There is no reason for the servers hosting data to be located in the same country as the majority of WMF employees. If London is the most attractive place to work, and Canada is legally the most sensible place for data to be centralized, then there is nothing forcing the WMF to have its headquarters in the same country as the servers.
As previously discussed, it makes sense to have the data in more than one country, and if something like super-injunctions unexpectedly apply in one country, then the other country or countries should be chosen to minimise the risk that the same action would apply there.
It would even be possible to legally separate the WMF from its currently internal data hosting functions. Again these strategic options would minimize the chance that some billionaire's lawyers could use injunctions to completely suppress specific knowledge.
Fae
On 31 January 2017 at 16:03, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's an interesting thought in general, but what used to be true still is today. Europe in general, and the UK in particular, has significantly weaker free speech guarantees than the US does. This manifests in quite a few ways, from "hate speech" to "right to be forgotten" to "superinjunctions" to prohibitions against publishing the name of certain people accused of criminal acts.
Moving to Europe would oblige the WMF to follow these restrictions. How would that be avoided? If anything, Canada might be a better option in that regard, but still far from perfect.
Also, I'd dispute that London is inherently more creative and vibrant than SV. Some of the most brilliant and creative people in the world live and work in Silicon Valley.
Todd