I see that trademarks are listed as a 'future pending issue' on the legal page... Ruh roh. ;-)
On Dec 17, 2007 7:52 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
On Dec 17, 2007 7:46 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Admins with language proficiency who are also able to identify what is and what is not libel (or in violation of some other law) in a given state?
OTRS isn't primarily a legal assessment system; it's an alerting one - once you've been pointed to a problematic article you can usually deal with it independent of what the actual email said! If it's bad enough to be [percieved as] libellous we shouldn't have it anyway, so really what needs to be done is to bounce it to someone with experience of dealing with bad content and let them solve the problem normally.
Common sense and the ability to say "yep, that's sucky content" is what you and I do on-wiki all the time, after all, whether OTRS is involved or not.
In the event that a) it was one of these odd language cases; and b) it did look like a confusing legal minefield that they didn't feel up to treading in, we'd probably encourage them to report back with notes on WTF is going on, with any useful editorial commentary they can provide, and we'd try to get some legal advice before continuing - much the same as we would do for a problem in a language we do routinely handle, like English or German.
[Legal problems are not very common overall, and complex legal problems that aren't "oops, sorry, we've removed the thing saying you screw goats, please don't sue" are rarer - especially on small projects!]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l