I agree that we need much further analysis of the legal issues editors encounter. Despite my lack of legal expertise, it's clear to me that languages aren't the right variable for composing legalistic policy.
I also agree that this is not solely a Wikipedia issue. I use Wikipedia as my example because it's where the language-level policies have seen the most proliferation.
I still think the best solution would be divorcing legalistic policy from language-based Wikipedia policy. We could set up pages on Meta to establish the obligations and limitations for editing as a citizen of or within certain countries.
What we're doing now overly limits some editors and leaves others vulnerable.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law. The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible, maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.
The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary stake holders.
Thanks, GerardM
PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(