I would guess no, this is a public forum and wiki reserve the right to edit or remove both posts and blogs, that said i don`t think it happens very often unless its spam, ill send the question and get a definitive answer.
This is what it says in the ''Terms and Conditions'':
''7. Intellectual Property
7.1 wikivorce.com, its contents and all Rights therein are owned by Wikivorce (and/or its licensors). "Rights" means copyright, database rights, trade marks, design rights and other intellectual and proprietary rights of whatever nature, anywhere in the world. You acknowledge that (i) wikivorce.com is protected by Rights; (ii) these Rights are valid and protected in all media and technologies existing now or later developed; and (iii) except as explicitly provided otherwise, these Terms and Conditions of Service and applicable copyright, trademark and other laws govern your use of such Rights.
7.2 You may view, print, download or temporarily store extracts from wikivorce.com for your personal, non-commercial reference without alteration, addition or deletion. You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any wikivorce.com material or content. You acknowledge that you will not acquire any Rights by downloading or otherwise using any wikivorce.com content or materials.
7.3 By submitting content, which shall include your member name, to any "public area" of wikivorce.com, including forums, blogs, articles and chat rooms, you grant Wikivorce and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, communicate to the public, perform and display the content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any Rights that may exist in such content. You also permit any member to access, display, view, store and reproduce such content for personal use.
7.4 By submitting content, you also warrant that you are entitled and have all necessary rights to grant the licences stated above. Subject to the foregoing, the owner of such content placed on wikivorce.com retains any and all Rights that may exist in such content.''
My reading of this is that Wikivorce owns the copyright.
If wikivorce owns the copyright to the contributions that I make then this is very disappointing.
Does anyone really read the terms and conditions, when they are in pain, and crying out for support?
I don''t mind so much the idea that I grant a licence for the delivery and presentation of my posts or blogs to others. I understand the point of a ''royalty free'' clause in that it permits the use of the materials without charge (for delivery) to all users, but it can be also construed in a wider way.
What I am concerned about is a potential inability to use my own words in a different situation should I choose to do do, or my contributions being used without permission. Facebook ran into similar issues a couple of years ago.
Looking forward to clarification in a form which doesn''t require a solicitor to understand.
My interpretation is that JJ owns the right to do what he likes with his contributions but that he can''t stop wikivorce from doing what it likes. This licensing type clause is becoming increasingly common in academic publishing.
Im sorry that I haven''t replied sooner - but I have only just seen this thread.
I think the simple answer is that wikivorce is not going to sue you if your posts are reproduced elsewhere in a personal context.
However, if any posts are to be reproduced for a commercial undertaking or anything else that is not for purely personal use, we would expect as a matter of courtesy to be asked for our permission to use material from the site and reserve the right to negotiate an appropriate fee to support the work of this volunteer-run site.