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." > > <http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=45997947&oldid=45997946> > >> 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. > > <http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=46209258> > > -- 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
