fair use
> case settled on the US, doesn't mean that it should try to force it or
> that it would be able to support it. We should not even reach that
> point. [4]
>
>
> [[es:User:Platonides]] ~~~~
>
> 1-
> http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&action=history
>
> 2-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALimitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&diff=20921118&oldid=12227601&uselang=en
> 3-http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version
>
> 4-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037170.html<http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&action=history2-http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALimitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad&diff=20921118&oldid=12227601&uselang=en3-http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version4-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037170.html>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Platonides
Ok. I was confused by the unknown sender and lack of recent discussion
about it. In fact, I wasn't even aware you were renamed!


@Nikola: Although almost every country contries have a "right to cite",
US Fair use has a greater scope than most of them. But I'd prefer not to
enter into Fair use discussion issues.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Nikola Smolenski
Platonides wrote:
> @Nikola: Although almost every country contries have a "right to cite",
> US Fair use has a greater scope than most of them. But I'd prefer not to
> enter into Fair use discussion issues.

Yes, however some Wikipedias appear not to follow even the right to cite
their countries have.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Platonides wrote:
>  
>> @Nikola: Although almost every country contries have a "right to cite",
>> US Fair use has a greater scope than most of them. But I'd prefer not to
>> enter into Fair use discussion issues.
>>    
>
> Yes, however some Wikipedias appear not to follow even the right to cite
> their countries have.
>
>  

Do you mean in terms of breaching the right to cite applicability
limits, or in terms of not making full use of (the - more restrictive
than US fair use provisions - but nevertheless extant) their countrys
right to cite exceptions to the strict interpretation of copyright law.

I could see that there might easily be both types of situations.
In fact I would be surprised if there was no wikipedia that was
paranoid that way.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia disclaimers

Nikola Smolenski
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Platonides wrote:
>>> @Nikola: Although almost every country contries have a "right to cite",
>>> US Fair use has a greater scope than most of them. But I'd prefer not to
>>> enter into Fair use discussion issues.
>>>    
>> Yes, however some Wikipedias appear not to follow even the right to cite
>> their countries have.
>
> Do you mean in terms of breaching the right to cite applicability
> limits, or in terms of not making full use of (the - more restrictive
> than US fair use provisions - but nevertheless extant) their countrys
> right to cite exceptions to the strict interpretation of copyright law.

Yes, there are cases of both.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l