Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Grazie! :) 2011/10/13 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Nickanc Wikipedia, 12/10/2011 14:21: Yes, there are these groups, but in most wikipedias they have few persons inside it and they have almost no policy; That's because few people need it. In it wiki basta una riga in [[WP:RA]], secondo me. moreover if you look for global ipblock exempt you may found that they are still vulnerable to IP and IP range blocks made locally on individual wikis (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_bans#Global_IP_block_exemption ). so, for example, how could a chinese write on it.wiki? or, if Berlusconi's law will get approved, how could italians write freely on all wikis, if in fact there is no global ipblock exempt? Only very few users seriously edit on multiple wikis and for interwikis or such very minor edits they could use a sockpuppet, in your hypothetical example. The global-ipblock-exempt includes global torunblocked permission, anyway. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Yes, there are these groups, but in most wikipedias they have few persons inside it and they have almost no policy; moreover if you look for global ipblock exempt you may found that they are still vulnerable to IP and IP range blocks made locally on individual wikis (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_bans#Global_IP_block_exemption ). so, for example, how could a chinese write on it.wiki? or, if Berlusconi's law will get approved, how could italians write freely on all wikis, if in fact there is no global ipblock exempt? 2011/10/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59: Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws? This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK. Everybody happily editing on clandestinity is not really a solution. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Nickanc Wikipedia, 12/10/2011 14:21: Yes, there are these groups, but in most wikipedias they have few persons inside it and they have almost no policy; That's because few people need it. In it wiki basta una riga in [[WP:RA]], secondo me. moreover if you look for global ipblock exempt you may found that they are still vulnerable to IP and IP range blocks made locally on individual wikis (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_bans#Global_IP_block_exemption ). so, for example, how could a chinese write on it.wiki? or, if Berlusconi's law will get approved, how could italians write freely on all wikis, if in fact there is no global ipblock exempt? Only very few users seriously edit on multiple wikis and for interwikis or such very minor edits they could use a sockpuppet, in your hypothetical example. The global-ipblock-exempt includes global torunblocked permission, anyway. Nemo ___ 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
Ilario writes: We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia available to the person living in totalitarism. The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike. I live in Italy and I was among those one who worked on http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en . I think it was the right choice because it was the most effective action realistically able to save both Wikipedia integrity and Wikipedia accessibility from Italy (in case law gets approved, if wikipedia denies to amend the article in the requested way, police may obscure it). Now, after this experience, I think that, to avoid these strikes to happen, we, WMF and language wikipedias shall provide more informations about IP privacy policy and about proxies. For example, why dont translate http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tor and/or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:No_open_proxies in more and more languages to make people aware on how to edit freely wikipedia when it isnt allowed by laws? Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws? Nickanc ___ 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
Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59: Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws? This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK. Everybody happily editing on clandestinity is not really a solution. Nemo ___ 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
On 10/06/11 6:33 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31: On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter? Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader. A quote: The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences. The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view... I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring. I'd like to add that despite the us vs. them feeling (WMF against the community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference between a foreign organization part of your own movement (and which runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to effective actions required. We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long story short). I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country. Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them. Ray ___ 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
Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11: I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country. I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction, but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite get the discussion about the alleged right to strike vs. right to be informed thing. The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this? Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them. This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one may arise (as in this case). Nemo ___ 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
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11: I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country. I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction, but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite get the discussion about the alleged right to strike vs. right to be informed thing. The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this? Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them. This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one may arise (as in this case). If I may so crass as to rephrase both arguments without adding any of of my own... Preventing people from producing content in their own language is still preventing them from producing content. We need to find a modality of affecting an effect directed at forces that mean to diminish our manners of producing content in the ways we are accustomed... To better enable us to keep producing the content. This previous action may have been a wake up call.. But long term, we need something more tenable as a tool for change. Trying to find a thing I really need to add to this, and coming up short... -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
On 08.10.2011 11:11, Ray Saintonge wrote: I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country. Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them. Ray Honestly I don't appreciate this kind of analysis. It's like to say that the strikes are disruptive because the strikes are bad for business. If the strikes would not be disruptive, probably no one will defend their rights with strikes. In that way I would say that the strike of it.wikipedia has demonstrated that it.wikipedia needs to have some rights to be alive. We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia available to the person living in totalitarism. The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike. I agree that Wikipedia must not close for any kind of problems, for example to solve economic problems or to solve the problem of desertification, but there were in discussion some principles that would have put Wikipedia to operate without freedom (I would underline this point without freedom). Here there were in discussions some principles that would have broken some pillars of Wikipedia: it means *a free and neutral information*. Italian Wikipedia has defended these pillars and not a general problem. I have not understood the points of some persons saying that Italian community has broken the settlement with the users. There is no sense to food a body if this body is risking his health. I need to heal the body and after to food it. If I can heal and food it, it would be better. In my opinion some persons here think that the pillars of Wikipedia are like the Tables of the Law of the Holy Bible, they EMANATE freedom and neutrality with their presence. Probably we need to be sure that we apply them in Wikipedia but also that the local government give us the ability to *apply* them. Please be kind that the whole world is not like US or Canada. Please don't globalize the world with the idea that the pillars of Wikipedia can be applied in any countries as you apply them in North America. In some places the pillars of Wikipedia can generate conflicts. Ilario ___ 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
Ilario writes: We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia available to the person living in totalitarism. The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike. I have great respect for Ray and others who worry that a strike somehow undercuts the mission of the Wikimedia movement. But (and I'm speaking only for myself here) I think Ilario's point here is valid -- sometimes the movement has to take active steps to draw attention to the consequences of bad laws and bad government action. And a strike is sometimes the best, most effective way to do that. Ray's point about language groups not being limited to particular countries (e.g., the Swiss who speak Italian, and the many nations that speak English or Spanish) is an important one, but there is more than one way to implement a strike. Properly implemented (by IP ranges, for example) a strike could be limited, more or less, to a single country. One of the things I did some preliminary investigation about when I was a staff member for Wikimedia Foundation was whether a strike of the sort we've just seen would be workable. I came to the conclusion that it would be, provided it was done with approval of the Wikimedians in the nation or geographical territory where the bad law or bad government action was taking place. Again, speaking only for myself, I believe the Italian Wikimedians made the right choice, and I believe that, so long as this tactic is not overused, a strike may be the best and most effective response to other anti-free-speech events in the future. --Mike ___ 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
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Again, speaking only for myself, I believe the Italian Wikimedians made the right choice, and I believe that, so long as this tactic is not overused, a strike may be the best and most effective response to other anti-free-speech events in the future. I agree. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ 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?
