available for evidence focused rational
> consideration?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemo...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 30 August 2021 02:30
> *To:* Andreas Kolbe
> *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia
Someone with the entirely authoritative email address "
hillbillyholi...@gmail.com" writes (apparently under the impression that I
don't know who Andreas is) the following:
'I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.'
This is an unusual misreading of a fairly straightforward, even
titutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish
they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that
demonstrate such an institutional decision took place.
Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seems self-evident
that you're doing so
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:09 AM Chris Keating
wrote:
> And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or
>> serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage
>> persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your
>> convictions, that you
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Mike,
>
> The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front
> page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been
> invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning
> to the
s from hosting
> companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of project
> governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being recognized one
> day as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with
> it. Kind regards,
>
> Lionel Scheepmans
>
&g
tand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is
> a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now
> trying to address.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>>
>> Andreas Kolbe writes:
>>
>>
>>
When WMF was
understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made
a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor
community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were
straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of
I'd have been surprised if they had been unblocked, but, as I said, the
constitutional win is still important.
Mike
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:32 AM John Erling Blad wrote:
> Both en.wikipedia.org and tr.wikipedia.org are still blocked.
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:44 PM Mike Godw
Great news! Even if the court's decision isn't implemented by the current
Turkish government, it is important to have established that the block was
a violation of constitutional principles.
Mike
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:40 PM Katherine Maher
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have some good news to
=IwAR1qozU-R5KlhH7By4pSijOqB24wVJtPVqjSQKjuzno3vLPALzPSJUrtGHA
Best regards!
Mike Godwin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages
Yair Rand writes:
> I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
> that section, the policy was yet again violated.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence,
but, then,
ne, outward-looking,
courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains
committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective
voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and
tolerance.
Thanks for listening.
--M
Charter for Cambodian Internet Freedom.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-charter-cambodian-internet-freedom-mike-godwin.
--Mike
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:35 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2015 at 00:51, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:35 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2015 at 00:51, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/08/nothing-but-net
--Mike
I'm not convinced you are helping your case with your choice of venue.
--
geni
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/08/nothing-but-net
--Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
President of Strategic Partnerships
Message-ID: 55210367.6020...@tygers-of-wrath.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
Andreas writes:
Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
Rupert Thurner writes:
while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this
email a little harsh, not to call it unfair.
I'm strangely untroubled by harsh, but I'm glad you don't call it
unfair. I don't think I was unfair. Besides, when someone is as
insignificant as I am,
.
Best regards,
--Mike Godwin
WMF General Counsel 1007-2010
Director of Innovation Policy and General Counsel, The R Street Institute
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l
for impact. Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag
along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be would
down.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM writes:
With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge
that the prominence of those organizations has not led
them to being so casually dismissive of me as you have chosen to be.
Best regards,
--Mike Godwin
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote
Jens writes:
(I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery,
Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly absolutist. This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't
fit you.)
I suppose at this point I could declare that its rhetorical
trickery,
there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
But we don't have to let
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
If you have an alternative funding plan for
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...
Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an
argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards
of
Tim Landscheidt writes:
I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
I'm not following your reasoning
Henning writes:
To describe Eric's action I am tempted to use a
metaphor that includes black uniforms and heavy boots. But that would
not be appropriately written by a German to a German.
My experience over the last quarter century suggests that this
metaphor rarely works out well.
--Mike
??? writes:
On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
accurate public data that happens to be old.
There is nothing in the judgement about erasing true
Chris writes:
I think there's a philosophical issue about privacy here. As far as I can
see the ECJ interprets privacy as the right to enjoy a private life, and
sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private
individual without good reason as a potential infringement on
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
superinjunctions?
First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when
you
set out to avoid acquiring it.
On this point I must disagree.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific users
(presumably only those users directly involved in creating or curating the
content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past (e.g. with
:02 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris writes:
As I understand it, the right to be forgotten will only affect the
discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
So if we rely
Chris writes:
As I understand it, the right to be forgotten will only affect the
discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years ago,
and X succeeds in invoking their right to be forgotten, then the source
with their consensus, as I
frequently do.
I hope this note is taken in the spirit in which it is written.
Thanks for your attention.
--Mike Godwin
Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project, Internews
General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation, 2007-2010
Sue writes:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that
Michael Snow writes:
Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did
take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in
the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow
the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist yet,
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
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.
The connection is free speech.
Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.
The law in question was with
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
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
You specifically contrasted regulations as a corporation with
regulations by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation. I
responded to both. You then quoted my response to the first, with
information with respect to the
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.
Well, no, you didn't.
I think most people will agree that I did give you pointers to the
regs. I agree that I did not give you direct links to the regs.
Perhaps you
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay. Is there something in those regs which regulates what WMF can
and cannot do politically? All I see is regulations stating that WMF
may be taxed based on what is does.
I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction
44 matches
Mail list logo
