Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
David Gerard wrote: > It > would be novel indeed to have a Holocaust denier who wasn't a crank as > an editor, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. > You'd be surprised, then. If you're talking about Holocaust-denial *activists*, trying to edit articles to encompass that point of view, then sure. But normal people who believe the Holocaust either didn't happen or was overblown, but realize their view is a minority one and edit in other areas? We have quite a few, especially editors from Arab countries. -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Florence Devouard wrote: > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> Florence Devouard wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever >>> government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and >>> think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for >>> these different futures. >>> >>> Ant >>> >>> >>> >>> >> To say again what I already noted in another posting but in >> other words; I really think planning like this should be done >> at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which >> any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. >> >> >> Yours, >> >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> >> >> P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, >> but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such >> lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua >> non. >> > > > It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully > understand your point about the trolls). > There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF. > > A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided > at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And > I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into > the decision making at the global level. > What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now > restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you > advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is > not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing. > > I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either > issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the > local level, without much learning and much global understanding. > > But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable. > > I think you read completely different things into what I wrote, than the words in plain state; perhaps you read my text in too much haste. Planning for crises and contingencies is a totally different thing than making decisions. Crises and contingencies require prepared options, which are by their nature not "decisions made", but only happen in the event, as the events themselves dictate, with the actors hopefully applying a sound Observe, Orient, Decide, Act ([[OODA Loop]]) manner of operations. Your sentence: "What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top." ...is the very opposite of what I wished to communicate. Issues of laying out hard and soft options for contingencies is a very specific and ring-fenced area of operations. It could not be further from "every decision at the global level". I would however recommend every local and global actor to peruse our article on the OODA Loop, and on its creator John Boyd in general too, for that matter. But for more general decision making in the foundation, that is a completely separate matter, which should not be mixed in with the discussion of how to plan for crises. It is in fact the case that so far, as wikipedians get more practise with crises (germany and france seem to have had more practise than most), the experience itself will likely improve the general readiness of the foundation staff and local actors acting in concert when events unfold on the ground. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Where you see tyranny I see beauty. A majority of the people acted (A real majority!) to speak through their ballots. That is the purest form of democracy, and that is how California works. We are not a rightocracy. If people have an issue with that, there are 49 other states to live in. The best part about this is that all it takes to overturn this law is another vote. The main reason this law was so successful was that gay marriage was legalized by judicial fiat. The people of California do not like it when the courts act as legislators. All that is necessary to overturn this law is to ask the electorate again, and let the will of the people govern. From: Ray Saintonge To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:02:53 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] and what if... Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >> > > If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is > a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't > get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just > because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the > electorate agrees with you. So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Ec ___ 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] and what if...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Florence Devouard wrote: >> Birgitte SB wrote: >> >>> I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help >>> make their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should >>> help anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide >>> we would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with >>> censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate >>> with which governments we are willing to help. >>> >>> Personally I don't get censorship, nor the complacency Europeans generally >>> have about living under it. I don't get it but I can recognize that many >>> other people see it differently and may want to support censorship. But we >>> can't pick and choose which government's censorship we will support. This >>> is an international organization and nothing in mission expresses support >>> for western mores over others. Selectively helping some governments censor >>> would be a disastrous move for WMF to make. >>> >>> Birgitte SB >>> >> Hello >> >> I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever >> government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and >> think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for >> these different futures. >> >> Ant >> >> >> > > To say again what I already noted in another posting but in > other words; I really think planning like this should be done > at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which > any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, > but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such > lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua > non. It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully understand your point about the trolls). There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF. A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into the decision making at the global level. What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing. I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the local level, without much learning and much global understanding. But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/15 Ray Saintonge : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >>> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >>> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >>> >> >> If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is >> a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't >> get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just >> because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the >> electorate agrees with you. > So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is > justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay > marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the > rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Democracy is the worst system of government - except for all the others. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >> > > If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is > a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't > get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just > because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the > electorate agrees with you. So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Todd Allen wrote: > Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which > determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One > may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. > > Prior-restraint censorship, or blocking people from seeing, > discussing, and thinking about (as opposed to performing) potentially > harmful actions make that answer a "no". > I cringe when I hear that an application has been made to the courts in India to block Google Earth because the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks used Google Earth in planning those attacks. Most uses of such a service remain perfectly innocent and productive, and submitting to paranoid police mentality can be more harmful than most of the dangers the police pretends to prevent. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Judson Dunn wrote: > Make no mistake, the free dissemination of all human knowledge to > every person on the planet is a fight. The forces that would spread > ignorance as a means of control, and separation are always fighting > back. The idea that we should acquiesce in that fight, and censor our > own information from people that are searching for that knowledge is > disgusting, and would cause a substantial backlash against the > Foundation. The very mission of the WMF is illegal as hell in a huge number of countries including some that are considered democratic, Western and what ever. Censorship is so deeply engraved into legal systems that is isn't even recognized as such in many cases. It can fall under protection "from illegal content" including "from hate crimes", "of personal honor", "of privacy", "of dignity of the king", "of the nation and its culture as such" and what ever more reasons there are to limit free speech. Even in areas where most probably all of us will agree that some content should not be publicly available, such as child pornography, there are huge issues about the scope and the method of the ban. Not even the European Union can agree on what is a child or what is pornographic, so how could we establish global guidelines on acceptable content? Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Thomas Dalton wrote: > It's a democratically elected government making the laws > and those laws don't prevent free and fair elections, so it isn't > undemocratic. (Of course, an semi-official and unaccountable agency > like the IWF enforcing the laws is not a great way to go about it.) Your addendum makes the point: Outsourcing censorship to a private body with no public appeal process is a bad idea. And the UK public noticed that now. Let's see if the incident has legislative consequences. But that is not our problem. On the other hand, a governmental agency with proper procedures and processes would have acted much slower in both directions. Self-regulatory bodies might be too fast in acting sometimes - but they are more flexible in reacting than governments as well. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> There may be some of that, but it is also true that a lot of experts > are actually unhelpful (perhaps we could do something to improve that, > though - a system for experts to review articles, rather than edit > them, might be good). When experts get involved in editing there are > often ownership and original research issues (or, to be more precise, > WP:OWN and WP:OR issues - following an earlier discussion, I deleted > the acronyms and wrote them out in full and then realised that > actually that makes my statement ambiguous since people don't know if > I'm using the terms in their general dictionary meanings or their very > precise Wikipedia policy meanings, and in fact, I meant the latter - > jargon serves a purpose and from now on I think I'm just going to use > it!). Have a look at what I was preparing if you are interested http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yaroslav_Blanter/Temp17 Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Florence Devouard wrote: > Birgitte SB wrote: > >> I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help make >> their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should help >> anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide we >> would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with >> censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate >> with which governments we are willing to help. >> >> Personally I don't get censorship, nor the complacency Europeans generally >> have about living under it. I don't get it but I can recognize that many >> other people see it differently and may want to support censorship. But we >> can't pick and choose which government's censorship we will support. This >> is an international organization and nothing in mission expresses support >> for western mores over others. Selectively helping some governments censor >> would be a disastrous move for WMF to make. >> >> Birgitte SB >> > > Hello > > I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever > government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and > think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for > these different futures. > > Ant > > > To say again what I already noted in another posting but in other words; I really think planning like this should be done at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua non. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Hoi, The creation of content is not something the WMF organisation deals with. It has started to employ experts in order to make our environment more usable. As part of the Stanton project, a user interface designer will be included. This is likely to improve the usability of MediaWiki a lot. By including such expertise as part of development projects, we can hope that people who have so far been unable to connect to our wiki way will become empowered and join us in making our projects grow in vitality. The notion that many experts have not been part of our community is however a fallacy, many people have been contributing as part of external projects to improve content of the en,wp. One such example has been people from the "Linguist list" working on the linguistics domain. Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/14 Thomas Dalton > > True, true. > > But note that this fear seems to be less pregnant (hmm, maybe not the > > right word, pregnent ?) in WMF, which now has hired "expert" or use some > > as consultants. > > The WMF uses experts for administrative stuff, that is very different > to using them directly in the creation of content. > > ___ > 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] and what if...
