Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Today, the outgoing Arbitration Committee of Russian Wikipedia finally 
decided that the decision to go on strike was too hasty, and the 
community consensus was not established. One of the organizers of the 
"poll" on the strike, as well as the admin who technically switched the 
access off, were desysopped.


The losing party already declared an intention to appeal (which is not 
permitted by policies, but sometimes people do not care).


Cheers
Yaroslav


Tim Starling wrote:


According to ru.wp Arbcom member DR, the danger to Wikipedia was
overstated, and the text of the proposed law was misrepresented.





___
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

[Fred Bauder]

I wonder if a few iconic Islamic related expressions could not also be
included such as burning or threatening to burn a copy of the Koran?
There would have to be scienter, knowing its significance, of course; a
fact that was not present in a recent case in Pakistan where a
developmentally handicapped young woman was charged.

Fred

> Free speech in the US is, I believe, generally considered to exclude
> both "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
>
> On 20/09/2012 04:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign
>> relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be
>> unconstitutional even in the United States. When the Chairman of the
>> Joint Chiefs of Staff is reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher
>> in Florida to cool it, something is out of whack. Fred
>> ___ 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

[Richard Farmbrough]

Free speech in the US is, I believe, generally considered to exclude 
both "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".


On 20/09/2012 04:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign 
relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be 
unconstitutional even in the United States. When the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff is reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher 
in Florida to cool it, something is out of whack. Fred 
___ 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

[geni]

On 20 September 2012 04:56, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> I have never understood anyone who thinks that showing contempt for the
> Prophet was a smart thing to do. Only great evil comes from it. Not great
> spiritual trouble or lightning bolts from God; I'm not superstitious, but
> simply a dirty mess that results in a great deal of damage to innocent
> people. That Muslims should "grow up" is a given, but so should everyone
> else. It is simply not possible for Russia to permit showing of such
> material nor for India, or possibly even France; it's inflammatory.

Given what Russia has been up to in Chechnya and Ingushetia I'm not
sure they are too worried about being inflammatory.

> Not publishing pictures of the Prophet and being reasonably respectful
> toward him is pretty much the first lesson anyone who hopes to have a
> decent relationship with Muslims is taught. Going out of your way to heap
> contempt on him is just stupid; unless making trouble is your purpose.

We never did get to the bottom of the Russian apartment bombings.

-- 
geni

___
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

[Fred Bauder]

>
> Well, the new law is now being considered for application to block
> YouTube in Russia. Make of that, what you will.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19648808


> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>

I have never understood anyone who thinks that showing contempt for the
Prophet was a smart thing to do. Only great evil comes from it. Not great
spiritual trouble or lightning bolts from God; I'm not superstitious, but
simply a dirty mess that results in a great deal of damage to innocent
people. That Muslims should "grow up" is a given, but so should everyone
else. It is simply not possible for Russia to permit showing of such
material nor for India, or possibly even France; it's inflammatory.

Not publishing pictures of the Prophet and being reasonably respectful
toward him is pretty much the first lesson anyone who hopes to have a
decent relationship with Muslims is taught. Going out of your way to heap
contempt on him is just stupid; unless making trouble is your purpose.

I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign relations
or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be unconstitutional even in
the United States. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is
reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher in Florida to cool it,
something is out of whack.

Fred


___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder 
>> wrote:
 But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According
 to
 the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia
 should be included to the register of banned information on the ground
 of
 the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in
 Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist
 materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list
 contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but
 also
 Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors
 e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong,
 letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary
 art,
 etc.
>>>
>>> "letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's
>>> Russian McCarthyism.
>>
>> AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug
>> usage".
>>
>
> There are limits. For example, I am aware of a technique for tattooing
> the whites of your eyes. I'm afraid I have self-censored with respect to
> that matter; there is enough evil nonsense already; idiots can put their
> tongues on frozen lamp posts...
>
> Fred
>

Well, the new law is now being considered for application to block
YouTube in Russia. Make of that, what you will.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19648808


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

___
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

[Fred Bauder]

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>>> But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According
>>> to
>>> the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia
>>> should be included to the register of banned information on the ground
>>> of
>>> the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in
>>> Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist
>>> materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list
>>> contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but
>>> also
>>> Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors
>>> e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong,
>>> letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary
>>> art,
>>> etc.
>>
>> "letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's
>> Russian McCarthyism.
>
> AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug
> usage".
>

There are limits. For example, I am aware of a technique for tattooing
the whites of your eyes. I'm afraid I have self-censored with respect to
that matter; there is enough evil nonsense already; idiots can put their
tongues on frozen lamp posts...

Fred


___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to
>> the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia
>> should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of
>> the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in
>> Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist
>> materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list
>> contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also
>> Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors
>> e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong,
>> letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art,
>> etc.
>
> "letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's
> Russian McCarthyism.

AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug usage".

___
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

[Fred Bauder]

> But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to
> the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia
> should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of
> the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in
> Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist
> materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list
> contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also
> Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors
> e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong,
> letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art,
> etc.

"letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's
Russian McCarthyism.

Fred


___
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

[MZMcBride]

Fred Bauder wrote:
> It remains possible, due to the nature of the Russian government and the
> pressures of the opposition on it, that reading between the lines and
> coming to the conclusion they did was justified. What the Russian
> government might consider extremist and necessary to suppress is sui
> generis.

It remains possible for a lot of people to disrupt access to Wikimedia wikis
(government agencies, ISPs, et al.). Tim's point (as I've read it, at least)
has been that disrupting access ourselves is not the right thing to do. When
there's a credible disruption (like the bans in China), working around those
disruptions to further Wikimedia's aim of spreading free educational content
is a worthwhile endeavor. Purposefully disrupting access to Wikimedia wikis
through blackouts is contrary to Wikimedia's primary aim.

MZMcBride



___
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

[Fred Bauder]

It remains possible, due to the nature of the Russian government and the
pressures of the opposition on it, that reading between the lines and
coming to the conclusion they did was justified. What the Russian
government might consider extremist and necessary to suppress is sui
generis.

Fred

> On 14/07/12 01:07, abi yoyo wrote:
>> Greetings to all and thanks for the support of our initiative. I am
>> one of the three ru-wikipedia users, who signed the decision under
>> the poll to blackout ru-wiki. We have a really nasty bill, that is
>> already passed by the Russian parliament. The bill contains a real
>> and an unequivocal clauses, that can lead to an ip-ban of Wikimedia
>> projects in Russia.
>
> Since nobody from the Russian Wikipedia community has stepped up to
> provide the other side to this story to this list's readers, I thought
> I'd better post a couple of quotes.
>
> According to ru.wp Arbcom member DR, the danger to Wikipedia was
> overstated, and the text of the proposed law was misrepresented. Via
> Google Translate:
>
> "You propose a banner to hang out or close WP in protest (at least on
> paper) a logical law against child pornography and extremism. Just out
> of fear that there will be law enforcement practice, which will
> interpret it too broadly. Well, against the practice (if it suddenly
> appears) and it will be necessary to protest. And it is a protest
> against the Criminal Code ... In addition, I have the impression,
> well, if 5% of the votes 'for' even opened a file with the draft law -
> because in the header are two entirely hypothetical examples of
> incorrect application of the law, but more in the whole section 'for'
> there is no argument (in denotes the best rate per nom, and at worst -
> a vote solely on the basis of incorrectly formulated SiteNotice 'Speak
> ... sorry censorship in RuNet'). Well, and, separately, I think that
> this can not be done on the basis of four hour interview."
>
> 
>
>> The organization was really not good. Actually it could not be
>> worse. The main reason for that is extreme lack of time we had to
>> organize. The bill was passed in an utmost haste without even a
>> shadow of public discussion. Actually the community, including
>> myself, got to know of bill hearing only day before its planned
>> time.
>
> According to Levg in his Arbcom application, again via Google
> Translate, "It should be noted that there are no objective reasons for
> such a 'sprint survey' did not exist, to discuss the bill on second
> reading has been known since at least last Friday."
>
> Friday was July 6, the poll was held on July 9.
>
> 
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Tim Starling]

On 14/07/12 01:07, abi yoyo wrote:
> Greetings to all and thanks for the support of our initiative. I am
> one of the three ru-wikipedia users, who signed the decision under
> the poll to blackout ru-wiki. We have a really nasty bill, that is
> already passed by the Russian parliament. The bill contains a real
> and an unequivocal clauses, that can lead to an ip-ban of Wikimedia
> projects in Russia. 

Since nobody from the Russian Wikipedia community has stepped up to
provide the other side to this story to this list's readers, I thought
I'd better post a couple of quotes.

According to ru.wp Arbcom member DR, the danger to Wikipedia was
overstated, and the text of the proposed law was misrepresented. Via
Google Translate:

"You propose a banner to hang out or close WP in protest (at least on
paper) a logical law against child pornography and extremism. Just out
of fear that there will be law enforcement practice, which will
interpret it too broadly. Well, against the practice (if it suddenly
appears) and it will be necessary to protest. And it is a protest
against the Criminal Code ... In addition, I have the impression,
well, if 5% of the votes 'for' even opened a file with the draft law -
because in the header are two entirely hypothetical examples of
incorrect application of the law, but more in the whole section 'for'
there is no argument (in denotes the best rate per nom, and at worst -
a vote solely on the basis of incorrectly formulated SiteNotice 'Speak
... sorry censorship in RuNet'). Well, and, separately, I think that
this can not be done on the basis of four hour interview."



