Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Lodewijk]

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)
escreveu:

> 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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Lodewijk]

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?

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?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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: 


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?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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?

[Ray Saintonge]

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?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
>
> From: Andrea Zanni 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
> the proposed law say?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

From: Andrea Zanni 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
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?

[Andrea Zanni]

> 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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:16

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe  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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo  wrote:

From: Jalo 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
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?

[Jalo]

>
> 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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe  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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe  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?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia:


http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=43934772&oldid=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%2Fen&action=historysubmit&diff=43934773&oldid=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  wrote:

From: John Vandenberg 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 6:23

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
>>   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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
>>   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

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Thanks. As far as I can see, the document you link to
enumerates proposed changes to an 
existing law (the text of which is not
given). The left column shows changes already 
approved in 2009, and the right
column shows additional modifications now to be voted on. 




So we read that after the third subsection of article 8 of
the law from 8 February 1948, the 
following should be inserted (changes and additions
only present in the right column 
are shown in capitals):



---o0o---

For radio and television broadcasts, the statements or
corrections are effected ​​pursuant to 
Article 32 of the consolidated AUDIOVISUAL
AND RADIOPHONIC MEDIA 
services regulation per the Decree of 31 July 2005, No. 177. For web sites,
INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES DISTRIBUTED BY
ELECTRONIC
MEANS, the statements or corrections are published within
forty-eight hours of a
request, with the same graphical presentation, the
same methodology to provide access to
the site, and the same
visibility as the news to which they refer.

---o0o---

Basically, the proposal seems to be about making online media subject to the 
same 
regulations that currently apply to television, radio and print media -- i.e. 
that corrections 
or complaints must be publicised as prominently as the original statements, and 
within a
defined (and rather short) time period.

Any corrections to my translation from native speakers welcome.

Andreas


--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Thomas Morton  wrote:

From: Thomas Morton 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does 
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 22:42

http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf

Page 24.

On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law
> say?
> Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
> received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
> Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be
> posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
> I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along
> with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much
> appreciated.
> Andreas
>
> --- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker  wrote:
>
> From: Risker 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09
>
> On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman  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
> ___
> 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 - What exactly does the proposed law say?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
>   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.

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]

On 4 October 2011 23:12, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
> > Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
> received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
> > Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be
> posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
> > I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law,
> along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Paragraph 29
> <
> http://www.camera.it/Camera/view/doc_viewer_full?url=http%3A//www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/schedela/apriTelecomando_wai.asp%3Fcodice%3D16PDL0038530&back_to=http%3A//www.camera.it/126%3FPDL%3D1415-B%26leg%3D16%26tab%3D2
> >
> It's not entirely clear how it applies to wikis. It says "with the same
> graphics, the same website access way and the same visibility", and you
> can't alter or comment it. So, probably put it at the top (or the side)
> of the article and protect it forever, or something like that. Who
> knows... The parliament doesn't know how Internet works, and they don't
> care.


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.

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.)

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?

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
 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.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
> Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is 
> received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
> Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be 
> posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
> I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along 
> with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much 
> appreciated.

Paragraph 29 

It's not entirely clear how it applies to wikis. It says "with the same 
graphics, the same website access way and the same visibility", and you 
can't alter or comment it. So, probably put it at the top (or the side) 
of the article and protect it forever, or something like that. Who 
knows... The parliament doesn't know how Internet works, and they don't 
care.

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]

http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf

Page 24.

On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law
> say?
> Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
> received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
> Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be
> posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
> I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along
> with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much
> appreciated.
> Andreas
>
> --- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker  wrote:
>
> From: Risker 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09
>
> On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman  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
> ___
> 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?

[Andreas Kolbe]

I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say? 
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, 
and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted 
on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along with 
an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated.
Andreas 

--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker  wrote:

From: Risker 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09

On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman  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
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l