Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
way? Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
"Rogol"
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen
<toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
(NPOV,
copyright
and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
community needs.
The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
different from NPOV [0]. Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
fair
use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
research (within certain guidelines).
—Sam
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>