Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:

One more issue. What is legal for an admin to do/not do.

In U.S. context, I guess admins may be held liable if they do not delete obscene or defamatory content after a notice/objection from a user. (Or is it the project as a whole rather than admins which would be held liable?)

Similar things, but with different conditions, would apply for admins of other language-wikis. So, sometimes, even if the content is perfectly legal to host in a U.S. server, it would have to be deleted by an admin in another country.

Regarding copyrights, Japanese laws provide different protections for the copyright holders and exemptions for users (like that of fair use in the U.S.). So, again, what is legal in U.S. context may or may not be legal in Japanese context.

It's never that simple. US law applies on most of this because the server is in the United States, and to the extent that it may be an issue coming under state jurisdiction, California law applies because that's where the server is. When it comes to obscenity California is likely on the liberal end in the spectrum of the states. A person in an other state could still be liable for illegalities in his own contributions, and to take it even further if on a given day he happens to be travelling in a third state and works from his hotel room there is a possibility of subjection to that third state's laws. You only need to change "state" to "country" in that last sentence to have a global perspective on the matter. Since for many Americans the constitutional issue of free speech is a big matter, simply having a law in the statutes does not mean that it is enforceable.

There is a strog need to distinguish the legality of the contents which is static and depends on the server's location, and the legality of the contributions which is personal and depends on the location of the contributor.

When you ask what is legal for an admin to do you are aking the wrong question. Doing nothing is perfectly legal unless your country imposes a specific obligation to act. If someone in your country makes a contribution that is illegal in your country, California law takes over once the contribution is enterred. The language of the contribution is irrelevant. An expatriate Japanese writing here in Canada in his native language would still be subject to Canadian laws on his contributions, not Japanese law. There is no need for an admin in another country to delete it..

The right to insist on the removal of copyright material rests with the copyright owner, and not on a third party. I suspect that most copyright material doesn't have anybody there to claim that copyright. If a person published a book in 1924, properly renewed the copyright in 1952, and died without a will, estate or heirs in 1953 where does this leave us? I favour a common sense approach to copyright.

Sometimes the actions of a well-intentioned meddler with no direct interest in something, are as much a problem as the apparent violation. It's like the situation of a street fight when both fighters turn against the person who tries to break up the fight.

Ec