> The organization was really not good. Actually it could not be
> worse. The main reason for that is extreme lack of time we had to
> organize. The bill was passed in an utmost haste without even a
> shadow of public discussion. Actually the community, including
> myself, got to know of bill hearing only day before its planned
> time. 

According to Levg in his Arbcom application, again via Google
Translate, "It should be noted that there are no objective reasons for
such a 'sprint survey' did not exist, to discuss the bill on second
reading has been known since at least last Friday."

Friday was July 6, the poll was held on July 9.



-- Tim Starling


___
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

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anthony  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] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony  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.

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.

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?

___
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

[Nathan]

Or maybe you should both agree to take this into at least another thread,
or preferably off-list altogether.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If you can't figure out how I disagree with you, maybe you should
> conclude that I'm not disagreeing with you.
>
> ___
> 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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> 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.

If you can't figure out how I disagree with you, maybe you should
conclude that I'm not disagreeing with you.

___
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

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony  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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Anthony]

>>> 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

[Milos Rancic]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Nathan  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

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony  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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling wrote:

> On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling  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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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

[Nathan]

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.

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?
___
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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> 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.

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.

> 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.

>> 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.

And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.

___
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

[Theo10011]

Hi Mike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Mike Godwin  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). And I wouldn't want to
> prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech regarding
> legislation or policy.'


There's 2 things here, perhaps you are choosing an odd example here, a very
well-reputed newspaper without demarcating it with the corporation that
owns and publishes it. I believe the New York Times's editorial board has
been making endorsements of political candidates since 1850, starting with
Abraham Lincoln[1]. As far as I know, it is the newspaper and an editorial
board that made that endorsement, not the corporation.

But anyway, whether you are comfortable or not with The New York times
Company influencing the outcome of an election, might be colored by your
political leanings. The same analogy could be used for Fox News for
example, though I'm not sure how comfortable that would make everyone else.

I suppose there is another argument to be made here, about Media
endorsements on its own and unregulated money being used to buy Media and
such endorsements, but I shall leave that out for now.

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/23/opinion/20081024-endorse.html
___
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

[Mike Godwin]

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

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony  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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony  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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony  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] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Mike Godwin  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] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Thomas Morton]

On 12 July 2012 10:27, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin  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] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[David Gerard]

On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin  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.


- d.

___
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

[Mike Godwin]

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] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:14:48 -0400, Anthony wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
 wrote:
The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to 
be now
signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on 
November

1, 2012.


So is this going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?  I still don't see
what the language has to do with anything.  The Russians don't have a
monopoly over the use of the Russian language (especially given that
there are countries other than Russia where Russian is widely 
spoken).




No, it does not, at least immediately. There is nothing in the law 
which is directly dangerous for Wikipedia. The fear is that due to the 
absence of intependent courts, some official may want to shut down the 
whole Wikipedia because they do not like an article about them or 
because they consider it a "conductor of American style of life" or 
whatever, it becomes indeed easy, and it would be very difficult if not 
impossible to reverse the decision. Btw the law does not specify the 
language, so that Russian Wikipedia is certainly not the only WMF 
project affected (though the most obvious one).


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

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
> The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be now
> signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on November
> 1, 2012.

So is this going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?  I still don't see
what the language has to do with anything.  The Russians don't have a
monopoly over the use of the Russian language (especially given that
there are countries other than Russia where Russian is widely spoken).

Maybe a better solution would be send all accesses from IPs in Russia
to a page describing how to use TOR.

___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:23:22 +0200, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:


Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.

1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug
trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every
website (whatever it means) where information violating the law has
been discovered will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if
it fails to do so, the access to the whole website will be blocked by
all providers legally operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this
law threats Wikipedia and sister projects.



The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be 
now signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on 
November 1, 2012.


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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:02 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 10 July 2012 09:22, Thomas Morton  wrote:
>> On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
>>> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
>>> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).
>
>> Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
>> much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
>> Russian Wikipedia.
>
>
> You're missing something key: the way it's written, even articles on
> chemistry would be blocked.

So if the law passes, WMF is going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?

If the law passes, will WMF also shut down English Wikipedia?

___
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

[Виктория]

Milos,

1) Btw, I looked more carefully at the poll: 22 support a press-release,
but *74* are against the switch-off. The result is not as clear cut as it
seemed, isn't it?

2) In the ArbCom case we already have a request for recusal of  ArbCom
members, who don't live in Russia - this is three out of five.

