Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this way? Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
"Rogol" On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson <s...@samwilson.id.au> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points > (NPOV, > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those, > > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their > > > community needs. > > > > > > The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly > > different from NPOV [0]. Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as > > fair > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1]. > > > > And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original > research (within certain guidelines). > > —Sam > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
