Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
Anthony writes: I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain traction in Congress. I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here. Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in what it can and cannot do politically, and is even more regulated by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO). There's no Citizens United connection with regard to anything being discussed here. As is generally known, I favored the English Wikipedia blackout with regard to SOPA/PIPA, and I also supported the Italian Wikimedians' earlier blackout, driven by fear of (effectively) similar regulation. At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having their own top-down way. To my Russian comrades: I am with you. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] New, lower traffic, announcements only email list for Wikimedia developers
Amir E. Aharoni, 11/07/2012 15:40: And the possible change would be for wikitech-ambassadors to become a medium-to-high-traffic, plain English, list for discussion between developers and Wikimedia users, to report issues, share ideas and provide feedback in unapologetically layman terms. The Ambassadors part also means that users who are on that list will have a role in disseminating information to their local communities, and reporting back issues possibly raised on local wikis. It was my initiative about two years ago to start wikitech-ambassadors and that's what I hoped it will become. It didn't, but it's still very much needed. What's needed? We surely need ways to spread the word better and especially during the emergencies such as deploy a mailing list can be the way but surely it's not good for brainstorming or to gather feedback in a useful way (compare https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech which is lately serving this purpose, to my surprise I have to say, thanks to the effort of some users). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On 12 July 2012 10:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having their own top-down way. The worrying thing is not only that we've done this three times in the past year, it's that we've had cause to do it three times in the past year. Oh pish. Laws like the ones we protested have been created many times over the last few years (France, UK, etc.) and we've never protested them before. The change was us, not them. Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] New, lower traffic, announcements only email list for Wikimedia developers
2012/7/12 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Amir E. Aharoni, 11/07/2012 15:40: And the possible change would be for wikitech-ambassadors to become a medium-to-high-traffic, plain English, list for discussion between developers and Wikimedia users, to report issues, share ideas and provide feedback in unapologetically layman terms. The Ambassadors part also means that users who are on that list will have a role in disseminating information to their local communities, and reporting back issues possibly raised on local wikis. It was my initiative about two years ago to start wikitech-ambassadors and that's what I hoped it will become. It didn't, but it's still very much needed. What's needed? What's needed is a medium to announce important impending technical changes, which require local changes. Three simple examples: 1. The move to Resource Loader, which required changes in lots of user scripts. 2. The change of right-to-left text handling in 1.18, which required changes in lots of styles. 3. The replacement of secure URLs by plain https://; URLs, which required changes in lots of URLs in scripts, templates etc. It's not that these changes aren't announced at all. They are announced in various ways - sometimes by mass-posting to village pumps, sometimes by blog posts, sometimes by CentralNotice. But it was never properly tested to be effective, and the fact is that it isn't, because the above issues are still not completely fixed in some projects. Lots of projects don't get the message. We could just blame the projects for not caring enough, or we could come up with a more effective solution. I believe that an ambassadors list is a good solution. I actually don't have very strong arguments to support this belief; if anyone has better ideas for such a medium, I'll be very glad to hear them. Maybe a blog dedicated to such announcements will be better. Maybe a combination of solutions. Obviously, the tool - mailing list, blog, feed, wiki page - is just one side of the solution. The most important component is the commitment of the people at the project. But better technical tools are supposed to make this commitment easier to carry out. The above is the most important requirement. A second priority would be a discussion list for talking about such issues before they become implemented and deployed. In the beginning they can be combined. We surely need ways to spread the word better and especially during the emergencies such as deploy a mailing list can be the way but surely it's not good for brainstorming or to gather feedback in a useful way (compare https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech which is lately serving this purpose, to my surprise I have to say, thanks to the effort of some users). Thank you, I didn't know that page. I'll try to start following it. In practice, it's harder to follow a wiki page than a mailing list. But maybe that's just my own feeling. -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide
A travel guide discussion will be taking place today at Wikimania during lunch. Representatives from Wikivoyage and from the editor community of WIkitravel will be hear to answer any questions. A request for comment is ongoing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony writes: I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain traction in Congress. I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here. The connection is free speech. Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in what it can and cannot do politically What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct* certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations on what it can do politically? and is even more regulated by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO). More specifically, by its being a 501(C)(3). I'm not aware of any regulation imposed by simply being a nonprofit corporation. And even other 501(C) corporations, such as 501(C)(4) corporations (like Citizens United) are fairly unrestricted. Furthermore, 501(C)(3) is a tax status. The government isn't saying that WMF can't be political. It just isn't allowed certain tax privileges if it does so more than a certain amount. And in some cases it is penalized if it takes the tax advantages first and then does the actions later. There's no Citizens United connection with regard to anything being discussed here. WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech. In the Citizens United decision, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The connection is quite obvious. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA, threat or menace (was Russian Wikipedia goes on strike)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Seth Finkelstein se...@sethf.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Well, it also has to be read keeping in mind that it would be borderline malpractice for him to have stated if SOPA passes then Wikipedia will be in violation of the law and forced to shut down - just in case SOPA actually did pass, forcing WMF to argue the exact opposite. I perceive you've been very fortunate, in not having much experience with lawyers. Ponder if a health care mandate is a tax or not, or whether Mitt Romney thought it was in the past, or does now. There's quite a difference between a President, a presidential candidate, and a general counsel for a corporation. Moreover, there's already the problem you see in the argument where he wrote: Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an Internet search engine, I'm quite sure that if SOPA actually did pass, WMF would then strongly argue the exact opposite, that Wikipedia absolutely does not fall under definition of an Internet search engine (as it is not a site whose primary function is gathering and reporting, ... *indexed information* or *web sites* available elsewhere on the Internet) Well. 1) I think Mr Brigham made a mistake in making a public statement about this at all; however 2) He used the word arguably. If SOPA did (or does) pass, and WMF was charged with violating it (which, frankly, would probably never happen), then surely they would argue that Wikipedia is not an Internet search engine. But not being something and *arguably* falling under the definition of something, are not mutually exclusive. Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier to impose. And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very well be outlawed. The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a corporation. The Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues with lobbying are very far from the Citizens United sort of case. Well, yeah, sure. And WMF's legal issues with copyright infringement are very different from the sort of cases that would be prosecuted under PIPA or a PIPA-like law too. But if the court in Citizens United had opened the door to restricting nonprofit organizations from engaging in one type of grassroots lobbying, I don't see how they could leave the door closed regarding other types of grassroots lobbying, such as the type which WMF is engaging in. And really, I don't see how the could leave the door closed regarding speech in general involving corporate expenditures. Political speech is, for good reasons, the type of speech which is most heavily protected by the First Amendment. The primary legal issue for WMF here is its tax-exempt status and the restrictions which go along with that. Which, sigh, is not to assert that WMF violated any such legal restrictions, but only to point out that such legal restrictions will become a limiting issue long before any corporations-aren't-people campaign finance laws. Not at all. 501(C)(3) charities are allowed to engage in quite a bit of grassroots lobbying without losing their tax-exempt status (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_lobbying#Public_Charity_Lobbying_Law). If Citizens United had gone the other way, there would be nothing to stop Congress from eliminating the ability of corporations to engage in grassroots lobbying altogether. I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain traction in Congress. Well, check if the WMF starts getting large donations from the likes of the Koch brothers or Karl Rove's Super PAC :-) . Well, no...but there is http://www.infodocket.com/2012/01/03/wikmedia-foundation-hires-dc-lobbying-firm/ And, of course, there is the (grassroots, not direct) lobbying that WMF has already (visibly) engaged in. I'm not sure if we'll have any way to know if they've been involved in any direct lobbying until the 2011-2012 990 comes in. Oh, excuse me, it would be a community decision based on the extreme danger to Wikipedia from such measures (hmm, Wikipedia relies on the US Constitution, so anything which amends that COULD KILL WIKIPEDIA!!!). Right. Except, well, it doesn't fit in the political persuasion of most Wikipedians. Not as strongly as copyright infringement is not theft, anyway. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here. The connection is free speech. Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of what role corporate expenditures can play in elections. It does not address the question of whether corporations can engage in political activity. Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in what it can and cannot do politically What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct* certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations on what it can do politically? See, e.g., http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf. WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech. In the Citizens United decision, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The connection is quite obvious. Not merely obvious but quite obvious, eh? Well, in the United States cases like Citizens United and its predecessors center precisely on election campaigns (including the ways money can be spent on issue campaigning aimed at influencing the outcome of elections of candidates for public office). I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an election. I'm also unaware of any how Citizens United applies even remotely the subject matter of this thread, which I had understood to center on Russian legislation, not (for example) on a Russian election. But perhaps you're making a one of those obvious (excuse me, I mean quite obvious) connections that is too subtle for me to follow. Speaking only for myself, I remain cheered by the Russian-language Wikimedians' activism. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide
Hi James, where exactly are we going to meet? Arne Am 12.07.2012 07:54 schrieb James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com: A travel guide discussion will be taking place today at Wikimania during lunch. Representatives from Wikivoyage and from the editor community of WIkitravel will be hear to answer any questions. A request for comment is ongoing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here. The connection is free speech. Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of what role corporate expenditures can play in elections. The law in question was with respect to electioneering communications, which the court held was speech. It does not address the question of whether corporations can engage in political activity. Political activity is awfully broad. The ruling was primarily concerned with political speech. Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in what it can and cannot do politically What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct* certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations on what it can do politically? See, e.g., http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf. First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to corporations in general. I specifically pointed out that there are regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations. Furthermore, I think it's a bit misleading to say that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from engaging in these activities. IRC 501(c)(3) *defines* a certain type of organization, which does not engage in certain types of political activities. Saying that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from engaging in certain political activities is like saying that a virgin is prohibited from having sex. If a virgin has sex, they cease to be a virgin. If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in prohibited political activities, it ceases to be a 501(c)(3). I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an election. Surely you understand that one need not be directly affected by the exact law being challenged to have a great interest in free speech rights being upheld. If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election, what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence legislation? But perhaps you're making a one of those obvious (excuse me, I mean quite obvious) connections that is too subtle for me to follow. I guess so. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Travel meeting
We will be meeting in the main lunch room. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of what role corporate expenditures can play in elections. The law in question was with respect to electioneering communications, which the court held was speech. If you are expressing a disagreement with my characterization of the issue in Citizens United, I'm unclear what that disagreement is. Political activity is awfully broad. The ruling was primarily concerned with political speech. That's imprecise. The case centered on the scope of Congress's power to regulate speech aimed at affecting elections. First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to corporations in general. I specifically pointed out that there are regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations. I hadn't understood you to be talking also about for-profit corporations such as The New York Times Company, which (if you happen to read the Times) you may know sometimes tries to affect the outcome of elections. As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated. If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election, what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence legislation? I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
I wrote: 'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech.' That paragraph got truncated through an editing error. What I meant to write was this: 'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections (e.g., through candidate endorsements). And I wouldn't want to prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech regarding legislation or policy.' --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:34:46 -0400, Nathan wrote: Is there a service provider exemption for entities like Wikimedia in Russia? Not that I know of. Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political activism in Russia? Legally, no, it is not political activism. From the point of view of having good relation with the authorities, this, of course, complicates things. I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian authorities from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia community decides to take steps like this again. Formally, they can shut down access to Russian Wikipedia on November 1. In reality, I doubt very much they are going to do it. I do not see what they can gain, and the public opinion, however weak, will not approve it. What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to protest laws in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, etc., has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks involved or potential repercussions? I guess in this case nobody asked the Foundation beforehand. And I think the fact that nobody from wm.ru cared to show up here to provide info and answer questions (Victoria and myself are not members and none of us is a Russian resident, though I am a Russian citizen and was flying from Russia just last weekend) is in my opinion very illustrative in this respect. But indeed a good question is would it be for instance a good idea to blackout Chinese Wikipedia to protest the firewall. My opinion is no. It would expose a number of people to immediate danger without any obviousl benefits, since the probability that the blackout can change anything is increasingly low. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote: On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia, Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC. Yes, on the basis that Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an 'Internet search engine'. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/ The definition was: The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but even if it did, what would be the consequences? A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link. Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an internet site that would be specified under such a court order is: [T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address. We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report. Maybe SOPA was a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet, and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence. -- Tim Starling Thank you. Well said. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: You specifically contrasted regulations as a corporation with regulations by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation. I responded to both. You then quoted my response to the first, with information with respect to the second. I'm still not sure what you're taking issue with here. As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated. 501(c) *is a tax status*. 501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status. So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc. I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech. And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so. That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted expenditures constitutionally. (In short, I slightly disagree with ACLU's position, but only slightly.) What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians' activism is still beyond me, however. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a service provider exemption for entities like Wikimedia in Russia? Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political activism in Russia? I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian authorities from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia community decides to take steps like this again. Like in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA cases, objecting to the law is socially too wide to be considered as political activism in narrow sense. Yandex, Russian biggest search engine, is among those opposing the law. What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to protest laws in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, etc., has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks involved or potential repercussions? In one email from this thread similar attitude was applied to the hypothetical decision Russian Wikipedia for Russians. In short, the attitude is false excuse for vanguardism. The first case has been based on the fact that Wikipedians from Russia would like to articulate Wikipedia block for Russia and that they have no means to do that, except to block Russian Wikipedia for the whole world (which should be done by WMF). Anyway, I don't think that anything of the written would happen: * Every big Wikipedian community has enough collective responsibility not to act ethnocentrically. Thus, it's false premise that something like that would pass on Russian Wikipedia. * Wikipedia is far from being important in China. Thus, going on strike there wouldn't be productive. And Chinese Wikipedians know that. * Arabic Wikipedians come from many [Arabic] countries and there should be something *really* heavy to see them united in desire to strike. Quite opposite, the threats of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, Italian and Russian laws are by far more visible than anything mentioned above. The logic is similar to building bulwarks in a desert because sea level will raise in few hundreds of years. If you live there, you need water now. More realistically, *if* something like that happens, please think and act if necessary. The fact that the distance between Washington DC and Rome is smaller than distance between Washington DC and Moscow doesn't mean that Wikipedia strikes will finish in Pyongyang. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated. 501(c) *is a tax status*. 501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status. So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc. Well, no, you didn't. But I know where the regulations for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc. are, since dealing with treasury regulations is what I do for a living. I also explained to you that IRC 501(c)(3) does not prohibit certain corporations from performing certain actions, rather it *defines* certain corporations which do not perform certain actions. I figured you would confirm this by reading the code. However, I'll quote it for you. First, I'll quote 501(a): An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) orsection 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503. Now, the beginning of 501(c): The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a): And now, 501(c)(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. The code doesn't say that 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns, rather it says that organizations which intervene in political campaigns *are not 501(c)(3) organizations*. As you will know if you've read the recent court cases, there is a difference between prohibiting an action, and subjecting it to certain taxes. I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech. And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so. That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted expenditures constitutionally. (In short, I slightly disagree with ACLU's position, but only slightly.) What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians' activism is still beyond me, however. Nothing. My comment was about a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen United, and I gave that as an example of something that is even more important than PIPA for Wikipedians to protest. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc. Well, no, you didn't. I think most people will agree that I did give you pointers to the regs. I agree that I did not give you direct links to the regs. Perhaps you understood pointers to mean direct links. I also explained to you that IRC 501(c)(3) does not prohibit certain corporations from performing certain actions, rather it *defines* certain corporations which do not perform certain actions. This is all lovely, but I am still unclear as to what you believe you are disagreeing with me about. I figured you would confirm this by reading the code. I didn't see much point in rereading those provisions, because I didn't understand what exactly you were taking issue with me on. I'm not sure anyone else does either. Perhaps someone else could explain your disagreement with me, because I'm drawing a blank here in what I'm reading from you. What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians' activism is still beyond me, however. Nothing. My comment was about a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen United, and I gave that as an example of something that is even more important than PIPA for Wikipedians to protest. Why Wikipedians in particular? Citizens United (not Citizen United) has to do with campaign expenditures. So far as I know, neither WMF nor Wikimedians have any interest, one way or the other, in attempts to regulate campaign expenditures, or constitutional amendments regarding same. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Announces 2012-13 Board of Trustees and Elected Officers at Wikimania in Washington DC