Victoria
___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 11/07/12 09:57, Fred Bauder wrote:

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


Yes, but this has nothing to do with Putin. First, it doesn't seem that 
this law is pushed personally by Putin. Second, Russian Wikipedians 
would be against the law regardless of whether it is pushed by Putin or 
not. Third, a anti-Putin pro-Western government could be expected to be 
even worse in this regard.



On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
see f.e.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-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

[Виктория]

Milos,

>BTW, 292:22 doesn't look like a lack of participation nor as a lack of
>consensus. And the actions which affect the real world have their
>right time, unlike building the knowledge.

Did you count how many of thsee 292 votes, especially among the last couple
of hundred, have a right for RFA vote and how many among 22 (mainly
opinions, not votes) are admins? The poll was formulated in such a way
(against censorhip), that it begged for Support and the short time didn't
allow a lot of people to express their opinion - an opinion  have to be
formulated, written down, even edited, unlike vote.

What we have is a flasmob, which is very dangerous thing to approve. This
time we were lucky that the poll was in general vein of the WM movement
strategy, but knowing the situation in Russia we can (very soon) have, for
example, a


Russian Wikipedia for Russians


banner  on the main page  after 300 editors voted for it.


Regards

Russian-speaking British/Belarusian citizen


Victoria
___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:21:26 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
 wrote:
Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is 
correct? Just
a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading 
basically
unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is 
also
expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full 
support of
the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are 
your
statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any 
action
after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course 
happy to

issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?


As written above:

"Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday 
morning."

[1]

-- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html


The third reading will be TODAY 17:00 Moscow time (in two and a half 
hours). It was just a figure of speach.


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

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
> Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is correct? Just
> a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading basically
> unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is also
> expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full support of
> the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are your
> statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any action
> after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course happy to
> issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?

As written above:

"Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning."
[1]

-- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html

___
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

[Yann Forget]

2012/7/11 David Gerard :
> On 11 July 2012 08:57, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
>> purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.
>
>
> Censoring porn is *always* a stalking horse for political and
> historical censorship.

And copyright is used more and more for the same.

Yann

___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:47:09 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Виктория  
wrote:
I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the 
law,
the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being 
"comissioned by
a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about 
Larry
Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The 
Community will
be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate 
EnWiki

success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.


The message has been understood clearly, as it was the case with
Italian law and SOPA. One thing is what a group of morons from a 
lobby

group or a group inside of a ruling party could do, completely other
is what the government would do. Lobbyists and random dilettantes
won't deal with the consequences of clearly expressed opposition by
the wide specter of society.



Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is correct? 
Just a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading 
basically unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading 
(which is also expected to pass unchanged). The minister already 
expressed full support of the law and disapproved the action of Russian 
Wikipedia. What are your statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia 
who failed to take any action after the law passed the first reading on 
July 6 but were of course happy to issue a statement after the decision 
was taken on July 9?


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

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Виктория  wrote:
> I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the law,
> the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being "comissioned by
> a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about Larry
> Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The Community will
> be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate EnWiki
> success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.

The message has been understood clearly, as it was the case with
Italian law and SOPA. One thing is what a group of morons from a lobby
group or a group inside of a ruling party could do, completely other
is what the government would do. Lobbyists and random dilettantes
won't deal with the consequences of clearly expressed opposition by
the wide specter of society.

BTW, 292:22 doesn't look like a lack of participation nor as a lack of
consensus. And the actions which affect the real world have their
right time, unlike building the knowledge.

___
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

[David Gerard]

On 11 July 2012 08:57, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
> purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


Censoring porn is *always* a stalking horse for political and
historical censorship.


- d.

___
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

[Fred Bauder]

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.

Fred

> On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
>> Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)
>>
>> [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html
>
> By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
> see f.e.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest
>
> ___
> 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

[Виктория]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> It looks like we won again.
>
>
I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the law,
the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being "comissioned by
a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about Larry
Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The Community will
be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate EnWiki
success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.

Victoria
___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:47:25 +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin
protest, see f.e.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


Which is a sheer bullshit.

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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest, 
see f.e. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-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

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
> *your* politics are weird and radical.

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html

___
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

[David Gerard]

On 11 July 2012 08:07, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan  wrote:

>> Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language Wikipedias
>> that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
>> considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects should be
>> blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced global
>> legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.

> Do you think that educational mission is not political?


No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
*your* politics are weird and radical.


- d.

___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:07:48 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan  wrote:
Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language 
Wikipedias

that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects 
should be
blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced 
global

legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.


Do you think that educational mission is not political?



The arbitration committee case has already been filed.

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

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language Wikipedias
> that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
> considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects should be
> blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced global
> legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.

Do you think that educational mission is not political?

___
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

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> It looks like we won again.
>
> "Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
> current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
> outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
> down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
> the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning."
> [1]
>
> [1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html
>
>
Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language Wikipedias
that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects should be
blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced global
legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.
___
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

[Tim Starling]

On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling  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'".