> True, true. > But note that this fear seems to be less pregnant (hmm, maybe not the > right word, pregnent ?) in WMF, which now has hired "expert" or use some > as consultants. The WMF uses experts for administrative stuff, that is very different to using them directly in the creation of content. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Marc Riddell wrote: > on 12/13/08 6:52 PM, Florence Devouard at anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> "Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they >> would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists". > > > Florence, > > "Professionals", or, as they are also referred to, "experts" don't get much > of a welcome in the Project. I know, I'm one of them. My professional :-) > guess is that it is fear by the larger Community that they will somehow take > over. This is unfortunate thinking. And I believe it is having a negative > effect on the overall depth and quality of the encyclopedia. > > Marc Riddell True, true. But note that this fear seems to be less pregnant (hmm, maybe not the right word, pregnent ?) in WMF, which now has hired "expert" or use some as consultants. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/14 Marc Riddell : > on 12/13/08 6:52 PM, Florence Devouard at anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> "Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they >> would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists". > > > Florence, > > "Professionals", or, as they are also referred to, "experts" don't get much > of a welcome in the Project. I know, I'm one of them. My professional :-) > guess is that it is fear by the larger Community that they will somehow take > over. This is unfortunate thinking. And I believe it is having a negative > effect on the overall depth and quality of the encyclopedia. There may be some of that, but it is also true that a lot of experts are actually unhelpful (perhaps we could do something to improve that, though - a system for experts to review articles, rather than edit them, might be good). When experts get involved in editing there are often ownership and original research issues (or, to be more precise, WP:OWN and WP:OR issues - following an earlier discussion, I deleted the acronyms and wrote them out in full and then realised that actually that makes my statement ambiguous since people don't know if I'm using the terms in their general dictionary meanings or their very precise Wikipedia policy meanings, and in fact, I meant the latter - jargon serves a purpose and from now on I think I'm just going to use it!). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
on 12/13/08 6:52 PM, Florence Devouard at anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: > "Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they > would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists". Florence, "Professionals", or, as they are also referred to, "experts" don't get much of a welcome in the Project. I know, I'm one of them. My professional :-) guess is that it is fear by the larger Community that they will somehow take over. This is unfortunate thinking. And I believe it is having a negative effect on the overall depth and quality of the encyclopedia. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/13 Florence Devouard : > My answer tomorrow could be > "Wikipedia was probably the least planned project ever; it currently has > reached the level of a non-profit start-up, with a planning ability of > about 1 year". Scenario planning longer than that would start making some seriously unwarranted assumptions. For example it would be somewhat dicey to bet against the position that in 5 years time most content added to wikipedia will be bot extracted from google books (I've already seen claims that bots can write articles with something like 90% accuracy from just standard websites given who was making them they may have a point). In such an environment long term planning is of questionable value. To concentrate on the censorship issue any scenario would normally assume that the internet infrastructure will remain constant. Safe over one year less so for more than that. > and > "Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they > would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists". You missed that wikipedians are paranoid and thus unlikely to want to discuss negative scenarios due to the risk people might actually try to cause them to hurt wikipedia In any case the mailing list is not a good place to carry out such planning which is better done on wiki where a kinda finished result can be organized. Finally we would have to get some honest answers from the foundation about where it plans to be in 5 years time (funding, server location, size, legal position). -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Hmmm, at best, a very simplified scenario planning version for the > budget, with short time "best case" and "worse case". Usually, scenario > planning is rather on the 5-10 years scale. Things move far too fast in our world to plan much on that kind of timescale. For example, current models suggest the English Wikipedia's growth will pretty much stop within the next 5 years [1]. Who knows what effect that will have on things? At current growth rates, the WMF will be enormous in 5 years time, who knows what effect *that* will have on things (I'm not sure how long such growth is sustainable, but even if it does start to level off by then, it will still level off at a point significantly larger than it is now)? Stable versions are just starting to be implemented across various projects, DVD/USB stick/print versions of projects are starting to take off, chapters are starting to come into their own, who knows what effect any of those things will have? I don't know about you, but I have absolutely no idea what Wikimedia is going to be like in 5 years time. You can't plan for scenarios without conceiving of them first, and I think whatever happens over the next 5 years, it will be inconceivable. Some scenario planning for the next 1-2 years, maybe 3, wouldn't hurt, but more than that is probably a waste of time because the scenarios most likely won't happen. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Florence Devouard wrote: >> I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story. >> > > Why is that? > > A lack of self control, or because you actually have a > deeply thought out viewpoint? Yeah. Tomorrow, I am talking in a conference. The topic is focused on scenario planning (and how it can help to foresee and organize for important shifts). A couple of days ago, the moderator of the session asked me if Wikipedia had ever used "scenario planning". I stayed speechless... hmmm, strategic planning as in SWOT, yes. Environmental scan, yes. But scenario planning, no, I had no memory. Hmmm, at best, a very simplified scenario planning version for the budget, with short time "best case" and "worse case". Usually, scenario planning is rather on the 5-10 years scale. I then thought of the major society shifts we are currently observing. Would the future rather follow lines of a liberalization, with more free licences and sharing... or to the contrary follow lines of tightening of intellectual property laws. Would the future rather follow lines of increasing scattering of responsibilities on internet in particular and ultimately strong weakening of the notion of states... or to the contrary follow lines of increasing nation-based control of content access by its citizens. Would the future rather follow lines of mercantilization, brand marketing... or to the contrary follow lines of equal trade, fairness and charitable giving. And so on. And I thought I could perhaps drop a bait to see how wikipedians on foundation-l would react. Would they feel like playing the game of thinking of scenarios in the spirit of long term strategic planning. Or would they stay STUCK to the current story. Feedback was beyond my expectations :-) My answer tomorrow could be "Wikipedia was probably the least planned project ever; it currently has reached the level of a non-profit start-up, with a planning ability of about 1 year". and "Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists". Cheers Ant >> Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and >> WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by >> the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps. >> > > Wow. I think you are deluded if you think we are anywhere near > to a final outcome of all this... >> We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, >> there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am >> not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. >> In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may >> be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not >> going to cite any examples publicly ;-) >> > Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna > with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are > overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is > even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of > shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human > body form. > > To underline why I personally find your posting very offensive > in the absolutel, I will simply ask, why are you refraining talking > about some things publically, but declining to talk to people > with actual responsibility of real legal stuff, privately. > > Or are we to assume that you speaking out here publically is > a result of you not getting the result you want through your > private channels to the legal people of the foundation? > >> Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that >> * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by >> default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA) >> * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the >> affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of >> an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us. >> * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain >> image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a >> certain country. >> >> And that was it ! >> >> Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better >> than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately >> funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not >> accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens >> of this country to be blocked from editing. >> >> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? >> That citizens can not read one article ? >> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? >> >> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and >> distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid >> deal.
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Birgitte SB wrote: > > > --- On Fri, 12/12/08, Florence Devouard wrote: > >> From: Florence Devouard >> Subject: [Foundation-l] and what if... >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 4:52 AM >> I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer >> story. >> >> Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank >> David Gerard and >> WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big >> disatisfied by >> the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future >> steps. >> >> We all perfectly know that if this particular image was >> borderline, >> there are images or texts that are illegal in certain >> countries. I am >> not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish >> countries. >> In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In >> others, it may >> be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are >> forbidden. I am not >> going to cite any examples publicly ;-) >> >> Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that >> * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We >> respect by >> default the law of the country where projects are hosted >> (USA) >> * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they >> can bring the >> affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to >> go in front of >> an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. >> Good for us. >> * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article >> or a certain >> image, we'll implement a system to block showing the >> images or text in a >> certain country. >> >> And that was it ! >> >> Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work >> much better >> than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, >> privately >> funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text >> to be not >> accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of >> the citizens >> of this country to be blocked from editing. >> >> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? >> That citizens can not read one article ? >> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all >> articles any more ? >> >> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied >> and >> distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is >> not such a bid >> deal. >> However, editing can only be done on our site, so the >> impact of blocking >> in editing is quite dramatic. >> >> My point is not to bend on local laws at all. >> But I'd like to see people change their minds about the >> traditional >> route we used to think we could be blocked in >> "democratic" countries >> (legal route, with local then international tribunal). >> And I'd like to see people think about the "worst >> cases", and then work >> on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these >> worst cases. >> Scenario planning in short. >> >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to >> the IWF, they >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. >> Is that a >> concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it >> happening again ? >> If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we >> start to avoid >> the entire edit-blocking again ? >> >> And... beyond UK, what do we know about the >> censorship-systems the >> countries are setting into place ? I understood that >> Australia was >> setting up the same system than UK, but that France was >> rather thinking >> of other system. Should not we get to know and understand >> better what >> governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to >> adopt certains >> choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? >> >> Or should we just wait to see what's next ? >> >> Ant > > > I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help make > their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should help > anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide we > would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with > censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate > with which governments we are willing to help. > > Personally I don't get censorship, nor th
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Hoi, > What good are rules if subterfuge prevents them from being applied? > Thanks, > GerardM Well, it is also a part of the rules. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which > determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One > may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the electorate agrees with you. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which > determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One > may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. > > Prior-restraint censorship, or blocking people from seeing, > discussing, and thinking about (as opposed to performing) potentially > harmful actions make that answer a "no". Can we get back on topic? We should be discussing child pornography laws here. If you're trying to say that a free and open society can't have laws against the sale, distribution, and production of child pornography, then say that, don't create strawman laws about seeing, discussing, and thinking about potentially harmful actions. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither >> democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on >> exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way >> acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live >> there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. > > Countries have laws. The state enforces those laws. That's one of the > main purposes of having a state over anarchy. Censoring parts of the > internet is pretty much the only way to enforce child pornography laws > (when the sites are hosted abroad). I don't see anything undemocratic > about that. It's a democratically elected government making the laws > and those laws don't prevent free and fair elections, so it isn't > undemocratic. (Of course, an semi-official and unaccountable agency > like the IWF enforcing the laws is not a great way to go about it.) > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. Prior-restraint censorship, or blocking people from seeing, discussing, and thinking about (as opposed to performing) potentially harmful actions make that answer a "no". -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Hoi, What good are rules if subterfuge prevents them from being applied? Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter > > Hoi, > > When no real user has this on his user page, then it is no real issue > with > > deleting this nonsense. When it is people actually having this on their > > user > > page you have a real problem. Now it seems to me that it is easiest to > > stamp > > such nonsense out. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > Well, if it were so easy the stuff had been deleted a long time ago. The > userboxes are on the user pages, the userboxes are templates which are > hosted not in the main space (otherwise they would cleadly break the > rules), but in the private space of a fictitious user. This arrangement > has been voted a number of times. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] and what if...
> Hoi, > When no real user has this on his user page, then it is no real issue with > deleting this nonsense. When it is people actually having this on their > user > page you have a real problem. Now it seems to me that it is easiest to > stamp > such nonsense out. > Thanks, > GerardM > Well, if it were so easy the stuff had been deleted a long time ago. The userboxes are on the user pages, the userboxes are templates which are hosted not in the main space (otherwise they would cleadly break the rules), but in the private space of a fictitious user. This arrangement has been voted a number of times. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> wrote: >> > > >> Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna >> with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are >> overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is >> even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of >> shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human >> body form. >> >> > > Give me a break. You don't have to have a perverted sense of shame about > the natural human body form to take a stand against the sexual exploitation > of young child for the purposes of selling a heavy metal album. > Wow, how involved can you make a logical statement. Would I break your rebuttal of my stement, I would say that you can only exploit that which is exceptional and rarified in the market. If you can see nekkid pre- and postpubescent girls as a matter of course at a sauna, there is no ability to exploit it at all. > There are many photographs of nudity on Wikipedia. Only *one* of them > caused this controversy, and the one that caused it was *not* chosen > randomly. Well, if it wasn't chosen randomly, I just will say the ones choosing need to look at where their testicles and brain pan is, not necessarily in that order. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna > with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are > overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is > even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of > shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human > body form. > Give me a break. You don't have to have a perverted sense of shame about the natural human body form to take a stand against the sexual exploitation of young child for the purposes of selling a heavy metal album. There are many photographs of nudity on Wikipedia. Only *one* of them caused this controversy, and the one that caused it was *not* chosen randomly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/13 Thomas Dalton : >> Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as >> though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said "the sorts of >> people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to >> be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia". High correlation, not >> causation. > I agree - there is a high correlation. Anyone that believes the > Holocaust didn't happen probably doesn't support the use of reliable > sources, which makes them incompatible with our goals. Thus, they > should be blocked. I wouldn't support blocking them on sight, though - > they should be given a chance to screw up first. And his statement is indeed correct on the historical evidence. It would be novel indeed to have a Holocaust denier who wasn't a crank as an editor, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither > democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on > exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way > acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live > there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. Countries have laws. The state enforces those laws. That's one of the main purposes of having a state over anarchy. Censoring parts of the internet is pretty much the only way to enforce child pornography laws (when the sites are hosted abroad). I don't see anything undemocratic about that. It's a democratically elected government making the laws and those laws don't prevent free and fair elections, so it isn't undemocratic. (Of course, an semi-official and unaccountable agency like the IWF enforcing the laws is not a great way to go about it.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Florence Devouard wrote: > I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story. > Why is that? A lack of self control, or because you actually have a deeply thought out viewpoint? > Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and > WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by > the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps. > Wow. I think you are deluded if you think we are anywhere near to a final outcome of all this... > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) > Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human body form. To underline why I personally find your posting very offensive in the absolutel, I will simply ask, why are you refraining talking about some things publically, but declining to talk to people with actual responsibility of real legal stuff, privately. Or are we to assume that you speaking out here publically is a result of you not getting the result you want through your private channels to the legal people of the foundation? > Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that > * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by > default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA) > * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the > affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of > an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us. > * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain > image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a > certain country. > > And that was it ! > > Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better > than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately > funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not > accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens > of this country to be blocked from editing. > > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? > > I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and > distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid > deal. > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. > > My point is not to bend on local laws at all. > But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional > route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries > (legal route, with local then international tribunal). > And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work > on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases. > Scenario planning in short. > > If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a > concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ? > If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid > the entire edit-blocking again ? > > And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the > countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was > setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking > of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what > governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains > choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? > Really I am ashamed to read anyone writing such drivel, who has even momentarily held a position of responsibility in the organisation of the foundation. Of course not. If that was the responce you wanted; well, there you have it, from my fingers. Why anyone would want such re-assurance is beyond me though. It would be genuinely of earth-shattering import, if *we* as a foundation found that we should enter into the games of partisan politics in any shape or form. Even in issues that are close to hour heart in a legitimate fashion. We just don't do that. > Or should we just wait to see what's next ? > > /me opens wide... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as > though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said "the sorts of > people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to > be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia". High correlation, not > causation. I agree - there is a high correlation. Anyone that believes the Holocaust didn't happen probably doesn't support the use of reliable sources, which makes them incompatible with our goals. Thus, they should be blocked. I wouldn't support blocking them on sight, though - they should be given a chance to screw up first. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:54 AM, geni wrote: > > >> 2008/12/13 Jimmy Wales : >> >>> I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions >>> >>> ># Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. >>> ># Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or >>> >recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or >>> >otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, >>> >self-promotion, or advertising. >>> >>> I would also note that the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are >>> generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from >>> editing Wikipedia. >>> >>> --Jimbo >>> >> That would involve blocking a significant chunk of our potential Arab >> editors. Holocaust denial has fairly popular in certain parts of the >> world. >> > > > Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as > though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said "the sorts of > people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to > be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia". High correlation, not > causation. > Yeah. Sadly equally valid as the statement: "the sorts of people who idolize Ayn Rand are generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from Wikipedia". That is to say, zero validity at all as a rhetorical point for a good faith cause. Only good for fuzzying the issue. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:54 AM, geni wrote: > >> 2008/12/13 Jimmy Wales : >> > I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions >> > >> > ># Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. >> > ># Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or >> > >recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or >> > >otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, >> > >self-promotion, or advertising. >> > >> > I would also note that the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are >> > generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from >> > editing Wikipedia. >> > >> > --Jimbo >> >> That would involve blocking a significant chunk of our potential Arab >> editors. Holocaust denial has fairly popular in certain parts of the >> world. > > > Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as > though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said "the sorts of > people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to > be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia". High correlation, not > causation. > > Anyway, in places where Holocaust denial really is widespread, it's > probably similar to young earth creationism beliefs here in the US. > Something you probably could find a lot of people state that they believe if > you did a poll (Wikipedia suggests 44%), but not something that really is > integrated into their worldview. But maybe I'm wrong, there. Holocaust > denial certainly seems more dangerous than belief in young earth > creationism. > By the way, I suppose Godwin's law has been proven once again. Little over a week from Virgin Killer to the Holocaust. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:54 AM, geni wrote: > 2008/12/13 Jimmy Wales : > > I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions > > > > ># Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. > > ># Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or > > >recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or > > >otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, > > >self-promotion, or advertising. > > > > I would also note that the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are > > generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from > > editing Wikipedia. > > > > --Jimbo > > That would involve blocking a significant chunk of our potential Arab > editors. Holocaust denial has fairly popular in certain parts of the > world. Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said "the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia". High correlation, not causation. Anyway, in places where Holocaust denial really is widespread, it's probably similar to young earth creationism beliefs here in the US. Something you probably could find a lot of people state that they believe if you did a poll (Wikipedia suggests 44%), but not something that really is integrated into their worldview. But maybe I'm wrong, there. Holocaust denial certainly seems more dangerous than belief in young earth creationism. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Hoi, When no real user has this on his user page, then it is no real issue with deleting this nonsense. When it is people actually having this on their user page you have a real problem. Now it seems to me that it is easiest to stamp such nonsense out. Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter > > Hoi, > > Do people add these user boxes to their own user page ? > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > Yes, that's right. Actually, we just have one fictitious user, > [[ru:User/Box]], who is permablocked, and almost all userboxes (including > the Holocost denial one) are moved to the subspace of this user. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] and what if...
> Hoi, > Do people add these user boxes to their own user page ? > Thanks, > GerardM > Yes, that's right. Actually, we just have one fictitious user, [[ru:User/Box]], who is permablocked, and almost all userboxes (including the Holocost denial one) are moved to the subspace of this user. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/13 Jimmy Wales : > I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions > > ># Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. > ># Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or > >recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or > >otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, > >self-promotion, or advertising. > > I would also note that the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are > generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from > editing Wikipedia. > > --Jimbo That would involve blocking a significant chunk of our potential Arab editors. Holocaust denial has fairly popular in certain parts of the world. POV about Israel is a greater problem than normal in our various Islamic dominated languages. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions ># Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. ># Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or >recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or >otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, >self-promotion, or advertising. I would also note that the sorts of people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia. --Jimbo Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither >> democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on >> exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way >> acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live >> there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. >> >> -- > Well, here comes a real life story. Several days ago, someone on ru.wp > village pump drew the attention of the community to the existence of a > userbox "This user denies Holocost". I speedily deleted the userbox (it > has been used on a number of user pages), since the Holocost denial is > illegal in a number of European countries and constitutes a criminal > offense, and I was afraid that the access to ru.wp will be blocked in > these countries. However, the community has explicitly chosen to ignore > the issue: Any userboxes are currently allowed provided they do not break > the laws of the state of Florida. When I realized that I basically broke > the rules trying to obey the law, I restored the userbox (it has been > later removed by another sysop, and the discussion is still going and will > most probably result in an arbitration case against us), but the issue is > still there. (Note that this does not concern the content, only the > design). > > On the other hand, obviously we can not obey all the laws in all > countries. For instance, in Iran LBGT topic are prohibited, and following > this logic we need to remove all LGBT articles from all language editions, > most notably from fa.wp, and content removal clearly contradicts the WMF > goals. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] and what if...
Hoi, Do people add these user boxes to their own user page ? Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter > > Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither > > democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on > > exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way > > acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live > > there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. > > > > -- > Well, here comes a real life story. Several days ago, someone on ru.wp > village pump drew the attention of the community to the existence of a > userbox "This user denies Holocost". I speedily deleted the userbox (it > has been used on a number of user pages), since the Holocost denial is > illegal in a number of European countries and constitutes a criminal > offense, and I was afraid that the access to ru.wp will be blocked in > these countries. However, the community has explicitly chosen to ignore > the issue: Any userboxes are currently allowed provided they do not break > the laws of the state of Florida. When I realized that I basically broke > the rules trying to obey the law, I restored the userbox (it has been > later removed by another sysop, and the discussion is still going and will > most probably result in an arbitration case against us), but the issue is > still there. (Note that this does not concern the content, only the > design). > > On the other hand, obviously we can not obey all the laws in all > countries. For instance, in Iran LBGT topic are prohibited, and following > this logic we need to remove all LGBT articles from all language editions, > most notably from fa.wp, and content removal clearly contradicts the WMF > goals. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] and what if...
> Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither > democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on > exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way > acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live > there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. > > -- Well, here comes a real life story. Several days ago, someone on ru.wp village pump drew the attention of the community to the existence of a userbox "This user denies Holocost". I speedily deleted the userbox (it has been used on a number of user pages), since the Holocost denial is illegal in a number of European countries and constitutes a criminal offense, and I was afraid that the access to ru.wp will be blocked in these countries. However, the community has explicitly chosen to ignore the issue: Any userboxes are currently allowed provided they do not break the laws of the state of Florida. When I realized that I basically broke the rules trying to obey the law, I restored the userbox (it has been later removed by another sysop, and the discussion is still going and will most probably result in an arbitration case against us), but the issue is still there. (Note that this does not concern the content, only the design). On the other hand, obviously we can not obey all the laws in all countries. For instance, in Iran LBGT topic are prohibited, and following this logic we need to remove all LGBT articles from all language editions, most notably from fa.wp, and content removal clearly contradicts the WMF goals. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Phil Nash writes: > Whilst I would agree with that, context does not appear to have > contributed > to their original decision. Of course it didn't. This particular incident, however, seems to have taught them the value of considering images in context. > One wonders how many similar cases there have > been in the last twelve years of their existence. None, I'm guessing. Hence their new discovery of the importance of context. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story. > > Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and > WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by > the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps. > > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) > > Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that > * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by > default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA) > * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the > affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of > an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us. > * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain > image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a > certain country. > > And that was it ! > > Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better > than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately > funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not > accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens > of this country to be blocked from editing. > > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? > > I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and > distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid > deal. > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. > > My point is not to bend on local laws at all. > But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional > route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries > (legal route, with local then international tribunal). > And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work > on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases. > Scenario planning in short. > > If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a > concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ? > If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid > the entire edit-blocking again ? > > And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the > countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was > setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking > of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what > governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains > choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? > > Or should we just wait to see what's next ? > > Ant > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Any society considering a Great Firewall of any sort is neither democratic nor open, whether or not they periodically hold votes on exactly who should implement bad ideas. We should not in any way acknowledge or respect such, though we should help those who live there and encourage and assist them in circumvention. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Phil Nash wrote: > [...] context does not appear to have contributed > to their original decision. Based on their description of the process, it almost surely wasn't. > One wonders how many similar cases there have > been in the last twelve years of their existence. I can't even think of any similar cases in existence. Educational sites tend not to include child porn. > I instinctively dislike > prior restraint, although this is not such a case, but I am even more > opposed to restraint long after the cat is out of the bag, as it were. All > in all, I perceive this as having done the IWF no favours, which, sadly, > dilutes the good work that they may do- although, of course, being totally > unaccountable, we have only their word for that. If they don't do a good job, the ISPs can stop using them. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of > whether > > or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically > > reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal. > > You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? I don't think their designation of the image was a mistake. Maybe the blocking of the image was (it's a pragmatic question which I'm not in as good a position to answer as they are), but that was something they did admit was a mistake. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether > or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically > reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal. You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? Why would they do that? There would be nothing to gain by it and they would just lose face. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Mike Godwin wrote: >> Anthony writes: >> >>> I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to >>> take >>> these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images >>> to be >>> "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea. >> >> In this particular instance, however, it is worth noting that the >> image in question has been widely available, both on the Internet and >> offline, and in fact remains widely available. The fact that a >> particular image has been presumptively legal for more than three >> decades necessarily informs any responsible consideration of the >> decision to block it today. If one is familiar with the history of >> child-pornography prosecutions (as I happen to be), it's clear that >> these controversial album covers (not just the "Virgin Killer" cover, >> but that of "Blind Faith" and others) are not the material the child- >> porn statutes were designed to discourage and suppress. Moreover, >> since the album covers themselves are worthy of encyclopedic >> discussion, it seems important to add a context requirement to any >> judgment of illegality. Indeed, the Internet Watch Foundation itself >> acknowledges the importance of context in its public statement about >> the affair: "However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) >> considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this >> specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has >> existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to >> remove this webpage from our list." >> >> If the IWF thinks contextual issues are important, who are we to say >> otherwise? >> >> >> --Mike Whilst I would agree with that, context does not appear to have contributed to their original decision. One wonders how many similar cases there have been in the last twelve years of their existence. I instinctively dislike prior restraint, although this is not such a case, but I am even more opposed to restraint long after the cat is out of the bag, as it were. All in all, I perceive this as having done the IWF no favours, which, sadly, dilutes the good work that they may do- although, of course, being totally unaccountable, we have only their word for that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Andrew Whitworth wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a >>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most >>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the >>> same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's >>> criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. >>> >> Deleting cookies is far easier than changing IP addresses. >> > > I think we're all overestimating the problem here. If a vandal is > absolutely determined and has enough technical savvy, no measures that > we take are going to keep them out indefinitely. We can take > reasonable measures to combat the most common types of vandalism, but > we need to realize that no measures we take will be perfect and the > more we do to try to combat individual determined vandals the more > collateral damage we are going to sustain. If vandals aim to disrupt > the project, then sweeping range blocks on IPs is victory for them. > > No solution is perfect, and the best we can do is to eliminate the > most common cases in a reasonable way. > Exactly. The question is not whether the suggested cookie will catch all or even most would-be vandals. The objective is to build in protections that are as fully-automatic as possible for us, while requiring extra steps to circumvent so that vandalism has a higher cost to the vandal. And the real issue to consider is how likely such a measure is to catch innocent fish in its net. Because the potential problem is not that everything can be circumvented, it's that most people shouldn't be put to the trouble of circumventing. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Anthony : > The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether > or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically > reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal. The head of the IWF is potentially a fabulous drag queen. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > Anthony writes: > > > I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to > > take > > these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images > > to be > > "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea. > > In this particular instance, however, it is worth noting that the > image in question has been widely available, both on the Internet and > offline, and in fact remains widely available. Mike, that's exactly the point made by the post I was responding to (and agreeing with). > Moreover, > since the album covers themselves are worthy of encyclopedic > discussion, it seems important to add a context requirement to any > judgment of illegality. Indeed, the Internet Watch Foundation itself > acknowledges the importance of context in its public statement about > the affair: "However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) > considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this > specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has > existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to > remove this webpage from our list." > > If the IWF thinks contextual issues are important, who are we to say > otherwise? The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Anthony writes: > I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to > take > these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images > to be > "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea. In this particular instance, however, it is worth noting that the image in question has been widely available, both on the Internet and offline, and in fact remains widely available. The fact that a particular image has been presumptively legal for more than three decades necessarily informs any responsible consideration of the decision to block it today. If one is familiar with the history of child-pornography prosecutions (as I happen to be), it's clear that these controversial album covers (not just the "Virgin Killer" cover, but that of "Blind Faith" and others) are not the material the child- porn statutes were designed to discourage and suppress. Moreover, since the album covers themselves are worthy of encyclopedic discussion, it seems important to add a context requirement to any judgment of illegality. Indeed, the Internet Watch Foundation itself acknowledges the importance of context in its public statement about the affair: "However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list." If the IWF thinks contextual issues are important, who are we to say otherwise? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Chad wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > We don't know that the person (or group) who made the decision was the > same > > person (or group) that viewed the Wikipedia page. In fact, I would tend > to > > believe the opposite. > > > > Anthony > > > > I've been of the opinion the person who reported it just wanted > to create a big mess for everyone involved. > > -Chad It was rather POINTy, wasn't it? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
geni wrote:
> They are not entirely comfortable with it. That is rather the
> problem. The IWF exists because in 1996 Chief inspector Stephen
> French made it clear that if ISPs didn't do something about
> certain usenet groups he would do something about those ISPs.
>
> What we saw in action appears to be a derivative of the
> cleanfeed system developed by BT a couple of years back at least
> partly because the government was making noises about getting
> involved.
>
> The government would probably go for a rather stricter filtering
> system but is prepared to accept the IWF because it saves money
> and means that negative PR is not directly pointed at the
> government.
We actually don't know what governments would go for, and whether
it would be better or worse for us citizens. Some believe that
such decisions are exactly what governments are for,
democratically elected governments that can be elected away by the
people, instead of being left to private corporations or
foundations that cannot be voted away. It's a choice between rule
of law and so-called self-regulation. Self-regulation is much
hailed in post WWII western European (and U.S.?) politics, but
when we observe it happening in post-Soviet Russia it is called
corruption and oligarchy.
Large corporations (including telcos and large ISPs) tend to
prefer self-regulation, so it's probably good for them. Again, so
can corruption be.
The controversial 1976 album cover is an interesting example
because it also touches on "fair use" of copyrighted covers, an
area where Wikimedia Commons and many languages of Wikipedia
already self-regulate to comply with copyright law, despite the
fact that many of us think these laws are overly strict and in
conflict with free speech. The copyright system is a mix of
copyright law and private self-regulation through collecting
societies and large publishing companies.
Political powers in a country form a pyramid in three levels: one
monarch or government at the top, a middle section of a few large
corporations, noble families, political parties, trade unions, or
oligarchs, and a large number of individuals ("the people") and
small businesses at the bottom. Often enough, the government and
the people have a common interest in suppressing the middle
section. Self-regulation is good for the middle section.
--
Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Anthony wrote: > We don't know that the person (or group) who made the decision was the same > person (or group) that viewed the Wikipedia page. In fact, I would tend to > believe the opposite. > > Anthony > I've been of the opinion the person who reported it just wanted to create a big mess for everyone involved. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM, George Herbert wrote: > Let's take a step back. > > This incident arose because of a third party making a judgement call > about content which was an album cover by an at-the-time leading rock > group, had been published fairly continuously for 30-ish years, and > which was presumably well known to legal authorities by dint of being > very clearly a public publication. > > The actual details here fairly scream out that one must conclude that > there's a presumption of legality for the photo in question, whether > it's offensive or not. > That's a good point, and ultimately it was one that the IWF essentially agreed with. They still consider the image to be possibly illegal, and I suspect they like I believe that it probably is illegal. But they've considered the other issues involved and decided not to block the image. I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to take these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images to be "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea. I think there are a lot of different opinions out there, but personally I think the IWF is overall doing a positive thing. I think the government has a right to censor the distribution of child pornography, and I think ISPs have the right to censor anything they want (though they ought to only censor things that ought to be illegal). Someone unaware of the history might legitimately conclude differently > looking at it. However, we're not unaware of the history, and the > recent kerfuffle was clearly by a group who must have viewed the > Wikipedia page prior to blocking and have no way to claim plausible > deniability of the history of the image in question. We don't know that the person (or group) who made the decision was the same person (or group) that viewed the Wikipedia page. In fact, I would tend to believe the opposite. Anthony ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM, teun spaans wrote: > >> On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under >> a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to >> advocate free speech. > > > In fact, restricting the content to only "free content" *is* > self-censorship, in exactly the same way as restricting child pornography > is. There are both moral and legal reasons not to distribute copyright > violations, just like there are both moral and legal reasons not to > distribute child pornography. > > Yes, this requires determining what is and isn't "child pornography", just > like it requires determining what is and isn't "free content". But very > little discussion of the former has taken place. We see little that is borderline, because it's offensive enough that there aren't many places that it's remotely appropriate in Wikipedia (free speech / information aside). We also are relatively good at following up on reports of illegal activity on-wiki, so there's little motivation to actual criminals to host actually criminal images here. If you have some specific examples of there being a problem with categorizing borderline content, please post them, but my understanding is that both child porn and pedophilia are being effectively and unambiguously identified and stomped on in the infrequent instances that they appear. If there are enough mistakes happening that it's a problem, that should be talked about. But I am not aware of any... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > >> 2008/12/12 Florence Devouard : >> >> > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, >> > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am >> > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. >> > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may >> > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not >> > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) >> >> Well in fact the picture blocked by IWF was not illegal. > > > That's quite unclear. I'd say the image *is* illegal, but that it's far too > widespread for the law to be enforced. > > >> I think we >> should complain that such the organisation like IWF should follow the >> freedom of speach rules of their countries, which means that they >> cannot legally block the content which has not been found illegal. > > > If that was the rule they might as well not exist. The vast majority of > child pornography hasn't been subject to a legal ruling. > > In fact, under the scenario you describe the sexual abuse of minors would > only *increase*, because new child porn would be created whenever old child > porn was "found illegal". Let's take a step back. This incident arose because of a third party making a judgement call about content which was an album cover by an at-the-time leading rock group, had been published fairly continuously for 30-ish years, and which was presumably well known to legal authorities by dint of being very clearly a public publication. The actual details here fairly scream out that one must conclude that there's a presumption of legality for the photo in question, whether it's offensive or not. Someone unaware of the history might legitimately conclude differently looking at it. However, we're not unaware of the history, and the recent kerfuffle was clearly by a group who must have viewed the Wikipedia page prior to blocking and have no way to claim plausible deniability of the history of the image in question. Given the article contents, they were either negligent about considering the history, or malignly attempting to go beyond their mandate as understood and communicated. In a situation where an image is borderline, and no clear historical significance and/or presumption of legality can be established, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedians removing images. If someone later establishes that the image is well known and hasn't been deemed illegal we can revisit the removal decision and, if appropriate, restore. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything >> else. >>> I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block >> editing", >>> then. >> I think we all know what "block editing" means. It's when you go to >> Special:BlockIP and make it impossible for someone to edit. > > > There are many different options when going to Special:BlockIP. Personally > I wouldn't consider all of them to consist of "blocked editing" - one I'd > refer to as "restrict editing to logged in users". Don't try to make it sound more complicated than it is. There's many different options, but as far as the actual block goes, when blocking an IP, there's 2. You can block all editing from the IP or you can block editing from non-logged-in users. The other options, like account creation block, or blocking from editing the user talk page are just "added on" to the main block, which is the block from editing. > Well, I guess technically it's pseudonymity. The important thing is >> that you can't (easily) link the IP address to a person in real life. > > > And what good does that provide? Seriously, how is that useful? Why should > Wikipedia allow anonymous contributions in the first place? Don't say it > has something to do with the government, because the government can easily > link IP addresses to people in real life anyway, barring the use of a system > like Tor, which Wikipedia doesn't support anyway. What do you mean "what good?" I really don't understand. Your argument about "usefulness" really seems to have nothing to do with what Thomas was talking about, which is simply that its not perfect anonymity. I don't think he was arguing that we should have perfect anonymity, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. Good for wiki administration? It makes an easy way to track and block vandals without having to learn an arbitrary system that's meaningless outside the wiki (unlike IP addresses). Good for users? Unless they are one of the tiny percent of people with a static IP that's actually linked to their real-life identity, it provides decent privacy. At most, someone who doesn't have access to ISP records couldn't determine any more than their general location. While its not perfect anonymity, being able to narrow down the identity of someone to "someone in a general geographical area" isn't particularly helpful in determining their identity. I don't see what "the government" (which government?) would have anything to do with it at all. > And if it really is a goal to allow this, there are blind token systems that > can do it right. You've not established why we actually need to change the whole system. This would actually make vandalism/spam control harder. If the system is truly anonymous, we would be unable to determine whether 2 vandals are really the same person because we couldn't see if they are on the same IP range. The "goal" is to allow anyone to edit without having to do anything more than editing a page. Using IP addresses mostly achieves that, except when a country like China blocks all access (which a token system wouldn't fix). I don't how see perfect anonymity is part of that goal, or even necessarily desirable. > (Well, actually, the important thing is that you don't need to go >> through the (minimal) hassle of registering an account - I doubt the >> proportion of anons that consciously prefer to go by an IP address is >> very high - they are less private than accounts.) >> > > I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is worth > the trouble. What trouble? The vast majority of helpful anon edits I've seen are from anons who make 1 or 2 edits then may never edit again. They go on with their business, we go on with ours, no one is "troubled." -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM, teun spaans wrote: > On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under > a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to > advocate free speech. In fact, restricting the content to only "free content" *is* self-censorship, in exactly the same way as restricting child pornography is. There are both moral and legal reasons not to distribute copyright violations, just like there are both moral and legal reasons not to distribute child pornography. Yes, this requires determining what is and isn't "child pornography", just like it requires determining what is and isn't "free content". But very little discussion of the former has taken place. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
cite:* if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a certain country. I feel doubts with this statement. It sounds like giving in to censorship, though I think this is noty what you mean. When i take it literally, if in Saudi Arabia an article on Jesus of Nazareth is forbidden (as many things about Christianity are forbidden there), would we assist them? I dont think we should. On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to advocate free speech. That is a different mission, and we should leave it to organizations who regard it as their mission. We can and should cooperate with them, but we should not fight their war, much as we are hindered by censorship. I wish you health and happiness, teun spaans ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is > worth > > the trouble. > > The trouble is minimal, the hassle is almost certainly enough to lose > us some good edits. > I find it hard to believe you managed to keep a straight face while saying that the trouble was minimal. In any case, you don't *have* to lose any good edits. You could always ask the person to create the account *after* they edit the page. Then you and others like you, who don't want to lose any good edits, can filter through the edits of people who didn't bother to create an account. You'd lose *fewer* good edits that way. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is worth > the trouble. The trouble is minimal, the hassle is almost certainly enough to lose us some good edits. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. > >> > >> Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything > else. > >> > > > > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block > editing", > > then. > > I think we all know what "block editing" means. It's when you go to > Special:BlockIP and make it impossible for someone to edit. There are many different options when going to Special:BlockIP. Personally I wouldn't consider all of them to consist of "blocked editing" - one I'd refer to as "restrict editing to logged in users". Well, I guess technically it's pseudonymity. The important thing is > that you can't (easily) link the IP address to a person in real life. And what good does that provide? Seriously, how is that useful? Why should Wikipedia allow anonymous contributions in the first place? Don't say it has something to do with the government, because the government can easily link IP addresses to people in real life anyway, barring the use of a system like Tor, which Wikipedia doesn't support anyway. And if it really is a goal to allow this, there are blind token systems that can do it right. (Well, actually, the important thing is that you don't need to go > through the (minimal) hassle of registering an account - I doubt the > proportion of anons that consciously prefer to go by an IP address is > very high - they are less private than accounts.) > I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is worth the trouble. Anthony ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
>> > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. >> >> Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else. >> > > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block editing", > then. I think we all know what "block editing" means. It's when you go to Special:BlockIP and make it impossible for someone to edit. The alternative to not blocking the proxies was to allow vandals using those proxies free reign, which was not a viable option. > If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then > there isn't any anonymity, is there? Well, I guess technically it's pseudonymity. The important thing is that you can't (easily) link the IP address to a person in real life. (Well, actually, the important thing is that you don't need to go through the (minimal) hassle of registering an account - I doubt the proportion of anons that consciously prefer to go by an IP address is very high - they are less private than accounts.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Anthony : > If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then > there isn't any anonymity, is there? Not if you have the power to get ISPs to reveal what the correspondence actually is no. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2008/12/12 Anthony : > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard >wrote: > > > >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. > > > > > > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. > > Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else. > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block editing", then. > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins wrote: > >> > >> Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs > >> with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? > > > > > > If you want to block anonymous users, block anonymous users. If you want > to > > allow anonymous users to edit, then understand that you can't block > anyone. > > > > If someone is anonymous, then you don't know who they are, so you don't > know > > whether or not they're blocked. > > That's nonsense. In the vast majority of cases there is a one-to-one > correspondence between IP addresses and users (at least over the short > term) and blocking by IP address works very well. If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then there isn't any anonymity, is there? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Anthony : > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. > > > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else. > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins wrote: >> >> Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs >> with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? > > > If you want to block anonymous users, block anonymous users. If you want to > allow anonymous users to edit, then understand that you can't block anyone. > > If someone is anonymous, then you don't know who they are, so you don't know > whether or not they're blocked. That's nonsense. In the vast majority of cases there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users (at least over the short term) and blocking by IP address works very well. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Michael Peel wrote: > IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an > email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to > request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These > entries can then be publicly listed, so that people know that they > are censored, and when a censored page is requested a notice should > be displayed instead saying that the page is censored. > Under no circumstances is this acceptable. The Foundation's mission is to collect knowledge and content and distribute it globally and effectively. Self censorship is anathema to our goals, motivations, and culture. Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge and information around the world, in every language. This is a dangerous, brave proposition, and one we cannot become complacent in. Make no mistake, the free dissemination of all human knowledge to every person on the planet is a fight. The forces that would spread ignorance as a means of control, and separation are always fighting back. The idea that we should acquiesce in that fight, and censor our own information from people that are searching for that knowledge is disgusting, and would cause a substantial backlash against the Foundation. > I don't like the idea of censoring at all, but it seems to be > required in today's world. We can't do much about that. No, it's not required, and there is an endless number of things we can do about it. That defeatist anti-democratic view may be prevalent in some parts of the world, but there are people willing to stand up against harmful government action in opposition of the will of the people. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2008/12/12 Florence Devouard : > > > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, > > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am > > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. > > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may > > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not > > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) > > Well in fact the picture blocked by IWF was not illegal. That's quite unclear. I'd say the image *is* illegal, but that it's far too widespread for the law to be enforced. > I think we > should complain that such the organisation like IWF should follow the > freedom of speach rules of their countries, which means that they > cannot legally block the content which has not been found illegal. If that was the rule they might as well not exist. The vast majority of child pornography hasn't been subject to a legal ruling. In fact, under the scenario you describe the sexual abuse of minors would only *increase*, because new child porn would be created whenever old child porn was "found illegal". ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Anthony : > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. Actually, Virgin Media, with whom (as NTL) we had carefully talked into giving usable XFF headers, decided to switch off said XFF headers when running requests through the censoring proxy. That was the symptom that clued us in that something was up. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > will block it for real. And they will block again editing. "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins wrote: > > Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs > with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? If you want to block anonymous users, block anonymous users. If you want to allow anonymous users to edit, then understand that you can't block anyone. If someone is anonymous, then you don't know who they are, so you don't know whether or not they're blocked. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Michael Peel : > IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an > email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to > request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These > entries can then be publicly listed, so that people know that they > are censored, and when a censored page is requested a notice should > be displayed instead saying that the page is censored. I really can't see this one flying. > I don't like the idea of censoring at all, but it seems to be > required in today's world. We can't do much about that, but we can > deal with it in such a way that people know that it is being > censored, rather than just hiding it behind error 404 messages. It > also lets the rest of the world continue editing those pages, so that > they are there when they no longer need to be censored (and/or other > sites can distribute them to). Think of it as the digital version of > a black marker over text. So far we've spotted it pretty readily. We could do this job by maintaining a list of known blocked pages in given countries. This page will of course be blocked by all the countries listed, but the list will spread readily once it exists. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On 12 Dec 2008, at 10:52, Florence Devouard wrote: > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any > more ? > > I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and > distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a > bid > deal. > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of > blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. If you can't read the article on Wikipedia, then you can't edit it. If an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia, then it can't be distributed by other people. IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These entries can then be publicly listed, so that people know that they are censored, and when a censored page is requested a notice should be displayed instead saying that the page is censored. I don't like the idea of censoring at all, but it seems to be required in today's world. We can't do much about that, but we can deal with it in such a way that people know that it is being censored, rather than just hiding it behind error 404 messages. It also lets the rest of the world continue editing those pages, so that they are there when they no longer need to be censored (and/or other sites can distribute them to). Think of it as the digital version of a black marker over text. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