Hello all, Please find a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation announcing Board of Trustees election results and welcoming Alice Wiegand and Patricio Lorente to the Board. thanks, Matthew -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Wikimedia Foundation (This release is also posted at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/WMF_Board_Election_July_2012 ) *Wikimedia Foundation Announces 2012-13 Board of Trustees and Elected Officers at Wikimania in Washington DC* Washington, DC -- July 12, 2012-- The Wikimedia Foundation today announced recent appointments and elected officers for the 2012-13 Board of Trustees. Every year at Wikimania, the annual gathering of Wikimedia contributors from around the world, the Wikimedia Board appoints its officers for the coming year, and this year’s appointments were announced in Washington, DC. This year, Kat Walsh was appointed Chair of the Board, Jan-Bart de Vreede was re-appointed Vice-chair, Stuart West was re-appointed as Board Treasurer and Bishaka Dhatta becomes Board Secretary. The Board expressed its great thanks to former Board Chair Ting Chen, as well as outgoing trustees Arne Klempert and Phoebe Ayers. Their leadership has strengthened and nurtured the growth of the worldwide Wikimedia movement. I am honored to have been chosen to chair the Board in the coming year,” said Kat Walsh, Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. “I want to thank Ting Chen for his service in his period as Chair, and I look forward to working closely with him as I take on this new role. It's an important time in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement: I look forward to leading the Board in the year ahead. “It’s been a pleasure to serve the Wikimedia movement as Chair of the Board of Trustees,” said Ting Chen. “Since I took on the role of Chair we’ve worked with our global community and the Foundation to introduce an ambitious five-year plan to increase the diversity and overall population of our community, while also establishing long-term financial plans to ensure sustainability for our movement and our projects. Our Board has matured and strengthened, and I’m proud of the tireless work of my colleagues.” There are 10 seats on the Board and according to the Foundation's bylaws, three members are elected by the Wikimedia community, two are selected by the Wikimedia chapters, the Founder seat is held by Jimmy Wales, and four members are appointed by the Board itself to provide additional, specific expertise. The Foundation is happy to welcome its two newest members of the Board, Patricio Lorente and Alice Wiegand, who were elected to the Board by the Wikimedia chapters in May 2012. The chapters seat selection process was created in April 2008, in order to demonstrate the Board's commitment to the chapters as an important player in the fulfillment of the Wikimedia mission. Patricio Lorente is the former President of Wikimedia Argentina. He has worked as Project Manager of the Association for Social Development in Argentina and he currently serves as General ProSecretary of the National University of La Plata. Alice Wiegand is personal aide to the Mayor of Meerbusch, Germany. She has recently begun her Master’s studies in Public Policy and Governance. *The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for 2012-2013:* *Kat Walsh, Board Chair (current term until July 2013) *Jan-Bart de Vreede, Vice Chair (current term until December 2013) *Stuart West, Treasurer (current term until December 2013) *Bishakha Datta, Secretary (current term until December 2012) *Jimmy Wales, FounderTing Chen (current term until 2013) *Samuel Klein (current term until July 2013) *Matt Halprin (current term until December 2012) *Alice Wiegand (current term until July 2014) *Patricio Lorente (current term until July 2014) *About Wikimania* http://wikimania.org Wikimania 2012 is being held in Washington, DC, USA, where more than 1000 Wikipedia contributors, Wikimedia advocates, researchers and educators from 87 countries are in attendance. The previous Wikimanias were held in Frankfurt, Germany (2005), Cambridge, USA (2006), Taipei, Taiwan (2007), Alexandria, Egypt (2008), Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009), Gdańsk, Poland (2010), and Haifa, Israel (2011). *About the Wikimedia Foundation* http://wikimediafoundation.org http://blog.wikimedia.org The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 492 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, May 2012). Available in 285 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 22 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 85,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Okay. Is there something in those regs which regulates what WMF can and cannot do politically? All I see is regulations stating that WMF may be taxed based on what is does. I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're making. When you said Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in what it can and cannot do politically, I thought you were referring to some regulation(s) outside of the internal revenue code. Were you? No. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Announces 2012-13 Board of Trustees and Elected Officers at Wikimania in Washington DC
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:14 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: It has been an honor to be a member of the Board, and I hope you will join me in welcoming Alice and Patricio. Thank you, Phoebe (and Arne!), for your service to the movement! And thanks to Ting for his work as Chair, and congrats to Kat Walsh for succeeding him in this role - a most excellent choice. Like some other volunteer roles, serving on the Board is exhausting and often thankless, so please know that your tireless efforts are and have been greatly appreciated :-). Welcome to Patricio and Alice, whose many prior accomplishments in Wikimedia speak for themselves. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
