I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything).
Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand.
Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy.
I tried to put down a bit on the topic here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_and_free) as I wanted to clarify those terms to those people not developers (such as me). The concept is very much used by developers, but is not so well understood by others.
I actually got stuck with misunderstanding on the english article on what [[free content]] mean... I would welcome your feedback on such issues. Please do.
Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.
I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so.
True.
But is our goal to explain governments what is wrong and where they should change the way they set up things in their nation ?
I understand what you mean Dovi, and as an individual, I support it. I am not sure every editor would be glad that the Foundation takes a political position on the matter, so I do not feel the Foundation should do it. Just my feeling. I am aware this is a highly contentious point and that not all will agree with me.
It might be that wikinews in chinese IS important to create, but I do not think this is the Foundation role to force its existence somehow against some editors choice. I do not think it is the Foundation role to take a stance against repression of speech. It is a bit tricky... but there is at the same time a strong expectation that the Foundation should not lead the project or impact in the way a project works... and an expectation that we fix issues the communities do not fix themselves.
All with... generally speaking... extremely little feedback on what we do (so, I really thank you for giving feedback on this topic).
I have all along the year wondered where was the limit of what community expected from us. Taking political positions or not ? Taking care of information distribution ourselves or focusing on helping the projects to grow only ? Getting deeply involved in distribution in third world countries thanks to grants or not ? Trying to stimulate release of information under free licences by contacting govermental agencies for example, or not ?
I have my own opinions. I try to listen to others opinions. I do not hear so many :-(
That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for.
Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!
I do not define what we want to do as "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"
What I think we try to do is "to make the sum of human knowledge available to the largest number of people on Earth".
That makes a huge difference :-)
The information being free (as in free speech) or free (as in free beer) is only a MEAN, not an END.
To give access to information to the largest number of guys, the following can help
* help information to spread (through using a free licence)
* provide information for free (to reduce financial bottleneck)
* provide information in people mother language (to reduce misunderstanding)
Ideally, we should also work on plateform, since we today only provide information through the net, to which not everyone has access to.
I suggest the following:
Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well.
Dovi
I am not sure how to express it exactly, but...
We are committed to free software and free content and gratis content in particular because it helps our goal.
Most of us ALSO support free software, but it is not our "political goal".
Our goal is collecting information, gathering it and making it available.
I feel it is touchy to say this... but at the same time... when I read the article defining [[free content]], when I see how few people mind it being incorrect, or how few people understand and agree on what it means... I feel the ground is much stronger when I focus on our goal than on fluttery concepts :-)
There is a tiny difference here, but relevant. Imho.
In any cases, I appreciate very much your mails :-)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without
any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue,
I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it
in the right quotation style.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: free speech and wikinews
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 03:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthere
Dovi wrote:
> I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to
> my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much
> think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was
> bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be
> ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community
> does" (if anything).
>
> Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought
> was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100%
> right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free
> software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal
> political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many
> nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an
> analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't
> thought enough about the distinction beforehand.
>
> Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used
> in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning.
> The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that
> endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily*
> imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that
> endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well,
> and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the
> case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never
> been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally
> honor the implication by making it explicit policy.
I tried to put down a bit on the topic here
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_and_free) as I wanted to clarify
those terms to those people not developers (such as me). The concept is
very much used by developers, but is not so well understood by others.
I actually got stuck with misunderstanding on the english article on
what [[free content]] mean... I would welcome your feedback on such
issues. Please do.
> Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to
> Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not
> clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the
> board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude
> is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.
>
> I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal
> relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6
> years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural
> programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known
> worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up
> to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to
> Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is
> repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an
> ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the
> community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against*
> those who want to express their views but cannot do so.
True.
But is our goal to explain governments what is wrong and where they
should change the way they set up things in their nation ?
I understand what you mean Dovi, and as an individual, I support it. I
am not sure every editor would be glad that the Foundation takes a
political position on the matter, so I do not feel the Foundation should
do it. Just my feeling. I am aware this is a highly contentious point
and that not all will agree with me.
It might be that wikinews in chinese IS important to create, but I do
not think this is the Foundation role to force its existence somehow
against some editors choice. I do not think it is the Foundation role to
take a stance against repression of speech. It is a bit tricky... but
there is at the same time a strong expectation that the Foundation
should not lead the project or impact in the way a project works... and
an expectation that we fix issues the communities do not fix themselves.
All with... generally speaking... extremely little feedback on what we
do (so, I really thank you for giving feedback on this topic).
I have all along the year wondered where was the limit of what community
expected from us. Taking political positions or not ? Taking care of
information distribution ourselves or focusing on helping the projects
to grow only ? Getting deeply involved in distribution in third world
countries thanks to grants or not ? Trying to stimulate release of
information under free licences by contacting govermental agencies for
example, or not ?
I have my own opinions. I try to listen to others opinions. I do not
hear so many :-(
> That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer
> consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia
> stands for.
>
> Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available
> for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for
> languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is
> curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the
> current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!
>
I do not define what we want to do as "to make the sum total of human
knowledge available for free"
What I think we try to do is "to make the sum of human knowledge
available to the largest number of people on Earth".
That makes a huge difference :-)
The information being free (as in free speech) or free (as in free beer)
is only a MEAN, not an END.
To give access to information to the largest number of guys, the
following can help
* help information to spread (through using a free licence)
* provide information for free (to reduce financial bottleneck)
* provide information in people mother language (to reduce misunderstanding)
Ideally, we should also work on plateform, since we today only provide
information through the net, to which not everyone has access to.