On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded Right of reply law. I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate. Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject. So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject if they see one. I would have no problem with a Right of Reply rule. It would not override well-documented information that is already on the page, but merely explain how the subject differs. It could also help to fill holes in non-controversial areas. It's not a question of standing behind an article, but of recognizing that sources can be wrong. By presenting it right it would also give the public image of listening to a subject's concerns. Ray ___ 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?
Andreas Kolbe, 06/10/2011 02:11: Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it. Yes, in fact I don't understand why this wasn't included in the statement, I asked on the talk but it was too late. I guess it was already long enough and the authors preferred to keep it about principles. Nemo ___ 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?
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 00:23: I'm still a little bit confused how this will impact Wikipedia, though. The law seems to be clear in identifying the website owner as the person to contact; which is a US not-for-profit. Which law? And which law speaks of website owner? Anyone can be asked to publish the correction/statement. Don't get me wrong; despite my moaning I do support thie it.wiki community in opposing this (whether or not it affects them) just as helped I oppose all the idiotic French internet laws that came through some time ago. Indeed I just finished drafting a letter to the IT Consulate here, plus one for my MP something for the various media contacts I have. However, you know, I still register my discomfort with actually closing it.wiki in protest :S And I would still be interested to hear actual analysis how this might affect editors directly (because if it does; then this leaves interesting questions like - what about Facebook? Forum posts? Emails? Blog comments? etc.) Yes. Even blog or Facebook comments are at risk with this law. Everything is subject to it. I hope that the italian prominent jurist Stefano Rodotà confirming that the law would affect Wikipedia badly and the protest is justified will be enough for you: http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/wikipedia-rivolta-on-line/2162962/12 Nemo ___ 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
Ray Saintonge, 05/10/2011 10:46: If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine accounts... Nemo ___ 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
On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine accounts... Personally speaking, this is the aspect that swayed my opinion from um, this is a bit extreme to entirely appropriate reaction. Arbitrary volunteer editors being liable to fines for not changing the wiki within 48 hours to anything demanded by arbitrary individuals? Shutting down the wiki is merely a preview of the obvious consequences of the law. - d. ___ 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?
Andreas Kolbe, 05/10/2011 12:49: Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, 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). Oh really? How do you prevent editors from removing it? Implementing an abusefilter rule for every page? Also, how do you interpret the rule that you can't comment it? It could mean that you can't explain why the statement is wrong, and because you can't check this, you have to protect the page from further editing (or hire someone to check every edit?). I'm not saying the Italian law as written is a good idea, but I think our analysis should be a bit more measured. Note also that there seem to be far more press freedom issues at stake here than just the posting of corrections. Last year, the entire Italian news industry went on strike for a day over the same bill, which is, after all, known as the *wiretapping* bill, governing the right to publish wiretapping transcripts. Apparently the initiative was sparked by the publication of some of Berlusconi's private indiscretions. See Guardian report.[4] Giving those written about the right to have a statement or correction posted is just a small part of this bill. So what? Wikipedia is not affected by that part of the law, therefore it.wiki users didn't comment it because they're not taking a political stance about freedom of press or whatever, they're just explaining why Wikipedia couldn't survive such a law. The statement shown on it.wikipedia looks like it was knocked up in a hurry. For such a prominent action, it should have been vetted in a bit more detail, and the errors emended before it went live. We shouldn't be misinforming millions of people. The statement could be better, obviously, but I've already explained why it was written in a bit of a hurry. This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before. Nemo ___ 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?
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comescreveu: This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before. it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for such opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this? Lodewijk ___ 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?
Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24: No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) escreveu: This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before. it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for such opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this? Yes, there are some, but do you mean for websites in general or for Wikipedia specifically? Are Italian texts enough? I've linked only a statement by Rodotà before because I can't imagine a more authoritative one now (I'm open to suggestions), but WMI is now asking more thorough analysis to legal experts. Nemo ___ 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
Thomas Goldammer, 05/10/2011 09:21: 2011/10/5 Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com: CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq interesting: Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for example) affiliate that lobbies (according to United States definitions of lobbying) and the affiliate shows up on the IRS 990 Form would its lobbying expenditures count against expenditure limits in this country? A. Yes, the affiliate's lobbying expenditures would count against the expenditure limits of the charity incorporated in this country. Do WMF chapters count as affiliates? No. At least, we all try hard for them not to and we usually think me managed. (Does charity mean a 501(c)(3) thing?) Yes, although there is some confusion if I remember correctly (browse the archives, we're off topic here :-p). Nemo ___ 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?
I mean Wikipedia (or websites like Wikipedia) specific. Italian text will have to do - Google translate does miracles :) I think what would be really great is a set of statements/suggestions, so not just by one expert. For one, the Rodotà statement was not exactly what I was looking for at some point, so perhaps another statement by someone else clarifies better. Thanks a lot, Lodewijk No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 15:20, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comescreveu: Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24: No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) escreveu: This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before. it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for such opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this? Yes, there are some, but do you mean for websites in general or for Wikipedia specifically? Are Italian texts enough? I've linked only a statement by Rodotà before because I can't imagine a more authoritative one now (I'm open to suggestions), but WMI is now asking more thorough analysis to legal experts. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31: On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter? Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader. A quote: The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences. The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view... I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring. I'd like to add that despite the us vs. them feeling (WMF against the community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference between a foreign organization part of your own movement (and which runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to effective actions required. We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long story short). Nemo ___ 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
2011/10/5 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq interesting: Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for example) affiliate that lobbies (according to United States definitions of lobbying) and the affiliate shows up on the IRS 990 Form would its lobbying expenditures count against expenditure limits in this country? A. Yes, the affiliate's lobbying expenditures would count against the expenditure limits of the charity incorporated in this country. Do WMF chapters count as affiliates? (Does charity mean a 501(c)(3) thing?) Th. ___ 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
You heard about consensus and anti-censorship actions: all is allowed with community polls as seen in Italian Wikipedia yesterday. German Wikipedia, go ahead and blank your wiki is WMF try to force the image filtering on you. The same for other Wikipedias that don't agree with the filter. Enjoy the Italian precedent support, WMF. 2011/10/5 Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.com I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar blackout should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. Ray ___ 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
Not really Ray. And even so, the problem is not the fear of getting arrested, is more the cost of a law suit. In Italy (as in some other Latin countries) law suits are expensive (really, REALLY expensives) and take forever to end. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.* On 5 October 2011 09:46, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Am 05.10.2011 10:46, schrieb Ray Saintonge: On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. Ray But what about Italian re-users? If it.wikipedia does decide to edit anonymously and someone in Italy re-uses their content, then he might be in trouble. Which means that it will end up in additional restrictions, hurting the mission of the project, even if maybe not self affected. nya~ ___ 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
On 10/05/11 2:06 AM, Béria Lima wrote: Not really Ray. And even so, the problem is not the fear of getting arrested, is more the cost of a law suit. In Italy (as in some other Latin countries) law suits are expensive (really, REALLY expensives) and take forever to end. Lawsuits can be expensive anywhere, and they can be started by anyone who believes that he has been injured. It does not matter if that belief is legitimate. It does not matter if you have gone through extraordinary efforts to remain within the law. SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuit against public participation), and some of these suits are no better than criminal extortion. Conceding to them means the bullies have won. Yes, by all appearances, the proposed Italian law is evil and fascist, but there are more strategies available than the suicide strategy chosen by the Italian Wikipedia. They are not the only group in Italy opposing this, so there is plenty of room for common cause. If the law passes, there will certainly be others willing to take this matter through the courts. Ray On 5 October 2011 09:46, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users. Ray ___ 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
On 10/05/2011 06:25 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote: I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar blackout should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship? Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter? Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader. --Tobias signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote: On 10/05/2011 06:25 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote: I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar blackout should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship? Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter? Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader. A quote: The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences. The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view... Tom ___ 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?
Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011action=historysubmitdiff=43934772oldid=43934752 (Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that) http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011%2Fenaction=historysubmitdiff=43934773oldid=43934765 (Edit summary translation: removal, replacement, impossible to assert that on the basis of the proposed law) Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, 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). They would *not* have the right to have the content replaced by their version. (The Italian statement now says chiedere l'introduzzione di una rettifica, i.e. request the introduction of a correction, while the English version says request to publish a corrected version.) Frankly, given some of our past BLP problems, I am in part sympathetic to BLP subjects having some easy comeback against online writings which they feel portray them in an unduly poor light. There are two sides here -- see the Robert Fisk article from a few years ago.[1] Just as legal cases are lengthy and expensive for bloggers and the like, they are also expensive for BLP subjects who feel they are being defamed by an anonymous source on the Internet, including Wikipedia.[2] I think the WMF statement[3] is a bit over-optimistic here! If anonymous crowds were so effective at writing neutral BLPs, the board resolution and years of hand-wringing on BLPs would not have been necessary. I'm not saying the Italian law as written is a good idea, but I think our analysis should be a bit more measured. Note also that there seem to be far more press freedom issues at stake here than just the posting of corrections. Last year, the entire Italian news industry went on strike for a day over the same bill, which is, after all, known as the *wiretapping* bill, governing the right to publish wiretapping transcripts. Apparently the initiative was sparked by the publication of some of Berlusconi's private indiscretions. See Guardian report.[4] Giving those written about the right to have a statement or correction posted is just a small part of this bill. The statement shown on it.wikipedia looks like it was knocked up in a hurry. For such a prominent action, it should have been vetted in a bit more detail, and the errors emended before it went live. We shouldn't be misinforming millions of people. Andreas [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8498981/Mayfair-art-dealer-Mark-Weiss-in-disgrace-after-admitting-poison-pen-campaign-against-rival-Philip-Mould.html [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wikipedia/ [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/silvio-berlusconi-media-gag-lawAndreas --- On Wed, 5/10/11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 6:23 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf Is this public domain? If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and translate it into other languages. It's PD in Italy at least for local laws. Which Commons template applies to Italy laws? On English Wikisource we have the following template to cover foreign laws http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-GovEdict There is a slightly differently worded template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-GovEdict -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment. Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it. Domas ___ 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?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, 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). That's enough crazy and against NPOV. ___ 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?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, 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). That's enough crazy and against NPOV. Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded Right of reply law. I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment. Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it. it.wikipedia is not failing at spreading knowledge. it.wikipedia is taking all steps it can to make sure that it can succeed at that aim in future. -- David Richfield e^(πi)+1=0 ___ 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] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:58:51 -0700 From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: CAGZ0=ln0xlr-0a0ajocu-7ex1bkqfynvv5xetqy5uy9lqdu...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now. It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position. The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment. Thanks, Sue Of late I've often round reasons to be critical of the choices the WMF has made, but in this case you've made the best choice possible - supporting the community on it.wikipedia in a decision that they've come to as a group, even though that decision is controversial in some places. Bravo Sue, and Bravo WMF. Cheers, Craig ___ 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
2011/10/5 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment. Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it. it.wikipedia is not failing at spreading knowledge. it.wikipedia is taking all steps it can to make sure that it can succeed at that aim in future. This law proposal has been around in Italy for quite a long time. If I'm correct it's about three years. Last year there has been a period when the law was in the mainstream media (while it was also dubbed as legge ammazza-blog, blog-killer law), but then (for other political reasons) the topic was forgot, the law proposal eliminated from discussion in parliament, and nobody discussed it much more. At that time (~ 15 months ago) Wikimedia Italia issued a press communique and asked on it.wiki Village Pump if there were Wikipedians who would like to sign it to show their support. That communique collected circa 300 signatures. There also was a discussion about putting a link to it in the sitenotice, there was a large majority ( 2/3 of many voters) but given the fact that it seemed to be a strong move, and in the meanwhile the topic faded away, nothing was done in the end. In the last few days, though, the law proposal returned in the mainstream and it is going to be discussed in parliament today and in the next days. This time the community itself discussed and autonomously produced the communique you see now. It was put in the village pump and after two days of discussion where an *outstanding* majority (I will say almost unanimous) agreed to lock the site and put the communique in his place, we have arrived to the current situation.So it has not been neither an easy or quick decision. Hope that helps to contextualize the situation. Cristian ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) Wikis are great for organizing work. By necessary extension, they are also great for organizing its discontinuation. -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course. When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done... How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite? Domas ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 16:03, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done... When truck drivers go on strike in France, you are not able to drive your car there. ___ 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
Of all the ways to protest the law, I think it.wp chose the most noticeable way. If something like a sitenotice were implemented, many people would just scroll past it. Even if not, they would only read it a couple times, because people access Wikipedia for the content. OTOH, just locking Editing privileges would only impact the people who are already aware of the proposed law. The protest would have no impact on the readership. Just my two cents Matthew Bowker http://enwp.org/User:Matthewrbowker Sent from my iPod On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:03, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course. When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done... How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite? Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
