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.


On 31 January 2017 at 16:03, Todd Allen <> 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

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to