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


___
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

[Milos Rancic]

It looks like we won again.

"Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning."
[1]

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html

___
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

[David Gerard]

On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling  wrote:

> SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,


Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.


- d.

___
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

[Tim Starling]

On 10/07/12 18:22, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
> much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
> Russian Wikipedia.

SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia, and neither did the
proposed law in Italy (DDL intercettazioni).

China's block of Wikipedia certainly threatened our educational
mission in that country. I took a stand against it when it was
introduced -- I wrote guides to firewall evasion, I talked to Jimmy
about measures we could take, and I spoke about it on an Australian
radio program.

SOPA and DDL intercettazioni were a negligible threat by comparison.
That's why I didn't support the strike actions. I understand the need
to fight to maintain what freedoms we have, but I don't approve of the
method used.

Residents of the US and Italy are lucky that they can protest against
such proposed laws without fear of reprisals from the state. That's a
luxury that the brave protesters in China did not have.

I don't know enough about the situation in Russia to comment on it.

-- Tim Starling


___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 10/07/12 15:45, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."   ~ Benjamin Franklin


The blackout was exactly the opposite. A little temporary (one day) 
safety (all the content was still available at countless mirrors) was 
given up in order to obtain an essential liberty.


___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:
>
>
> I have to say, your comment reads like empty philosophizing. You are like
> a person who doesn't have children because he is worried about
> overpopulation - when it is exactly the people who are intelligent and
> responsible enough to realize the dangers of overpopulation who should have
> more children. If taking away freedoms for one day is necessary in order to
> prevent them from being taken for one year, it should be done.
>
>
>
No.  It is those willing to toss out the baby with the bathwater that do
that by blacking out our projects in the name of philosophy and political
action.  That is the empty philosophy.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."   ~ Benjamin Franklin

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:22:12 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>>
>>  In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
>>> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).
>>>
>>>
>> Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
>> much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
>> Russian Wikipedia.
>>
>> Comparatively; when some ISPs in the UK blacklisted The Pirate Bay at the
>> behest of the government we didn't black Wikipedia out over it.
>>
>>
> Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.
>
> 1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug
> trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every website
> (whatever it means) where information violating the law has been discovered
> will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if it fails to do so, the
> access to the whole website will be blocked by all providers legally
> operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this law threats Wikipedia and
> sister projects.
>
> 2) There is no political freedom in Russia, and courts are not
> independent. Therefore many people are afraid that once the law is in force
> (tomorrow it must be voted in the second hearing, and the third hearing in
>  September is typically automatic) that it may become an instrument for
> central and local authorities to shut down access to internet sites at will
> claiming they advertise something listed in the law. Russian Wikipedia is
> not the only organization which raised such objections; another is for
> instance the Presidential Council on Hyman Rights (the suggestions of this
> council are typically get ignored despite its affiliation with the
> president), or the National Broadcasters Associations.
>
> 3) It is widely expected that the protest is going to be completely
> ignored. Indeed, the blackout has been reported in media, with both the
> minister of telecommunications and the vice-speaker of parliament
> explaining that the law has no threat for Wikipedia, and will not be
> amended.
>
> 4) The discussion on Russian Wikipedia was initiated yesterday morning by
> Stanislav Kozlovsky, the executive director of wm.ru. (He never wrote
> anything in his wm.ru role, and I believe the chapter was not involved in
> any way). First nothing happened, but in the late evening there was the
> blackout suggestion coming. Eventually, around 10pm it was transferred into
> a RFC, which was closed at 11pm since the number of votes for the blackout
> was clearly exceeding the votes against the blackout. No attempt was made
> top analyze the arguments, it was just a hasty majority decision. From what
> I know, no consultations with external parties were held. In contrast to
> the en.wp blackout, the mobile version of ru.wp is available now.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav



Thanks. The Guardian seems to be first out the door with its coverage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest

They link to this article for further background:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/kremlin-purge-russia-internet-western-influences?intcmp=239
___
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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:22:12 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:

On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic  wrote:

In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day 
strike

against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).



Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is 
not
much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence 
of

Russian Wikipedia.

Comparatively; when some ISPs in the UK blacklisted The Pirate Bay at 
the

behest of the government we didn't black Wikipedia out over it.



Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.

1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug 
trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every website 
(whatever it means) where information violating the law has been 
discovered will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if it fails 
to do so, the access to the whole website will be blocked by all 
providers legally operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this law 
threats Wikipedia and sister projects.


