Thank you for those who offered me opinions and insights on this matter.
Ray suggested that it is perfectly legal not to act unless my country imposes an obligation to act. In my understanding (which I admit is not very deep nor solid), there is such an obligation. There are some cases (defamation the most famous, but also others such as harm to a business) in which admins were found to be liable.
An admin for Japanese wikipedia can be held liable, under japanese legal system, basically when
1) the content harms japanese (wikipedian, reader, or others such as a company), 2) I am aware of the content's illegality under japanese law, and 3) I do not delete the content despite that I have the ability (admin privilage) to do so.
This part is just like in the U.S., I think.
Potential issues here include invasion of privacy, defamation, obscenity, and copyright violation. But not very sure.
Ray also suggested you can revert the deletion, and therefore there is no point of deleting or not deleting. But unless you are also an admin in Japanese wikipedia, I guess you cannot revert it.
Mav suggested that after the act of submission is made, only illegality that matters is that of U.S./California law. I think otherwise, (i.e. legality of admins action/inaction also matters) but that aside, if mav is right, then some questions arises -- do Japanese admins should learn US/California laws in order to perform their legal obligations and protect themselves?
Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which violate privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the victim asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some peoples' ethical standards.
regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which violate privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the victim asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some peoples' ethical standards.
It's o.k. to delete anything that violates someone's privacy -- not because of the law, but because we're writing an encyclopedia, not acting as a faciltator for bad behavior of any kind.
In any specific case, you could ask me what to do if you aren't sure. If I were to tell you "no, don't delete that", then surely your obligation under Japanese law would be satisfied, as you would no longer have the right to delete the material.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It's o.k. to delete anything that violates someone's privacy
In Europe we are hearing this sort of argument being used to cover up Watergate-like situations. The next Richard Nixon might claim that his privacy would be violated if the scandal was reported. This makes me think twice when I hear the word "privacy". It's a very vague term, and can sometimes be used as an opposite to "justice".
I'm starting to agree with Scott McNealy: "Privacy - get over it", http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lars Aronsson wrote: | Jimmy Wales wrote: | |>It's o.k. to delete anything that violates someone's privacy | | In Europe we are hearing this sort of argument being used to cover up | Watergate-like situations. The next Richard Nixon might claim that | his privacy would be violated if the scandal was reported. This makes | me think twice when I hear the word "privacy". It's a very vague | term, and can sometimes be used as an opposite to "justice". | | I'm starting to agree with Scott McNealy: "Privacy - get over it", | http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html
The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand. Richard Nixon (or for a more recent example, Slick Willy Clinton), as a public figure, had no right to privacy. He gave it up when he chose -- of his own free will -- to seek public office. I, on the other hand, retain my right to privacy, except where I have taken affirmative action to weaken that right. I have no right to keep the files on my Web site private -- I started my Web server, giving up that right. I have an absolute right to keep my actions in my home private, because I have done nothing to lead anyone to believe I have given up that right -- I haven't installed a Web-cam, invited a news crew in, or anything like that.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Incoming fire has the right-of-way. ~ sean@epoptic.com |
Sean Barrett wrote:
The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand.
It is my opinion that "privacy" is a problematic issue, and I don't think I'm actively working to eliminate it. But if I'm only handed these two alternatives, I would rather eliminate privacy than agree that the distinction is simple.
Sean Barrett wrote:
The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand.
Anyone who calls privacy a "simple" issue doesn't know what he's talking about. It is a common political cheap-shot tactic to accuse those who do see the complexities of an issue of simply being the enemy so no further thought is required, but if we are to deal with the issues rationally, we must work to encourage discussion, not foreclose it.
I see most issues of privacy today as necessary evils: the only reason I keep some things private is because we live under a powerful and intrusive government that will jail me for doing some things I have every right to do, and also because common societal norms may make me unpopular for doing those things.
I would certtainly prefer to solve those problems by fixing the intrusive government and the irrational society; but I can't do that overnight. I can, however, maintain some privacy while working towards those ultimate solutions.
But nowhere in any of that do I confuse "privacy" with the totally unrelated issue of "freedom" as many people do, nor do I pretend that it is a simple issue.
See, for example,
http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?The_Benefits_Of_Transparency
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: |>Sean Barrett wrote: |> |>>The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively |>>working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand. | | | Anyone who calls privacy a "simple" issue doesn't know what he's | talking about. It is a common political cheap-shot tactic to accuse | those who do see the complexities of an issue of simply being the | enemy so no further thought is required, but if we are to deal with | the issues rationally, we must work to encourage discussion, not | foreclose it.
Please note that I never said -- nor do I believe -- that *privacy* is a simple issue. I said -- and believe -- that the difference between Richard Nixon's situation (the example originally given) and a private citizen's situation is simple. It is a common political cheap-shot tactic to accuse those who see the fallacy of a simplistic analogy of simply being the enemy so no further thought is required.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* ~ sean@epoptic.com | fifty states seem a little suspicious?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org