Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?
http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law It'd be nice to have Italian Wikipedia back up as people are waking up in Italy. /me claps Good show, Italy. Knowledge is free. -- ~Keegan Not so easy. Yesterday an amendment has been officially proposed, not approved. It will be discussed into the parliament camera, then into the parliament senate. Only if both will accept it without modifications it'll be valid. Also, the government may ask for trust at the parliament about this law, and in the case it will be approved in its original form, without amendments. Maybe your countries are more slender, but in Itlay we are very very burocratics. That's simply a step, not the goal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: It.wikipedia will be turned on
It seems that there is the majority to put it.wikipedia.org alive again in the following hours. * IMPORTANT * it.wikipedia.org has been restored, and we use a large sitenotice. Anyway, the amendment is not yet approved and there is the possibility (not so low) that it'll be rejected. We've restored wikipedia 'cause the it.wikip comunity whishes that, but the threat remains Jalo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF blog post on Italian Wikipedia
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about. You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world) without wiki. mumble To me, it seems to be slightly different ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Domas There's no need to be so drastic. If WMF wishes the block to be removed, it simply can ask it and we'll do. In a couple of minutes. We're not moving war against WMF. Howerer, at the moment WMF seems to support this choice ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template). I think not. The transcluded template can be deleted from the article, if you don't block the article itself ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF blog post on Italian Wikipedia
Possibly relevant update: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111 (might need translation) Theo The comma has been discussed into the Comitato dei Nove, that is a simply discussion committee. They have proposed (it seems) to apply the law only to internet newspapers, magazines, etc., and not to blog and other amatorial sites (like wiki). It's just a proposal, not so much. A little step that doesn't bind the parliament ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual reader would. Austin To me, it works. Which browser are you using? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
One has to wonder how the community will be able to discuss unlocking the project if the project is locked. Risker i.e., we can leave unlocked the village pump Jalo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. Legally speaking, we're all just users of the website Maybe you're right, but it's not so obvious. [Sorry for my english] There is a lawsuit opened by a person against WMItaly, 'cause wikipedia was stating something against him (all referenced). WMItaly is not related to it.wikip, but the lawsuit is brought, and we have to spend money for lawyers 'till the lawsuit conclusion. It'll be the same for this law. Italian police will get my name using my IP, the italian political will bring a lawsuit against me 'cause I didn't published his amendment, and I'll have to spend money (too much money, to me) 'till the judge will says he's a stupid. I cannot do this, almost all it.wikip users cannot do, and so I'll stop contributing. I remember you, if it's necessary, that the amendment must be published without comment and unmodifiable, so we'll have to block all articles in which an amandment is required (almost all politicals articles, sport players articles, merchandising sellers articles and so on). Jalo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Much easier to sue under standard defamation laws (which we are under risk of daily anyway!). Not at all! In the italian laws, if you bring lawsuit against me for defamation, you must prove I'm not saying the truth. With this law you can bring lawsuit against me simply 'cause I've not published your amendment within 48 hours, true or false. You've not to prove anything ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect. If the law passes, it'll be too late ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management. No. Italian citizens that operates wiki (uses a pc) in Italy must follow both italian and US law Jalo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures We knew about this danger. But in the case, you have to desysop many of us. The responsible is not only the one who edited the page, but all of us that agreed on the strike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) media law might come? Mathias You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page version (that is 100% of articles). Kiribatian users edits all en.wikip articles? 100% of articles may be written by the person to which the article refers, and all these articles will be blocked infinite. Maybe this scenario, this italian law, is a little bit worst than a Kiribati law? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way? I've already told that: 100% of articles. Do you need a larger threshold? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
FWIW because of the way this has been implemented, it is not (at least obviously) possible to rollback/reverse via the web interface (it appears to be a change in common.js - and even that page redirects to the message). Tom You can disable javascripts and css in your browser. For firefox: *tools - Options - content - deselect Enable javascript *view - page style - no style ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