2) There is no political freedom in Russia, and courts are not 
independent. Therefore many people are afraid that once the law is in 
force (tomorrow it must be voted in the second hearing, and the third 
hearing in  September is typically automatic) that it may become an 
instrument for central and local authorities to shut down access to 
internet sites at will claiming they advertise something listed in the 
law. Russian Wikipedia is not the only organization which raised such 
objections; another is for instance the Presidential Council on Hyman 
Rights (the suggestions of this council are typically get ignored 
despite its affiliation with the president), or the National 
Broadcasters Associations.


3) It is widely expected that the protest is going to be completely 
ignored. Indeed, the blackout has been reported in media, with both the 
minister of telecommunications and the vice-speaker of parliament 
explaining that the law has no threat for Wikipedia, and will not be 
amended.


4) The discussion on Russian Wikipedia was initiated yesterday morning 
by Stanislav Kozlovsky, the executive director of wm.ru. (He never wrote 
anything in his wm.ru role, and I believe the chapter was not involved 
in any way). First nothing happened, but in the late evening there was 
the blackout suggestion coming. Eventually, around 10pm it was 
transferred into a RFC, which was closed at 11pm since the number of 
votes for the blackout was clearly exceeding the votes against the 
blackout. No attempt was made top analyze the arguments, it was just a 
hasty majority decision. From what I know, no consultations with 
external parties were held. In contrast to the en.wp blackout, the 
mobile version of ru.wp is available now.


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

[David Gerard]

On 10 July 2012 09:22, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic  wrote:

>> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
>> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).

> Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
> much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
> Russian Wikipedia.


You're missing something key: the way it's written, even articles on
chemistry would be blocked.


- d.

___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 10/07/12 07:58, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

When we black-out one of our projects, we remove our ideal and the
fundamental principle that we support the freedom of knowledge.  What we do


How come? It is exactly the black-out that supported the freedom of 
knowledge.



it move the idea into the human realm, where we care about things like
regulations and how it relates to "what is ours."  None of it is ours.  We
release it under free license.


Everything was still released under free license during the blackout.


To claim that we have a responsibility for what we write is contrary to the
notion of fully submitting it for reuse and/or modification, unless what


Not at all. Are you writing on Wikipedia? Do you not feel responsible to 
diligently check your sources?



knowledge.  We may have copyright, but we don't own a thing that we have
done.  It is not ours to take away.


We haven't removed the knowledge or the freedom. We only removed a 
medium for its transfer.



When we use our websites for political protest, we are a level below our
idea.  Our idea is above politics.  To put our idea into politics


Unfortunately, politics is not below using force to stop the idea.

I have to say, your comment reads like empty philosophizing. You are 
like a person who doesn't have children because he is worried about 
overpopulation - when it is exactly the people who are intelligent and 
responsible enough to realize the dangers of overpopulation who should 
have more children. If taking away freedoms for one day is necessary in 
order to prevent them from being taken for one year, it should be done.


___
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

[Thomas Morton]

On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).
>

Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
Russian Wikipedia.

Comparatively; when some ISPs in the UK blacklisted The Pirate Bay at the
behest of the government we didn't black Wikipedia out over it.

Party is on #wikipedia-ru@freenode
>
>
Even in lieu of it being a valid action (and we know I am skeptical of us
being too political anyway) this is disgusting to see.

Cutting off access to free knowledge should be a sombre and severe affair;
those doing so should appreciate, deeply, the impact of their actions. They
should not be partying like school children who got access to
dad's liquor cabinet.

As with the pictures of the WMF celebrations around English Wikipedia
blackout, I am sorely disappointed.

Tom
___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 10/07/12 08:16, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
States and what our government represents.


Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.


I thought you're an egoist.

___
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

[Przykuta]

> >> Neither Anonymous,
> >>> neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
> >>
> > I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
> > connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
> > the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.
> 
> No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution. 
> Encyclopedia.
> 
+1 :)

Przykuta

___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> I just wanted to be clear I didn't mean that offensively, just for humor
>  :)

Of course, I didn't accept it offensively :)

And everything which I say is a part of humor, no matter how my
arguments are substantial (or not) :)

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> Neither Anonymous,
> >>> neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
> >>
> > I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
> > connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
> > the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.
>
> No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution.
> Encyclopedia.
>
>
Right, that was ink and paper.  That was words that were not taken away but
given as education as to the wrongdoings of the French Empire.  Providing
knowledge, not taking it away.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >> Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.
> >>
> > CAUTION: HUMOR!
> >
> > Nice marmot.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2qP-xQ_7o
>
> Yes, it's a part of humor. But I *am* non-cognitivist moral skeptic
> nihilist :)


I just wanted to be clear I didn't mean that offensively, just for humor
 :)

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>> Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.
>>
> CAUTION: HUMOR!
>
> Nice marmot.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2qP-xQ_7o

Yes, it's a part of humor. But I *am* non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist :)

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:


>
> Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.
>
>
CAUTION: HUMOR!

