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? On Dec 17, 2007 7:18 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)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(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?) and as such is subject to US law. Simply writing in Korean doesn't make you subject to a court in Seoul... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: The law tends to have different views on how to handle libelling people versus killing them... Criminal charges and extradition are pretty much glaringly improbable for defamation suits, but jurisdictional forum-shopping is plausible. If that happens, of course, we deal with it as and when. But it's worth remembering that the biggest and most glaring likelihood of such forum-shopping is not an obscure defamation somewhere on the Albanian Wikipedia and a summons to Tirana, but someone suing us in a British (or Australian?) court, and that could happen *now*, with material published on enwp! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 18/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: The main server farm is in Tampa; there's a handful of squid servers in Seoul and another set in Amsterdam, which act as local caches. https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/All_servers -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Andrew Gray wrote: There are not currently any plans to move our main servers from Tampa. Note that the location of the main office and the locations of the various server farms are pretty much entirely independent questions. If and when the time is right to move things, that'll be a separate decision. -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

Nathan Awrich wrote: I'd add, how are presumed trademark infringements handled? I found weeks ago a paper advertisement on which the character was browsing wikipedia (identifiable by the logo). IMHO they'd need WMF permission to do so but maybe they have! How could i know? There must be a better way than snail mail to the US (suggested by cary).

Michael Bimmler wrote: Many, if not all, of the cases where an organisation asks permission to use TM'd logos like the puzzle globe pass through the OTRS system, I have forwarded several on to Mike Godwin and in all the cases I've dealt with they've been reasonable - and thus authorised - uses. For an example, I had one where someone was publishing an algebra textbook and wanted a question based on a formula to predict when the English Wikipedia will reach six million articles. Permission was sought, and granted, to illustrate that question with the puzzle globe logo. Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation. I would suggest not emailing Mike on this one, and instead hammering things out on this list. Mike reads stuff here and will likely respond when he thinks it is appropriate. Something from several weeks ago in a periodical or newspaper is likely too late to deal with beyond sending a polite letter or email as "for future reference ask" so I think it would be inappropriate to directly bother Mike when the issue can be discussed on this list and Mike can give a single response that explains the issue to everyone here who may be concerned about it. Brian McNeil

David Gerard wrote: If they keep asking, especially where they could ignore us and claim free use, then we keep cooperating. It gives us an access into these news organisations where we have been reasonable with their requests and to reciprocate they simply have to listen to us. If we're generous about use of the logos and just ask for a right to reply we're going to catch a lot more media groups. They may want to run the bad press because it generates the page views, but if WMF is saying, "let us have our say and you can use the logo" then they are going to come to us for comment. If you can understand that not all bad press is bad for the foundation then you probably understand what I'm trying to get at. From my perspective one of the last things we want to do is make the press think we are secretive or likely to hide things from them. Brian McNeil

It occurs to me that this forum (public, archived list) may not be appropriate for an official response on this subject from the Foundation. My bad. ~Nate On Dec 18, 2007 4:01 PM, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: