[Foundation-l] Re: what is partnership ?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Anthere wrote:

>
>
> Michael Snow a écrit:
>
>> Neil Harris wrote:
>>
>>> The content belongs to its original copyright owners, and increasingly,
>>> the Wikimedia Foundation is their official copyright agent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please avoid statements like this, as they are potentially 
>> misleading. While it is theoretically possible that at some point in 
>> the future, the Foundation might take legal action against people who 
>> misuse content taken from Wikimedia in violation of the licensing 
>> terms, contributors do not assign their copyrights to the Foundation, 
>> and the Foundation does not assume a duty to protect these rights. 
>> The sense in which the Foundation is an official agent for copyright 
>> issues (actually the agent is Jimbo personally) is with respect to 
>> third parties who have complaints about their copyrighted material 
>> being infringed by use on Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> There is some language in [[en:Wikipedia:Submission Standards]] about 
>> appointing the Foundation as an agent for downstream copyright 
>> compliance issues. That page is a draft, most of it now more than a 
>> year old, and has never been adopted as official policy. As things 
>> currently stand, contributors have every right to enforce their own 
>> copyrights against outside parties as they see fit, and don't need 
>> for the Foundation to get involved.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
>
> Copyrights are not the only issue.
>
> Now, there is no doubt that just blanking a page can be done by anyone.
>
> In case there is a request to permanently delete some versions in the 
> history of an article, only developers can do it.
>
> But developers being volunteers, they can just decide they do not feel 
> like doing it.
>
> In this case, suppose some one request a history is deleted. No one 
> does it. The one doing the request goes to the tribunal and show he 
> informed the website owners of the issue and nothing was done to fix it.
>
> What will happen ? Is the site owner still responsible, even if he can 
> not technically fix the issue ? Or is the fact he asked developers to 
> fix it and nothing was done enough to assume he acted in good faith 
> rather bad faith toward the request ?
>
> In case you need a practical example, see my request on wikitech, and 
> the fact it will possibly not get done.
>
> What is the next step ?

Hoi,
I think, that when we DELETE the article and then copy back those parts 
that are proper, we will only lose the history of the article. For 
moderators and for legal reasons we will be still able to show what was 
there. To the public there is nothing to be seen of the content that 
should not be there. In my opinion this is an acceptable solution.

There could/should be some mention of this in the talkpage to explain 
that/how this issue is resolved.

Thanks,
    GerardM