--- On Fri, 12/12/08, Florence Devouard wrote: > From: Florence Devouard > Subject: [Foundation-l] and what if... > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 4:52 AM > I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer > story. > > Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank > David Gerard and > WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big > disatisfied by > the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future > steps. > > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was > borderline, > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain > countries. I am > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish > countries. > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In > others, it may > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are > forbidden. I am not > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) > > Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that > * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We > respect by > default the law of the country where projects are hosted > (USA) > * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they > can bring the > affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to > go in front of > an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. > Good for us. > * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article > or a certain > image, we'll implement a system to block showing the > images or text in a > certain country. > > And that was it ! > > Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work > much better > than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, > privately > funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text > to be not > accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of > the citizens > of this country to be blocked from editing. > > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all > articles any more ? > > I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied > and > distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is > not such a bid > deal. > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the > impact of blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. > > My point is not to bend on local laws at all. > But I'd like to see people change their minds about the > traditional > route we used to think we could be blocked in > "democratic" countries > (legal route, with local then international tribunal). > And I'd like to see people think about the "worst > cases", and then work > on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these > worst cases. > Scenario planning in short. > > If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to > the IWF, they > will block it for real. And they will block again editing. > Is that a > concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it > happening again ? > If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we > start to avoid > the entire edit-blocking again ? > > And... beyond UK, what do we know about the > censorship-systems the > countries are setting into place ? I understood that > Australia was > setting up the same system than UK, but that France was > rather thinking > of other system. Should not we get to know and understand > better what > governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to > adopt certains > choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? > > Or should we just wait to see what's next ? > > Ant I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help make their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should help anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide we would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate with which governments we are willing to help. Personally I don't get censorship, nor the complacency Europeans generally have about living under it. I don't get it but I can recognize that many other people see it differently and may want to support censorship. But we can't pick and choose which government's censorship we will support. This is an international organization and nothing in mission expresses support for western mores over others. Selectively helping some governments censor would be a disastrous move for WMF to make. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 David Moran : > I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of > our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work > of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely > those of a national legislature comfortable with allowing private bodies to > modify free speech for 95% of their citizens. > > FMF They are not entirely comfortable with it. That is rather the problem. The IWF exists because in 1996 Chief inspector Stephen French made it clear that if ISPs didn't do something about certain usenet groups he would do something about those ISPs. What we saw in action appears to be a derivative of the cleanfeed system developed by BT a couple of years back at least partly because the government was making noises about getting involved. The government would probably go for a rather stricter filtering system but is prepared to accept the IWF because it saves money and means that negative PR is not directly pointed at the government. Problem is that I'm not aware of anyone on the IWF committee who can really be termed a free speech advocate. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
"David Moran" wrote: > I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of > our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work > of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely > those of a national legislature comfortable with allowing private bodies to > modify free speech for 95% of their citizens. > [...] You probably meant comfortable with allowing citizens to allow private bodies to modify their free speech as I assume there is a "We reserve the right to not deliver child porn to you." paragraph or two in the terms and conditions of the affected ISPs. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a >> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most >> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the >> same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's >> criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. > > Deleting cookies is far easier than changing IP addresses. I think we're all overestimating the problem here. If a vandal is absolutely determined and has enough technical savvy, no measures that we take are going to keep them out indefinitely. We can take reasonable measures to combat the most common types of vandalism, but we need to realize that no measures we take will be perfect and the more we do to try to combat individual determined vandals the more collateral damage we are going to sustain. If vandals aim to disrupt the project, then sweeping range blocks on IPs is victory for them. No solution is perfect, and the best we can do is to eliminate the most common cases in a reasonable way. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Robert Rohde : > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a >>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most >>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the >>> same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's >>> criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. >> >> Deleting cookies is far easier than changing IP addresses. > > I generally operate on the assumption that 90% of vandals of dumb. > Yes, one can clear cookies, but one has to figure it out and think to > do that, which I would assume most wouldn't. If they're smart enough to change IP addresses (especially in these days of broadband connections) they can wipe cookies, especially as browsers get more and more "privacy" features designed to help with such things. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a >> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most >> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the >> same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's >> criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. > > Deleting cookies is far easier than changing IP addresses. I generally operate on the assumption that 90% of vandals of dumb. Yes, one can clear cookies, but one has to figure it out and think to do that, which I would assume most wouldn't. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely those of a national legislature comfortable with allowing private bodies to modify free speech for 95% of their citizens. FMF On 12/12/08, Robert Rohde wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >>> Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even > >>> forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses, > >>> we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every > >>> time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use > >>> XFF whenever they are using proxies. The fact that people couldn't > >>> edit during the block has nothing to do with censorship, it's just a > >>> technical issue that can and must be fixed by ISPs. > >> > >> This is probably off-topic for this list, but IP blocking is actually > >> inefective in exactly the same way as it would be just blocking > >> accounts. When you block a dynamic IP a vandal can reboot and he/she > >> usually get new dynamic IP from his/her ISP. So you have to block > >> another IP number. If the vandal is very determined, you have to > >> finally block entire IP range, cutting off at least several hundreds > >> other people, and even if you do this vandal can still go to internet > >> caffe nearby which uses IP's from another ISP, so if you spot him/her > >> you have to block IP of the caffe. In some extreme cases you finally > >> end-up blocking IP ranges of all major ISP's from the area where > >> vandal operates... > >> > >> Honestly saying I have no ready to use receipe how to replace IP > >> blocking. But IWF case have just shown that in the future it has to be > >> replaced by something smarter or we end up in blocking all major ISP's > >> customers all over the world. > > > > I see no evidence that anything smarter exists. The only thing we know > > about anonymous users are their IP addresses, so that's all we can use > > to block them. It is theoretically impossible to do anything else, as > > far as I can see. > > Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a > block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most > obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the > same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's > criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. > > -Robert Rohde > > ___ > 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] and what if...
> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a > block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most > obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the > same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's > criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. Deleting cookies is far easier than changing IP addresses. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even >>> forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses, >>> we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every >>> time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use >>> XFF whenever they are using proxies. The fact that people couldn't >>> edit during the block has nothing to do with censorship, it's just a >>> technical issue that can and must be fixed by ISPs. >> >> This is probably off-topic for this list, but IP blocking is actually >> inefective in exactly the same way as it would be just blocking >> accounts. When you block a dynamic IP a vandal can reboot and he/she >> usually get new dynamic IP from his/her ISP. So you have to block >> another IP number. If the vandal is very determined, you have to >> finally block entire IP range, cutting off at least several hundreds >> other people, and even if you do this vandal can still go to internet >> caffe nearby which uses IP's from another ISP, so if you spot him/her >> you have to block IP of the caffe. In some extreme cases you finally >> end-up blocking IP ranges of all major ISP's from the area where >> vandal operates... >> >> Honestly saying I have no ready to use receipe how to replace IP >> blocking. But IWF case have just shown that in the future it has to be >> replaced by something smarter or we end up in blocking all major ISP's >> customers all over the world. > > I see no evidence that anything smarter exists. The only thing we know > about anonymous users are their IP addresses, so that's all we can use > to block them. It is theoretically impossible to do anything else, as > far as I can see. Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's criticism, but it does fall in the other-things-we-could-do category. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
>> Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even >> forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses, >> we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every >> time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use >> XFF whenever they are using proxies. The fact that people couldn't >> edit during the block has nothing to do with censorship, it's just a >> technical issue that can and must be fixed by ISPs. > > This is probably off-topic for this list, but IP blocking is actually > inefective in exactly the same way as it would be just blocking > accounts. When you block a dynamic IP a vandal can reboot and he/she > usually get new dynamic IP from his/her ISP. So you have to block > another IP number. If the vandal is very determined, you have to > finally block entire IP range, cutting off at least several hundreds > other people, and even if you do this vandal can still go to internet > caffe nearby which uses IP's from another ISP, so if you spot him/her > you have to block IP of the caffe. In some extreme cases you finally > end-up blocking IP ranges of all major ISP's from the area where > vandal operates... > > Honestly saying I have no ready to use receipe how to replace IP > blocking. But IWF case have just shown that in the future it has to be > replaced by something smarter or we end up in blocking all major ISP's > customers all over the world. I see no evidence that anything smarter exists. The only thing we know about anonymous users are their IP addresses, so that's all we can use to block them. It is theoretically impossible to do anything else, as far as I can see. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Thomas Dalton : > 2008/12/12 Dan Collins : >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >>> Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of >>> blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is >>> causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar >>> wachdogs. There are more and more ISPs which uses single IP for all >>> their customers. Do you rember the story of blocking Quatar? Actually, >>> vast majority of ISPs use dynamic IP numbers, which also causes >>> serious problems with effective blocking vandals.My current ISP is >>> using dynamic IP. In my office there are around 200 people using >>> single IP. I guess all OTRS volunteers and checkusers knows the issue >>> very well. The IP blocking is terribly old fashioned - it has been >>> implemented at the time where most of the IP's represented single >>> PC's. Actually very few IP numbers are "personal". >> >> Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs >> with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? > > Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even > forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses, > we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every > time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use > XFF whenever they are using proxies. The fact that people couldn't > edit during the block has nothing to do with censorship, it's just a > technical issue that can and must be fixed by ISPs. This is probably off-topic for this list, but IP blocking is actually inefective in exactly the same way as it would be just blocking accounts. When you block a dynamic IP a vandal can reboot and he/she usually get new dynamic IP from his/her ISP. So you have to block another IP number. If the vandal is very determined, you have to finally block entire IP range, cutting off at least several hundreds other people, and even if you do this vandal can still go to internet caffe nearby which uses IP's from another ISP, so if you spot him/her you have to block IP of the caffe. In some extreme cases you finally end-up blocking IP ranges of all major ISP's from the area where vandal operates... Honestly saying I have no ready to use receipe how to replace IP blocking. But IWF case have just shown that in the future it has to be replaced by something smarter or we end up in blocking all major ISP's customers all over the world. -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Judson Dunn wrote: > Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me > as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and > use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is > regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked > for a day and we are talking about changing our IP based block > systems? I know the technical details of the block are a little > different, but not *that* different. Maybe the people that are saying > this though have always opposed this system, and this is just more > reason in their minds. I hope that's the case. :) I agree that there is a certain incongruity here, but the UK is not a focused source of spam and vandalism in the same way that anonymized TOR nodes are. It's very unfortunate that the majority of Chinese citizens are blocked from editing Wikipedia, but opening up a few back channels for them to use at the expense of increasing our flow of spam and vandalism is really not a great solution to any problems. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me > as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and > use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is > regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked > for a day and we are talking about changing our IP based block > systems? I know the technical details of the block are a little > different, but not *that* different. Maybe the people that are saying > this though have always opposed this system, and this is just more > reason in their minds. I hope that's the case. :) There is a big difference between an intentional block of the whole site and a block of one page with unintended consequences affecting the whole site. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > The censorship issue isn't really an issue - if an image (or content > or whatever) is genuinely illegal in a given country then of course > that country has every right to block it. If countries block legal > images (as in this case), or block more than just the infringing image > (again, as in this case) then we can appeal by whatever means are > appropriate (the court of public opinion works pretty well as an > appeals court if there isn't a more formal method). We can also > campaign to have laws changed if we want to, but that's a decision to > be taken with great care - getting into political lobbying is a big > deal and maybe not something we want to get involved with (if we do, > it should be something done by the local chapter, I expect). > I agree, I would be very opposed to the Foundation using its resources to openly plan for censorship in a technological way. Obviously it doesn't hurt to plan from a PR and legal point of view. I would not want a new group to think, while they are deciding to censor, that Wikimedia has made this easy, and has ensured that their censorship will effect the least amount of people and result in the least political backlash. I understand that some countries may decide to censor content. That is regrettable. I don't however want any of the money I donate to the Foundation to go to making these blocks easier for the people implementing them, or less prone to error. It is very likely that each censorship implementation will be different, researching each one, and deciding how to cause the least impact preemptively I don't think is a good use of resources for the technical team. Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked for a day and we are talking about changing our IP based block systems? I know the technical details of the block are a little different, but not *that* different. Maybe the people that are saying this though have always opposed this system, and this is just more reason in their minds. I hope that's the case. :) Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Dan Collins : > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >> Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of >> blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is >> causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar >> wachdogs. There are more and more ISPs which uses single IP for all >> their customers. Do you rember the story of blocking Quatar? Actually, >> vast majority of ISPs use dynamic IP numbers, which also causes >> serious problems with effective blocking vandals.My current ISP is >> using dynamic IP. In my office there are around 200 people using >> single IP. I guess all OTRS volunteers and checkusers knows the issue >> very well. The IP blocking is terribly old fashioned - it has been >> implemented at the time where most of the IP's represented single >> PC's. Actually very few IP numbers are "personal". > > Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs > with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses, we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use XFF whenever they are using proxies. The fact that people couldn't edit during the block has nothing to do with censorship, it's just a technical issue that can and must be fixed by ISPs. The censorship issue isn't really an issue - if an image (or content or whatever) is genuinely illegal in a given country then of course that country has every right to block it. If countries block legal images (as in this case), or block more than just the infringing image (again, as in this case) then we can appeal by whatever means are appropriate (the court of public opinion works pretty well as an appeals court if there isn't a more formal method). We can also campaign to have laws changed if we want to, but that's a decision to be taken with great care - getting into political lobbying is a big deal and maybe not something we want to get involved with (if we do, it should be something done by the local chapter, I expect). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of > blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is > causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar > wachdogs. There are more and more ISPs which uses single IP for all > their customers. Do you rember the story of blocking Quatar? Actually, > vast majority of ISPs use dynamic IP numbers, which also causes > serious problems with effective blocking vandals.My current ISP is > using dynamic IP. In my office there are around 200 people using > single IP. I guess all OTRS volunteers and checkusers knows the issue > very well. The IP blocking is terribly old fashioned - it has been > implemented at the time where most of the IP's represented single > PC's. Actually very few IP numbers are "personal". Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? -- DCollins/ST47 Administrator, en.wikipedia.org Channel Operator, irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia Maintainer, Perlwikipedia module ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard : > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? It isn't an either or. > I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and > distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid > deal. > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. > > My point is not to bend on local laws at all. > But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional > route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries > (legal route, with local then international tribunal). > And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work > on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases. > Scenario planning in short. > > If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a > concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ? > If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid > the entire edit-blocking again ? The risk is limited until the new year. Then it will depend on exactly how the Extreme pornography law is interpreted. The damage to editing will be more limited since at least some companies now have XFF headers in place and we recognize them. Just a matter of getting the rest on board. > And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the > countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was > setting up the same system than UK, The Australian system is almost certainly wider in its approach than the UK. Technical details are limited however. For the time being the ISPs are not cooperating however so hard to predict the outcome. >Should not we get to know and understand better what > governments are planning ? Ideally yes but there is the language barrier and of course a lot of the details are non public. We probably now know more about the operation of the IWF/cleanfeed system than was publicly available at the beginning of the week. > Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains > choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? If they are going to use proxies we want them to tell us and to use XFF headers. Beyond that I'm not sure if we actually want to become a free speech campaigning organisation. > Or should we just wait to see what's next ? In the end there is always going to be an element of that. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard : > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) Well in fact the picture blocked by IWF was not illegal. I think we should complain that such the organisation like IWF should follow the freedom of speach rules of their countries, which means that they cannot legally block the content which has not been found illegal. We should also join and actively participate in campaings attempting to control IWF and similar organisations. This is not only Wikimedia issue - but generally an issue of freedom of speach, which might affect not only us but also many others. > Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? > That citizens can not read one article ? > Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar wachdogs. There are more and more ISPs which uses single IP for all their customers. Do you rember the story of blocking Quatar? Actually, vast majority of ISPs use dynamic IP numbers, which also causes serious problems with effective blocking vandals.My current ISP is using dynamic IP. In my office there are around 200 people using single IP. I guess all OTRS volunteers and checkusers knows the issue very well. The IP blocking is terribly old fashioned - it has been implemented at the time where most of the IP's represented single PC's. Actually very few IP numbers are "personal". > However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking > in editing is quite dramatic. Yes.. but it is at least in 50% our own fault - by using mechanism of IP blocking. > And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the > countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was > setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking > of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what > governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains > choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? > Yes.. for sure we had to monitor the situation and give a laud voice demanding formal control of the bodies similar to IWF and support local groups which are demanding the same. -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] and what if...
I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story. Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps. We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not going to cite any examples publicly ;-) Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA) * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us. * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a certain country. And that was it ! Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens of this country to be blocked from editing. Now, seriously, what is more important right now ? That citizens can not read one article ? Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ? I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid deal. However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking in editing is quite dramatic. My point is not to bend on local laws at all. But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries (legal route, with local then international tribunal). And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases. Scenario planning in short. If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ? If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid the entire edit-blocking again ? And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ? Or should we just wait to see what's next ? Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