Nice marmot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2qP-xQ_7o


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>>
>> Neither Anonymous,
>>> neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
>>
> I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
> connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
> the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.

No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution. Encyclopedia.

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
> Neither Anonymous,
>> neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
>
>
I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
> States and what our government represents.

Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.

> We have freedoms and we have liberties.  Freedoms are guaranteed in our
> Bill of Rights and they are fundamental to our existence.  Liberties are
> granted by law.  Politics being the interaction of people deciding what is
> best for the people.

I really don't care about your Bill of Rights.

> Laws and legislation libertize our freedoms.  We have freedom of speech,
> but it's regulated to an extent.  We have freedom of assembly, but there
> are laws requiring permits.  We have a right to bare arms, but there are
> gun control laws.  We take these freedoms and move them to the political
> realm, where we control each other with them.  These things are not really
> freedoms, they are not truly philosophical ideas of things that can be free
> because they deal with just humans.

I really don't care about your laws and legislation.

> Knowledge is not political.  Knowledge is free.  Other animals learn.
>  Plants learn.  They share knowledge among each other.  Learning and
> education is something that no matter how much humans may try to
> politically restrict or influence, it is impossible. Even the dystopian
> classics like *1984* and *Fahrenheit 451* maintain this virtue.

It depends of your definition of "political". If biological evolution
is a part of knowledge, it's political for significant specter of US
population.

> When we black-out one of our projects, we remove our ideal and the
> fundamental principle that we support the freedom of knowledge.  What we do
> it move the idea into the human realm, where we care about things like
> regulations and how it relates to "what is ours."  None of it is ours.  We
> release it under free license.

That's too much for my state produce by rakija.

> To claim that we have a responsibility for what we write is contrary to the
> notion of fully submitting it for reuse and/or modification, unless what
> was written was inappropriate by community standards.  When we take the *Atlas
> Shrugged* stance of taking our ball and going home to fight politics and
> regulation, we have done a disservice to both mankind and the idea of
> knowledge.  We may have copyright, but we don't own a thing that we have
> done.  It is not ours to take away.

As a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist, I agree with you. In the
same sense as I don't see anything wrong in activating atomic bomb
below your or my city.

However, if we agree that there is a common interest between you and
me, then we are both responsible for the consequences of what we are
doing. Knowledge liberates people. In oppressive regimes (which is
equal to the whole Earth; maybe except Iceland), liberated people
cause troubles. And we are responsible for those troubles.

> When we black-out one of our projects in protest of politics, we are
> protesting business and money.  Those are what drive our global political
> systems, and these are things that we eschew.  SOPA and other such laws
> have to do with national attempts to regulate copyright on the internet.
>  I'm still not clear, despite all the arguments that I have read, that this
> applies to websites that release content under free license and take due
> diligence to remove copyright violations, because we do not believe in
> issuing copyright for our intellectual property.

I don't care about your business and money.

> When we use our websites for political protest, we are a level below our
> idea.  Our idea is above politics.  To put our idea into politics
> diminishes its power.  We provide information for knowledge and education.
>  A black-out causes awareness, not education.  While politicians may be
> influenced by the media buzz about the black-outs, it is not because of
> people that the legislation gets put away.  It's about the money. The
> legislation will return in a different form in the future.  Shall we just
> continue to black-out?  We lose our teeth and some dignity each time we do
> so.  Only our ability to educate will change the future in the politics of
> knowledge.

As mentioned above, our idea *is* politics.

> Keep knowledge free.  All the time.

As well as people are.

BTW, sorry for seemingly short answers. However, your moral prejudices
don't give me anything else as an option.

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Just a couple of words for those who don't understand...
>
> Writing encyclopedia produces responsibility. Neither Anonymous,
> neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
>
> A person has to be very miserable not to understand that; and not to
> take its own responsibility.



Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
States and what our government represents.

1. Freedom

We have freedoms and we have liberties.  Freedoms are guaranteed in our
Bill of Rights and they are fundamental to our existence.  Liberties are
granted by law.  Politics being the interaction of people deciding what is
best for the people.

Laws and legislation libertize our freedoms.  We have freedom of speech,
but it's regulated to an extent.  We have freedom of assembly, but there
are laws requiring permits.  We have a right to bare arms, but there are
gun control laws.  We take these freedoms and move them to the political
realm, where we control each other with them.  These things are not really
freedoms, they are not truly philosophical ideas of things that can be free
because they deal with just humans.

Knowledge is not political.  Knowledge is free.  Other animals learn.
 Plants learn.  They share knowledge among each other.  Learning and
education is something that no matter how much humans may try to
politically restrict or influence, it is impossible. Even the dystopian
classics like *1984* and *Fahrenheit 451* maintain this virtue.

