Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Peter Coombe wrote: > Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it > would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently > it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that > all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass > that too, but it's probably beyond the skill of most readers). > > Pete / the wub But that wouldn't matter right? The goal is to send a message to people about it.wp's vulnerability to laws like this, not to actually prevent people from accessing. I'd venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of it.wp (or any project for that matter) readers wouldn't even know to disable javascript. I probably wouldn't have figured it out unless someone told me. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass that too, but it's probably beyond the skill of most readers). Pete / the wub On 5 October 2011 15:10, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > This may have been answered by Kaldari already but... > > Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in > any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that > this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same > risks as Italian wikipedia so long as you are in Rome). This way, it.wp > readers worldwide (except italy) could continue to browse/edit if they > chose, but say an Albanian reading it.wp would not have the same issue. > > I don't even know if that is technically possible, or if that is what > Kaldari was referring to above. Or maybe the community considered and > rejected it. Just throwing it out there. > > Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about > the Latin Wikipedia? > > Dan Rosenthal > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni > wrote: > >> 2011/10/5 M. Williamson : >> > Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. >> >> About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous >> supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000 >> followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. >> >> Cristian >> >> ___ >> 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
This may have been answered by Kaldari already but... Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same risks as Italian wikipedia so long as you are in Rome). This way, it.wp readers worldwide (except italy) could continue to browse/edit if they chose, but say an Albanian reading it.wp would not have the same issue. I don't even know if that is technically possible, or if that is what Kaldari was referring to above. Or maybe the community considered and rejected it. Just throwing it out there. Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about the Latin Wikipedia? Dan Rosenthal On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni wrote: > 2011/10/5 M. Williamson : > > Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. > > About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous > supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000 > followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. > > Cristian > > ___ > 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
2011/10/5 M. Williamson : > Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000 followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. Cristian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
This is a reminder. Not a direct comment on any words on this thread. We are all on the same side here. We want information to be free. We are arguing about the details, not the big picture. Just keep that in mind. -- -- 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. 2011/10/4 Jalo > > > > Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed > > to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) > > media law might come? > > > > Mathias > > > > You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new > law > will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single > page > version (that is 100% of articles). > > Kiribatian users edits all en.wikip articles? > > 100% of articles may be written by the person to which the article refers, > and all these articles will be blocked infinite. Maybe this scenario, this > italian law, is a little bit worst than a Kiribati law? > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On 10/04/2011 10:38 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It >> would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by >> experience. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language > makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any > time soon. It's probably possible to limit such a protest to one country via CentralNotice's geotargeting feature. At least a huge banner would be trivial to implement, a read lock is going to be harder (you could to it with JS, which can be circumvented easily). --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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On 10/4/11 11:20 PM, Jalo wrote: >> the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an >> admin make the >> necessary changes and not be reverted > > You can see the consensus in > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia > > I know, it's in italian and google translate sucks, but you can see the > "opposite" "favorable" templates. Italian wiki community (not only italian > inhabitants) are compact > This is one reason I think non-it.wikipedian action should be fairly cautious. Afaik, language communities generally run their wikis' affairs, unless they depart so far from the mission that the Wikimedia Foundation finds it necessary to overrule them and intervene. It's relatively easy to intervene to e.g. desysop a few rogue admins and restore control to the community, but if the vast majority of a language's editors and admins are making the decision deemed "rogue", it's a bit trickier. It may be that, their point made, the it.wiki community would agree to put the site back up in a day or two, or, if they don't want to put it back up themselves, perhaps informally agree to have the Wikimedia Foundation restore it without opposing that move. Imo that would be the best action. I don't think it would be helpful to intervene in a heavy-handed manner (certainly no mass-desysopping of an entire language's editor base). -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
2011/10/4 emijrp > > Hi all; > > The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are > a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other > procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read > the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] > > Italian Wikipedia has about 500,000 page views per hour,[4] and readers are > getting worried about how long is this going to last. A global encyclopedia > managed in these ways is not trustworthy. This is worst in public image than > any gender, global south or image filtering media flame war. > > Furthermore, this only make me more concerned about the missing updated, > secure and trustworthy mirrors of Wikipedia content. > > Fortunately, you still can read the mobile version, but it is "limited".[5] > (Please, spread the word about this) 1: In 1995 the famous Russian TV journalist [[Vladislav Listyev]] was murdered. A day after the murder most Russian TV channels were blanked for a whole day in protest against the rampaging lawlessness and violence. As far as i know, most people who watched TV in Russian - in Russia, as well as in Israel, Germany and elsewhere - identified with the protest. 