Of late I've often round reasons to be critical of the choices the WMF has made, but in this case you've made the best choice possible - supporting the community on it.wikipedia in a decision that they've come to as a group, even though that decision is controversial in some places. Bravo Sue, and Bravo WMF. Cheers, Craig I agree. I have been critical of a lot of things lately, but this last statement by Sue Gardner was good. ___ 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 am sure other people can fill in, but I heard there has been some movement within the parliament in reaction. They are reconsidering a portion of that law that might affect us, or so I have been told. http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111 Can someone clarify? Regards Theo On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:06 PM, User:Matthewrbowker matthewrbowker.w...@gmail.com wrote: Of all the ways to protest the law, I think it.wp chose the most noticeable way. If something like a sitenotice were implemented, many people would just scroll past it. Even if not, they would only read it a couple times, because people access Wikipedia for the content. OTOH, just locking Editing privileges would only impact the people who are already aware of the proposed law. The protest would have no impact on the readership. Just my two cents Matthew Bowker http://enwp.org/User:Matthewrbowker Sent from my iPod On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:03, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course. When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done... How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite? Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out. How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite? In contrast to strike actions, in those countries that recognize the right to organize collectively, sabotage and destruction are generally considered illegal and beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Certainly we should not support anyone in the Italian community who thought it was a good idea to vandalize or delete portions of the encyclopedia as part of their protest. But I don't think someone acting out of spite is a good comparison, since it seems pretty clear that this action is not being taken out of spite. I am happy to keep my trust in the Italian Wikipedia community, that it is in the best position to judge whether this protest is needed, what measures are appropriate to the situation, and how long to carry on with it. --Michael Snow ___ 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
2011/10/5 Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :) I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out. Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure. How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite? In contrast to strike actions, in those countries that recognize the right to organize collectively, sabotage and destruction are generally considered illegal and beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Certainly we should not support anyone in the Italian community who thought it was a good idea to vandalize or delete portions of the encyclopedia as part of their protest. Oh yeah, just like worst actions exist (vandalism) we have to respect medium-bad (?) ones (blanking the entire site). But I don't think someone acting out of spite is a good comparison, since it seems pretty clear that this action is not being taken out of spite. I am happy to keep my trust in the Italian Wikipedia community, that it is in the best position to judge whether this protest is needed, what measures are appropriate to the situation, and how long to carry on with it. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote: 2011/10/5 Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out. Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure. If there was a part of the Italian Wikipedia community insisting on preserving the ability to edit, this might be more relevant. But since the protest has started, the only voices I've seen speaking against the protest have been from outside that community. That seems to me like a persuasive indication about the level of consensus behind this decision. Questions about crossing picket lines and the right to work are interesting theoretical problems when using this analogy, but they aren't presenting themselves under the current circumstances. --Michael Snow ___ 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
2011/10/5 Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote: 2011/10/5 Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime. When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out. Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure. If there was a part of the Italian Wikipedia community insisting on preserving the ability to edit, this might be more relevant. But since the protest has started, the only voices I've seen speaking against the protest have been from outside that community. That seems to me like a persuasive indication about the level of consensus behind this decision. It is not consensus, it is just a small number of users kidnapping the content generated by a much bigger and fuzzy community. The right to edit and the right to access to knowledge have been killed in Italian Wikipedia. They have done more harm than any China blockage or any stupid law. Wikimedia projects are not secure to archive and spread knowledge anymore. Questions about crossing picket lines and the right to work are interesting theoretical problems when using this analogy, but they aren't presenting themselves under the current circumstances. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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?
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo jal...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jalo jal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40 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 I'm sure it would not be beyond developers' resourcefulness to set an article up in such a way that the template can only be deleted by an admin. Andreas ___ 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?
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:16 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, 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). That's enough crazy and against NPOV. Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded Right of reply law. I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate. Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject. There is no question that it is better to go through OTRS and reach an amicable agreement on what an article should and should not say. But I'd be more sympathetic if we hadn't had cases like Taner Akçam and Philip Mould, or if we didn't sometimes have editors involved in personal feuds off-site with BLP subjects they are writing about. One recent such case (about a former Playmate of the Year) took five years to resolve (by deleting the article). So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject if they see one. Andreas ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be Wikipedia è rotto. It's a shitty law. I don't think anyone on this list disagrees. This morning I read up on the Amanda Knox case for the first time, and it seems that the Italian system of law has a lot to answer for. (I think, anyway—my first source for information on Italian law was just made unavailable to me.) Let's say that I'm an American, and I'm studying Italian in memory of my late godparents, Grandma Jan and Papa Joe Giacinto, second-generation immigrants who frequently spoke Italian around the house during my childhood. Or I'm one of over one million people in the U.S. who speak Italian at home, or I'm from Switzerland, or I'm... well, you get the idea. We're supposed to be about free access to knowledge, and because 40 angry people said so, I'm only able to access the Italian Wikipedia if I download a weeks-old database dump, set up MySQL, Apache, and MediaWiki, and host my own server? A strike means you stop working. If you want to stop editing, so be it. itwiki is going a step further, however, and undeniably hindering a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. All this because of a proposed law in one country, not mutually exclusive with the language. If San Marino were to pass such a law, would we be here? Austin [0] http://austinhair.org/itwiki.png ___ 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
On 05.10.2011 20:43, Austin Hair wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be Wikipedia è rotto. Make a logout and after make a new login. Ilario ___ 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
That's stupid. On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect. It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not. How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections? Mathias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Make a logout and after make a new login. I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual reader would. Austin ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections? That's stupid. I think that was his point. Austin ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jalo jal...@gmail.com wrote: To me, it works. Which browser are you using? Firefox 7.0.1 on OS X 10.6.6, not logged into anything. Austin ___ 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
On 10/04/11 3:14 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: WereSpielChequers, 04/10/2011 23:46: If someone tried to use this law to force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation? I don't see why. Web pages are permanent, they ask the correction/declaration to be published after the new law (there's no time limit for it) and you have to publish it. You're not punished for having published the original text. And, of course, if someone has forced the site to publish its POV version, someone with an opposing POV must have the same right. Ray ___ 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?
Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject. Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something bad on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...). Aubrey ___ 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
Domas writes: Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it. I believe this interpretation is both unfair and incorrect. The Italian Wikipedians are trying to preserve a legal environment in which spreading the knowledge is possible. Arguably, if the Italian Wikipedians did *not* challenge this law, they would have failed in their mission. --Mike ___ 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?
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44 Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject. Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something bad on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...). Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it. Andreas ___ 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?
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44 Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject. Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something bad on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...). Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it. Okay. You convinced me totally. That is beyond the pale. I suppose cool heads like we have here up north, just couldn't comprehend mediterranean think with your balls, not your head, because they will be cooler thinking. All support to the Italian strike, if the law was that moronic. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Hi There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. Is anyone aware of this situation? Is it likely to have any effect on other projects and outside communities? Is WMF aware since it is mentioned in the discussion as well. The announcement that was linked to on IRC: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en A discussion which might be relevant: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia Theo ___ 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 think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Tom ___ 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 think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern. -- Tanvir Rahman Wikitanvir on Wikimedia ___ 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
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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
2011/10/4 Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern. The other issue is, that if you are italian citizen and have admin account anyone at any moment can ask you to change/delete content on the basis on this new law, and if you fail to do it within 48 hrs.you are commiting a kind of crime. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 13:56, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law. Unless I have mistaken the law (I admit my Italian is shaky at best, and my tame Italian is in a mood with me) this applies to websites, not people. There does not seem to be any provision under the law to sue or otherwise harass people that add stuff the company/individual etc. objects to. I could be wrong; but this looks a lot like a case of getting an email saying make this change at once, under Italian law XXX and us responding Actually, no, sorry - but can we work this out via discussion? Tom ___ 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
An official statement will be published in Foundation-l. The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. Ilario On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern. Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the new law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia. Risker ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 14:03, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: An official statement will be published in Foundation-l. The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. It's an interesting (and very idiotic) new law for sure. From my latter reading it quite clear distinguishes that the *owner* or *webmaster* is liable. As with a lot of laws/internet stuff it kind of falls apart when faced with something like a Wiki. But I doubt this is worth being too concerned about. Campaign against it certainly, point out how problematic it becomes. But don't lose sleep :) Tom ___ 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
Hello, Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information. According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not. Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia. Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:16:41 +0530 From: Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Hi There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. Is anyone aware of this situation? Is it likely to have any effect on other projects and outside communities? Is WMF aware since it is mentioned in the discussion as well. The announcement that was linked to on IRC: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en A discussion which might be relevant: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia Theo ___ 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
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia ) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. Being polite; I'd call that a serious overreaction. Akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water! I bought my tame Italian lunch and she likes me again; so deigned to have a read of this law. As far as we can make out there doesn't seem to be a leg to stand on.. or any real likelihood of risk to editors or content... In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, withrelated expenses. To the extent of a polite response saying not a chance, sorry, and an offer to hand them off to a volunteer to help resolve any issues. Which is what happens at the moment :) Tom ___ 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 think it is fairly easy to make such statements when you live abroad, and are not directly influenced by its outcomes. As a side note, if this strike goes through (I could both understand it if it does, and if it doesn't), I would recommand to add a link to an English translation at least, for all those foreigners who might be visiting it.wikipedia as well. An alternative could be to use a really huge sitenotice, so that people are forced to scroll down a lot every time - which is very frustrating, but doesn't deprive you of the actual contents. Best, Lodewijk No dia 4 de Outubro de 2011 15:23, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com escreveu: Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia ) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. Being polite; I'd call that a serious overreaction. Akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water! I bought my tame Italian lunch and she likes me again; so deigned to have a read of this law. As far as we can make out there doesn't seem to be a leg to stand on.. or any real likelihood of risk to editors or content... In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, withrelated expenses. To the extent of a polite response saying not a chance, sorry, and an offer to hand them off to a volunteer to help resolve any issues. Which is what happens at the moment :) Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3ri...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information. According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not. Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia. Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip) Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?), Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project. Nathan ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 14:40, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I think it is fairly easy to make such statements when you live abroad, and are not directly influenced by its outcomes. I live in the UK; where our defamation laws definitely make it very risky to edit Wikipedia (context; in the UK suing for defamation is very easy - even for things published abroad, even if the defamed person lives abroad, etc.). And during the recent super-injunctions debacle there was a very similar scare situation. I made the same arguments then :) Having pinged this around a few people; mixing in our law knowledge with some understanding of the Italian legal system I stand by my first response; that there is nothing major to be worried about. The law seems quite clear in indicting the website owner as the one responsible for applying the law. Perhaps it does leave individual editors open to litigation; but, really, we have always been wide open to litigation anyway. I don't mean to sound entirely dismissive; certainly it's worth examining, talking to the foundation about and perhaps developing new approaches/responses. But shutting down the Wiki? That's a pretty major step :S And if, as is suggested in other emails, this is primarily intended as a protest that is *highly concerning*! Tom ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?), Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project. Nathan makes a good point. It was the main reason I brought it up here, so the staff and the rest of the community know. It might be a few hours till WMF staff would be able to comment. But this is a political protest, if the Italian community does indeed wish to go through with it, I hope they get in touch with WMF first and remain in contact with the rest of the community through it. Theo ___ 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 think that Wikimedians should give response on that: * Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I will email them immediately.) * Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your country. * If you are in EU country, ask your EU parliament members to talk about it with their Italian counterparts. * Other ideas? ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3ri...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Nathan, my name is Giovanni (Donaldo stands for Donald [Duck], and is related to my nickname ;)) You are right in understanding that this lock is a way to raise a discussion about a proposed law, which has been developed without any consideration about the consequences on Wikipedia (or disregarding it: we already tryed, in the past, to stess such consequences). In no way our reaction wants to be political nor lobbying as our only concern is about encyclopedia content: there is no way to make it compliant an unchangeable text (the required amendment) and a wiki, an amendment that can be required also if a statement is true and referenced, with Wikipedia citations policies. Regards Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik Thanks Giovanni. Reading the discussion (with Google-glasses), it looks like there are about 40 people in favor of the lock (with only several opposed), and the lock is planned for sine die or until a decision to unlock it is taken by the community. It's not clear that the discussion has reached an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc. I wonder, would this work almost as well as a rather large sitenotice? Or perhaps an intermediate page before you reach your intended article? By that I mean - you click on the link you want, you get taken to a landing page with a notice first, and then you have to click a Continue button to get to your article. That way people can still access the encyclopedia, but they also get the message. Nathan ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 10:12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Reading the discussion (with Google-glasses), it looks like there are about 40 people in favor of the lock (with only several opposed), and the lock is planned for sine die or until a decision to unlock it is taken by the community. It's not clear that the discussion has reached an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc. One has to wonder how the community will be able to discuss unlocking the project if the project is locked. Risker ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3ri...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information. According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not. Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia. Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip) Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?), Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project. Nathan The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something. It means that any action must be done now. Ilario ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something. It means that any action must be done now. Ilario Sure, I understand. My immediate gut reaction was that I'm leery of Wikimedia projects, of themselves and independent from the WMF, getting involved in political advocacy and protest actions. On second thought, though, I suppose if a U.S. law placed an untenable burden on the English Wikipedia, we might take some action in our organizational self-interest. I do think the WMF should have a role in this decision; I suppose the question of project self-negation hasn't really arisen in the past - but I'm not sure that, as a general rule, projects should be able to voluntarily make themselves unavailable. ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something. It means that any action must be done now. Ilario Sure, I understand. My immediate gut reaction was that I'm leery of Wikimedia projects, of themselves and independent from the WMF, getting involved in political advocacy and protest actions. On second thought, though, I suppose if a U.S. law placed an untenable burden on the English Wikipedia, we might take some action in our organizational self-interest. I do think the WMF should have a role in this decision; I suppose the question of project self-negation hasn't really arisen in the past - but I'm not sure that, as a general rule, projects should be able to voluntarily make themselves unavailable. The problem is that the current law of privacy in Italy it's sufficient and can assure to protect any person from calumny. This law is an additional prevention and it's unbalanced and will not assure the freedom in Internet because it is applying the same law of newspapers to Internet (bloggers, private persons and so on). The main point is that any blog or online newspaper of other website have 48 hour to make something, if you do nothing you will receive a penalty of a maximum of 12.500 Euros. If you do something before the 48 hour you need to put in evidence (probably in the homepage) that there is a correction. The question now is complicated and the Italian users are looking to a scenario of frequent requests and all sysops involved in the block and obscuration of pages to don't face the penalty and don't involve some editors in any risk. In 48 hours it's difficult to check something and probably the requests will be processed with a preventive block. It means that the solution that we have is to delete any article about living people because this will reduce the risk a lot. Ilario ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:03, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I think that Wikimedians should give response on that: * Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I will email them immediately.) * Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your country. * If you are in EU country, ask your EU