Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'm well aware of the legal issues if the WMF is
the publisher. Just
because it would be preferable for it not to be doesn't make it the
case. A free web host doesn't incorporate your content into their
site, it just hosts your site. Wikipedia is a complex web application
which incorporates user generated content, that's very different from
a free web host.
From my perspective, WMF provides a powerful publishing
tool and content
framework. You could liken it to free web hosting surrounding your
content
with adverts to generate revenues.
I don't know what the legal definition of a
publisher is, but the most
obvious definition is "one who makes something available to the
public". The WMF does that for Wikipedia content in the same way a
book publisher makes the contents of a book available to the public.
In no way does the Foundation vet the published content; that is all done by
the community. There's not a huge amount of policy set from Board level (eg
NPOV), but I believe these are like a free web host having a "no porn" rule.
Brian McNeil