2: A few weeks ago the Israeli court required the Channel 10, a Hebrew TV channel, to apologize to the millionaire [[Sheldon Adelson]] after broadcasting a journalistic investigation that showed him in negative light. The channel tried to claim that the investigation was well-based, but broadcast an apology nevertheless. A few minutes after the apology the news presenter Guy Zohar told the viewers that he quits his position in Channel 10 in response to the events; in addition, the news bulletin ended with blank credits list. The whole thing took about 30 seconds and received wide attention iring the few days after that. 3: Is this Italian law proposal as bad as a murder of a journalist? As bad as a court-forced TV apology? Maybe it is and maybe it is not. I know too little about this affair to state an opinion here; I am just giving a couple of cross-cultural points of comparison. -- Amir ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> > FWIW because of the way this has been implemented, it is not (at least > obviously) possible to rollback/reverse via the web interface (it appears > to > be a change in common.js - and even that page redirects to the message). > > Tom > You can disable javascripts and css in your browser. For firefox: *tools -> Options -> content -> deselect "Enable javascript" *view -> page style -> no style ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> > the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an > admin make the > necessary changes and not be reverted You can see the consensus in http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia I know, it's in italian and google translate sucks, but you can see the "opposite" "favorable" templates. Italian wiki community (not only italian inhabitants) are compact ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On 4 October 2011 22:15, Benjamin Lees wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler > wrote: > > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > > edition of Wikipedia in such way? > > Unless the WMF decides it should intervene, the de facto threshold is > whatever allows them to get consensus and have an admin make the > necessary changes and not be reverted. As a practical matter, the > Kiribati-based community would not be able to do something like this > on the English Wikipedia. > > FWIW because of the way this has been implemented, it is not (at least obviously) possible to rollback/reverse via the web interface (it appears to be a change in common.js - and even that page redirects to the message). Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote: > >> You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this >> new law >> will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single >> page >> version (that is 100% of articles). > > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > edition of Wikipedia in such way? Defining such a threshold would be inappropriate. We need to do what is appropriate in the circumstances we encounter. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote: > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > edition of Wikipedia in such way? Unless the WMF decides it should intervene, the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an admin make the necessary changes and not be reverted. As a practical matter, the Kiribati-based community would not be able to do something like this on the English Wikipedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote: >> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international >> project; > > No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is > the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed > to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) > media law might come? > > Mathias Different fact situation. Doesn't sound like it would be a good idea though. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
They should be enough, to convice the rest of the community. And when Kiribati users are actually able to convince all the others on en, then: Go Kiribati! Go! southpark On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schind...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote: > > > You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new > law > > will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single > page > > version (that is 100% of articles). > > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > edition of Wikipedia in such way? > > ___ > 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > edition of Wikipedia in such way? > I've already told that: 100% of articles. Do you need a larger threshold? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote: > You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law > will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page > version (that is 100% of articles). Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> > Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed > to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) > media law might come? > > Mathias > You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page version (that is 100% of articles). Kiribatian users edits all en.wikip articles? 100% of articles may be written by the person to which the article refers, and all these articles will be blocked infinite. Maybe this scenario, this italian law, is a little bit worst than a Kiribati law? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:58, Mathias Schindler wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote: >> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project; > > No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is > the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed > to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) > media law might come? So, you think that it is reasonable that Italian Wikipedia lays on Italian speaking community from Kiribati? If this law passes, the most reasonable choice of every editor of Italian Wikipedia would be to abandon it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote: > Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project; No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) media law might come? Mathias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project; there are speakers of Italian in Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and in smaller numbers in lots of other countries who may not care so much what happens in Italian politics. If the UK proposed a new law to shut down Wikipedia, what would US, Australian, Canadian and other non-UK users say if sysops tried to shut down en.wikipedia for everybody? Granted, the Italian language doesn't have the same level of multinational character as en.wp, but Wikipedias are for languages, not countries, and we can't forget this. 2011/10/4 Mathias Schindler > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It > > would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by > > experience. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language > makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any > time soon. > > ___ > 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] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote: > No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It > would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by > experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any time soon. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
> Hi all; > > The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content > are > a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other > procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read > the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] > > Italian Wikipedia has about 500,000 page views per hour,[4] and readers > are > getting worried about how long is this going to last. A global > encyclopedia > managed in these ways is not trustworthy. This is worst in public image > than > any gender, global south or image filtering media flame war. > > Furthermore, this only make me more concerned about the missing updated, > secure and trustworthy mirrors of Wikipedia content. > > Fortunately, you still can read the mobile version, but it is > "limited".[5] > (Please, spread the word about this) > > Regards, > emijrp > No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Hi all; The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] Italian Wikipedia has about 500,000 page views per hour,[4] and readers are getting worried about how long is this going to last. A global encyclopedia managed in these ways is not trustworthy. This is worst in public image than any gender, global south or image filtering media flame war. Furthermore, this only make me more concerned about the missing updated, secure and trustworthy mirrors of Wikipedia content. Fortunately, you still can read the mobile version, but it is "limited".[5] (Please, spread the word about this) Regards, emijrp [1] http://it.wikipedia.org [2] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision [4] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm [5] http://it.m.wikipedia.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