2. Politics

When we black-out one of our projects, we remove our ideal and the
fundamental principle that we support the freedom of knowledge.  What we do
it move the idea into the human realm, where we care about things like
regulations and how it relates to "what is ours."  None of it is ours.  We
release it under free license.

To claim that we have a responsibility for what we write is contrary to the
notion of fully submitting it for reuse and/or modification, unless what
was written was inappropriate by community standards.  When we take the *Atlas
Shrugged* stance of taking our ball and going home to fight politics and
regulation, we have done a disservice to both mankind and the idea of
knowledge.  We may have copyright, but we don't own a thing that we have
done.  It is not ours to take away.

3. Business

When we black-out one of our projects in protest of politics, we are
protesting business and money.  Those are what drive our global political
systems, and these are things that we eschew.  SOPA and other such laws
have to do with national attempts to regulate copyright on the internet.
 I'm still not clear, despite all the arguments that I have read, that this
applies to websites that release content under free license and take due
diligence to remove copyright violations, because we do not believe in
issuing copyright for our intellectual property.

4. Summation

When we use our websites for political protest, we are a level below our
idea.  Our idea is above politics.  To put our idea into politics
diminishes its power.  We provide information for knowledge and education.
 A black-out causes awareness, not education.  While politicians may be
influenced by the media buzz about the black-outs, it is not because of
people that the legislation gets put away.  It's about the money. The
legislation will return in a different form in the future.  Shall we just
continue to black-out?  We lose our teeth and some dignity each time we do
so.  Only our ability to educate will change the future in the politics of
knowledge.

Keep knowledge free.  All the time.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

Just a couple of words for those who don't understand...

Writing encyclopedia produces responsibility. Neither Anonymous,
neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.

A person has to be very miserable not to understand that; and not to
take its own responsibility.

___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> I'll explain my perspective on Saturday at the SOPA panel for Wikimania.
>  It's very tl;dr.  I'm sure it will be put online :)

Come on, I won't listen it for sure. But if you write it here, I could
read it :)

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
> > When the government wants your library records, do you protest by closing
> > the library?  No.  You still let people in so that they can learn.
>
> But, we can prove our point by closing Wikipedia for one day, while
> librarians can't do that by closing libraries for one century.
>
> So, what's the problem?
>
>
I'll explain my perspective on Saturday at the SOPA panel for Wikimania.
 It's very tl;dr.  I'm sure it will be put online :)


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> When the government wants your library records, do you protest by closing
> the library?  No.  You still let people in so that they can learn.

But, we can prove our point by closing Wikipedia for one day, while
librarians can't do that by closing libraries for one century.

So, what's the problem?

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:13 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > You've successfully disrupted an educational resource in the name of
> > political advocacy. Stooping to the level of vandals... that'll show 'em.
> > Party on.
>
> After enough of rakija, I barely understand your words...
>
> Don't you think that we have 100% of success up to the moment?
>
> In that name, one more glass of rakija!
>
>
When the government wants your library records, do you protest by closing
the library?  No.  You still let people in so that they can learn.


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:13 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> You've successfully disrupted an educational resource in the name of
> political advocacy. Stooping to the level of vandals... that'll show 'em.
> Party on.

After enough of rakija, I barely understand your words...

Don't you think that we have 100% of success up to the moment?

In that name, one more glass of rakija!

___
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

[MZMcBride]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia.
> 
> As in previous cases with Italian and English Wikipedia, it would be
> good if the wider community would be activated in support of our
> fellow Wikimedians. They need wider promotion on Meta etc.
> 
> Party is on #wikipedia-ru@freenode

You've successfully disrupted an educational resource in the name of
political advocacy. Stooping to the level of vandals... that'll show 'em.
Party on.

MZMcBride



___
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

[Lucas Teles]

Btw, the project should be (at least) visible for stewards. I was trying to 
check edits done by an account [1] that may be a spambot, but I couldn't. As 
the edit on ru.wiki is the only one, despite account is registered in other 
projects, it would help to have an idea on what kind of account is that.

[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Romka3003

Regards,
Teles

> From: salvadore...@hotmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:17:37 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
> 
> 
> I've left a note on pt.wikipedia Village Pump.
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/?oldid=31243386#Wikip.C3.A9dia_em_russo_em_protesto
> 
> Teles
> 
> > From: mill...@gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:01:30 +0200
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike
> > 
> > I sent email to Russian ambassador in Serbia. Please, do the same in
> > your countries!
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > > In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
> > > against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).
> > >
> > > As in previous cases with Italian and English Wikipedia, it would be
> > > good if the wider community would be activated in support of our
> > > fellow Wikimedians. They need wider promotion on Meta etc.
> > >
> > > Party is on #wikipedia-ru@freenode
> > >
> > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/law89417-6
> > 
> > ___
> > 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
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l