On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, we're going to look ridiculous, humorless, and ignorant of the implications of the stated purpose of Wikipedia.
Ridiculous and humorless is fine. The ignorance of and denial about the implications of the stated purpose of Wikipedia (both "We're here to write an encyclopedia" and the Foundation stuff) in this thread is most disconcerting.
Just to point out, we're here to write a FREE encyclopedia. If it turns out the **AA goons are going to successfully sue into oblivion anyone distributing the encyclopedia, then there's a good argument the encyclopedia is no longer free.
That said, it hasn't been made clear yet which side the courts are going to take. And if I had to guess, my IANAL ass would guess the courts will side with the rights of an encyclopedia to engage in free speech so long as the focus remains academic in nature.
Then again, maybe it'll be legal to distribute "the number" in Wikipedia in a printed book, and illegal to distribute it electronically. Remember Bruce Schneier's book Applied Cryptography? Granted, a different law, but still...
Anthony