Having looked closely at our statement of purpose, read Google's position on the matter, and read the following discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board #Mandatory_internet_censorship ), I think that it's well within the chapter's role to put out a press release/statement expressing concern at this development. This filter, if implemented, has the potential to severely hamper our goal of "(promoting) equality of opportunity to access and participate in the collaborative creation of Free Cultural Works".
That said, I oppose the filter on personal and moral grounds myself, so you might take this with a grain of salt. I'd be fully supportive if we did something about this though - so long as anything we do makes it clear that we are not Wikipedia. Cheers, Craig From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 10:44 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - "Measures to improve safety of the internet for families" My own position is very similar to Liam's - personally opposed to the filter as a free-thinking Australian citizen who believes it should be up to parents what their kids see and the government has no place telling adults what they can or can not see. Additionally I think it could have speed effects and we're already one of the slower countries broadband-wise in the developed world. I also agree with Liam though that we need to be clear with the outside world that we are not Wikipedia, and it is a fine line (promoting something while not being responsible for it - which is not irresponsible, but rather acknowledging the responsiblity correctly lies elsewhere). cheers Andrew 2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be "responsible for" Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the "virgin killer" and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was "caught up" in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew <orderinchao...@gmail.com> wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn <mattin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Does the chapter have a position on this > proposal<http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115> > ? > > Should it have a position? > > If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? > > Cheers, > Matt > _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l