On 1/3/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
I aren't a lawyer (though my uncle is one), nor do I have a private connection into Mikes brainbox, but...
The way I see the contract everyone makes when they choose to edit wikipedia, is that they search within their heart whether their prior obligations are such that they permit or disallow them to edit according to our customs, practises and the implicit rules for editing wikipedia. The no "legal threats on-site" is part and parcel of that. For each and very editor to see if they can abide by it. It is an individual calculation for each editor, not something that automatically derives from what IP they hail from.
I agree, but I don't really see the relevance. I can understand (and agree with) the moral and ethical reasons for allowing .mil's to edit, but when the legal counsel says he can't endorse something, I'm assume it's for legal reasons unless told otherwise - hence my request for clarification.
Not everything lawyers do is driven by legal obligation. There is no dictum that says that lawyers can't speak if they aren't obligated to do so.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]