On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its educational mission.
We already do this, and it's been going on for a decade.
The English Wikipedia is stuffed full of text added under a "pre 1923 so public domain" basis, which of course is a complete minefield anywhere else in the world. Some of it is tagged, some of it isn't
See, for example, the 12000+ pages (often very prominent) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text...
Some of this is PD in most of the world (assuming life+70). Some isn't. We cheerfully warrant it all to be CC-BY-SA...
(In practice, I think this is reasonably de minimis. The amount of material that survives is relatively small in many articles, and I've even removed a few EB1911 tags when it's been written out entirely. But it's interesting to compare this with the way we handle Commons material.)