parliament members to talk about it with their Italian counterparts. * Other ideas? Here is my email to Italian ambassador. As there is no sense to translate the whole email from Serbian to English, I'll give just descriptions of the paragraphs: Poštovani ambasadore, Moram vam reći da sam potpuno šokiran činjenicom da će italijansko izdanje najveće enciklopedije u istoriji čovečanstva biti zaključano i uklonjeno s interneta usled novog zakona o internetu [1]! U vremenu kada se borimo da proširimo slobodan pristup znanju na Polineziju, podsaharsku Afriku, među domoroce u Amazoniji, mi, koji se bavimo slobodnim znanjem, moramo da zatvaramo projekat na jeziku kojim govori više od 75 miliona ljudi u jednoj od najrazvijenijih zemalja na svetu! I am shocked. Wikipedia na italijanskom jeziku je nastala 2001. godine kao jedna od prvih jezičkih izdanja te enciklopedije na internetu. Danas ima skoro milion članaka. Ta cifra je desetak puta veća od broja članaka u drugoj po veličini enciklopediji na italijanskom. Ti članci su proizvod rada skoro 40,000 saradnika italijanske Vikipedije [2]. Kao takva, ona je obrazovanje prosečne osobe na italijanskom jeziku podigla na potpuno novi nivo. I ne samo to: tih 40,000 saradnika su najbolji ambasadori italijanske kulture koje je Italija ikad imala. Sarađujući s milionima saradnika Vikipedije na drugim jezicima, oni na najbolji mogući način predstavljaju italijansku kulturu i u najdaljim krajevima sveta. About Italian Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedians. Na žalost, Vlada Republike Italije nema predstavu o vrednosti koju svojoj zemlji donose saradnici Vikipedije. Umesto da podrži koliko god je u mogućnosti takav projekat i ljude koji na njemu rade, ona aktivno radi na njihovom sputavanju, donoseći Zakon koji rad na Vikipediji čini potpuno nemogućim. Novi zakon propisuje da se na istoj stranici mora postaviti demanti u originalu bez obzira na tačnost tih podataka, ne vodeći računa da je Vikipedija enciklopedija, a ne vreća za iživljavanje italijanskih političara. Unfortunately, Government of Italy has no idea what Wikipedia means. Stoga su saradnici Vikipedije na italijanskom, italijanski Vikipedijanci, doneli i jedinu moguću odluku: Prestaće s radom, zaključaće Vikipediju na italijanskom jeziku. Umesto da se slobodno znanje i slobodan pristup obrazovanju širi, na jeziku s jednom od najbronijih populacija govornika na svetu, u najbolju ruku će najveća riznica znanja na svetu ostati zamrznuta, a u najgoru potpuno uklonjena. The only solution which Italian Wikipedians had is to lock Wikipedia. I kao neko ko se bavi Vikipedijom i kao čovek kome je stalo do toga da svako na svetu ima slobodan pristup obrazovanju i kao osoba koja je svoju mladost provela uz brojne izdanke savremene italijanske kulture i kao filolog koji je potpuno svestan jedinstvenog mesta italijanske kulture u istoriji savremene civilizacije -- urgiram na vas da se založite da se ovaj Zakon promeni na način na koji Vikipedija i drugi izvori slobodnog znanja neće biti ugroženi. Urging on ambassador to espouse to change the law. Srdačno, Miloš Rančić [1] http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaIT.htm ___ 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
Hi, Wikipedia is a promise, that promise is free knowledge at all time. By locking read access, you break that promise, you destroy part of the trust that our readers have in Wikipedia. In order to get the readers attention, it seems equally efficient to me to have a huge sitenotice, but without blocking read access completely. You can appeal to the reader, warn the reader, make the reader put up with extra effort to get the informtion that he seeks, but please do not eliminate the reason why he visits Wikipedia. Otherwise, he'll just stop using our site. Thanks, Tobias Ps.: Other than that, I support your protests. Wikipedia /has/ power in the world, and it's a just effort to use that power to prevent changes, that would render it impossible for us to pursuit our mission. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
On 4 October 2011 14:12, Donaldo Papero pap3ri...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information. According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not. 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. We're responsible for our own actions, of course, but not for anything else. I doubt Italian law sees it any differently. ___ 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
Thomas Morton, 04/10/2011 15:23: In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift. 48 h deadline for correction and fines don't need a court; nor does the police to summon and interrogate a sysop (as they've just done for the italian uncyclopedia); and by the way, italian trials are deadly slow and expensive. Nemo ___ 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
A couple of English articles on the new law: https://www.pcworld.com/article/240840/italian_internet_activists_protest_proposed_law.html http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=852doc_id=234086 Also, I'm not involved in the strike, but the WMF has been somehow informed by the organizers. Nemo ___ 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
Jalo, 04/10/2011 18:04: Not at all! In the italian laws, if you bring lawsuit against me for defamation, you must prove I'm not saying the truth. Not really: freedom of press/expression is not so broad in Italy, there's no exceptio veritatis (in short truth is not important) for diffamazione, calunnia is another thing. IANAL 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 But the point stays. :-) Nemo ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:56, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law. Every individual contributor should abide by the laws of the country he lives, operates or has property in. Mathias ___ 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
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 Regards Theo On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:56, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law. Every individual contributor should abide by the laws of the country he lives, operates or has property in. Mathias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 Regards Theo Any news coverage? ___ 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
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 Regards Theo Any news coverage? Yes, from what I heard it is getting a lot of local coverage. http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/news/wikipedia_in_bianco_contro_le_intercettazioni-22703312/?ref=HREC1-1 http://www.corriere.it/politica/11_ottobre_04/wikipedia-italia-bavaglio_b4a6c60a-eeb7-11e0-bc1a-2283ac81b740.shtml Only a matter of time, till it gets international coverage. Regards Theo ___ 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 in English: http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10 On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:57, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 Regards Theo Any news coverage? Yes, from what I heard it is getting a lot of local coverage. http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/news/wikipedia_in_bianco_contro_le_intercettazioni-22703312/?ref=HREC1-1 http://www.corriere.it/politica/11_ottobre_04/wikipedia-italia-bavaglio_b4a6c60a-eeb7-11e0-bc1a-2283ac81b740.shtml Only a matter of time, till it gets international coverage. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites. ___ 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
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:58, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote: Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites. In Europe, people are able to strike. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
