On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It
seems that Digg will be the
pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant
illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time
we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
The problem with an expression like "blatant illegality" is that it is
on the same POV footing as the word "obvious". It as though arguing
from one's conviction about the truth of the issue will somehow convince
others of its truth. But one's own convictions are anything but
neutral. It is easy to agree that clearly illegal material should be
removed. What is not easy is establishing that the material is in fact
illegal. It doesn't take a lot of research to come to the conclusion
that the legalities of reproducing encryption keys are far from
settled. There is nothing blatant about either extreme position.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: