Proposal talk:Keep the contents legal

    From Strategic Planning

    So what exactly is the problem this solves?

    I don't see great problems at present which would justify such drastic changes. Legal problems with editing by minors seem to be entirely theoretical. In practice this is not a problem. When there are real court decisions then we can respond appropriately.this unsigned comment was made by user:Filceolaire

    Waiting for a court decision is not a good way to ensure that the copyright information provided with the contents is reliable and verifiable. And there might be some countries where a court would say one thing and other countries where other courts would say something different. For each content and each country, we must try to be able to tell the reuser "we believe that you can reuse this content freely because...". Teofilo 07:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think the Foundation should defer to the opinion of its professional Counsel, Mike Godwin, on legal questions such as whether a free license can be executed by a minor rather than implement an identification scheme which might tend to discourage anonymous contributions. If I had any evidence that the issue of minors producing free content was substantive, I might feel differently, but I have a gut feeling that is very unlikely. 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This proposal seems to suggest that anyone under 18 cannot authorize free use of the content they contribute. Yet there are countless commercial sites on the web which permit those under 18 to contribute comments, and then display these to the public without fear of violating a copyright. That also is based on a user agreement, is it not? Mike Serfas 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This could involve a hurdle discouraging editors from contributing in some circumstances. I don't see any reason to believe that minors can't execute a free license to their content. It's not a contract with consideration, it's simply congruent to what the naive idea of editing a wiki on the internet is. Courts are unlikely to award ownership of edits to minor custodians. 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    whats legal in thailand

    i came across an article on a man jailed in thailand for something he had written. had the text, on the thai article it had been stricken multiple times. would this policy address any thai users? presumably any editor could go to jail for working on that page

    "From King Rama to the Crown Prince, the nobility was renowned for their romantic entanglements and intrigues. The Crown Prince had many wives major and minor with a coterie of concubines for entertainment. One of his recent wives was exiled with her entire family, including a son they conceived together, for an undisclosed indiscretion. He subsequently remarried with another woman and fathered another child. It was rumoured that if the prince fell in love with one of his minor wives and she betrayed him, she and her family would disappear with their name, familial lineage and all vestiges of their existence expunged forever" 23:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]