Jason Williams wrote:
I think following US copyright law is a mistake - much better to follow a policy of complying with the law in as many countries as feasible. (I've no idea if in this case it makes a difference, I just wanted to raise the point)
I like this suggestion generally, but I'm not sure what differences there might be. U.S. copyright law is pretty restrictive, so if we adhere to U.S. copyright law, we're probably not violating anyone else's copyright laws. Are there counter-examples?
And I'd make a distinction (philosophically questionable, but we're trying to get work done here 'on the ground') between complying with laws that are _copyright_ restrictions versus complying with laws that are _censorship_. In that case, I have to insist that we not worry too much wether NPOV articles might be illegal in some other countries. Individual contributors should do what they need to do to stay out of jail, of course.
For example, there was a brief controversy about whether certain types of articles about racism might be illegal in France. I don't really care, although I certainly encourage our French wikipedians to do what they need to do to obey the law in their own country.
On the other hand, most of the censorship laws in Europe don't really impact NPOV articles anyway. In France, it's illegal to insult the President. But insulting people is not NPOV anyway, so there's really no conflict.
--Jimbo
Article on French censorship: http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,900093,00.html