> I suggest the following:
>
> Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our
> projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used
> freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech"
> in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship
> will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing
> or proposed Wikimedia project."
>
> In the future it might not just be China. There are many other
> contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be
> financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now
> (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right
> direction for the future as well.
>
> Dovi
I am not sure how to express it exactly, but...
We are committed to free software and free content and gratis content in
particular because it helps our goal.
Most of us ALSO support free software, but it is not our "political goal".
Our goal is collecting information, gathering it and making it available.
I feel it is touchy to say this... but at the same time... when I read
the article defining [[free content]], when I see how few people mind it
being incorrect, or how few people understand and agree on what it
means... I feel the ground is much stronger when I focus on our goal
than on fluttery concepts :-)
There is a tiny difference here, but relevant. Imho.
In any cases, I appreciate very much your mails :-)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote that free content is a MEANS towards and END, a goal:
"Our goal is collecting information, gathering it and making it available." There is no political goal.
Actually, I agree with you completely.
Yes, "free content" is an enforced policy *only* because it furthers the goal of making information available, not for political reasons, as good as they may or may not be.
An enforced policy regarding threats of censorship would also be for *exactly* the same reasons, and *not* for any specific political reasons (whatever our opinions may be): to further the goal of making information available.
Nothing more and nothing less.
The current *lack* of such a policy actually *hinders* Wikimedia from meeting that goal. Case in point: The current lack of collecting and gathering free news information and making it available in Chinese. In the future there may very well be many more similar examples this sort of thing from different quarters.
The time to put such a policy in place is now, not later.
The need for such a policy is no less than for the various rules that are enforced regarding "free content."
Re: Fruggo's comments about censorship - What I am suggesting has nothing to do with censorship (real or imagined) within the editing process of Wikimedia projects. It relates *only* to the fear of censorship from *outside* powers-that-be, which would hinder the development of projects. The point of the editing process it to build projects, not to hinder them; they cannot be built without it.
Re: Chad's point about a threat to the Chinese Wikipedia: This is a good point, but I already addressed it in my original post. Please read that and tell us all what you think.
Dovi
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
Hi,
Simple and straigthforward message...
We need to have new elections for the board of directors soon.
Which implies at the same time very probably some technical set up as well as election administrators to organise it. In the same way than last year, we would need a couple of volunteers who are not running for election to serve as election administrators. Translations work will also be needed.
Please volunteer!
Elections details are not fixed yet, but I guess we need to start make things move :-)
Jimbo will keep you informed on the matter in a little while and will very likely handle most of its organisation as a neutral party.
Ant
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what should be done :-)"
Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was just about to go offline.)
As far as I understand, normally when there is enough interest in a language version of Wikinews, the language is launched.
That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on "community" in my argument.
Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy here conflicts with a fundamental policy of freedom.
What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one which makes the *discussion* a bit more "tricky" as you say, but not the gut issue.
Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be a way not just to express interest in building one, but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is "no", because anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply doesn't have to!
I understand that this latter question caused problems for the French Wikinews, though I don't know the details.
However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is connected only to the secondary policy question, namely, should the policy for creating new languages, when the languages are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also allow for opposition? Though I think in normal circumstances probably not, this is completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!
My point is to completely disengage the two issues: Whether or not "opposition" should be allowed to creating a new language in a project is one question, and it is a completely legitimate question (though I personally think the answer should be "no" in normal circumstances).
But when such "opposition" is based on the threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even be a question at all. Censorship is not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the project stands for free speech.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
>>However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we
>>are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user >>request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the >>fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into >>account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy >>to all agree on what should be done :-)"
>Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was just about to go offline.)
Hello ;-)
>As far as I understand, normally when there is enough interest in a language version of >Wikinews, the language is launched.
>That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on "community" in my argument.
It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a "habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is usually done does not mean it will be done forever.
Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a "habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed.
Why did it changed ?
Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work.
>Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy here conflicts with a fundamental policy >of freedom.
>What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one which makes the *discussion* a bit more >"tricky" as you say, but not the gut issue.
>Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be a way not just >to express interest in building one, but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is >"no", because anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply >doesn't have to!
>I understand that this latter question caused problems for the French Wikinews, though I >don't know the details.
>However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is connected only to the secondary >policy question, namely, should the policy for creating new languages, when the languages >are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also allow for opposition? Though I think in normal >circumstances probably not, this is completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!
>My point is to completely disengage the two issues: Whether or not "opposition" should be >allowed to creating a new language in a project is one question, and it is a completely >legitimate question (though I personally think the answer should be "no" in normal >circumstances).
You make a very good point here.
I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being started.
It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if one counts both support and opposition.
Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our responsability ?
In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-)
And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves,
* one did not answer
* one opposed
* one thought the decision should be global community one
* one thought the decision should be local community one
* one supported
However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered.
>But when such "opposition" is based on the threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even >be a question at all. Censorship is not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the >project stands
As explained above, our position is not opposition.
Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ?
Ant
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello
I will be away (with no phone, no computer, no internet and likely no
watch since I do not wear any) from next wenesday till tuesday the 10th.
I will be in Agadir (Marocco) and surroundings.
Cheers
Anthere
Hello,
Since we are holding a big election anyway, I want to suggest a second
election which could be held together with this one.
Currently, the exchange among the wikis and between wikis and the
foundation happens in an informal way. When there's need, announcements
are sent to the mailing list and one hopes that someone feels
responsible to take care of forwarding it to his
wikipedia/wikibooks/wikiquote.... Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.
Things like the privacy policy may be translated, may be transfered to a
wiki, but there's no guarantee at all.
I'd like to suggest a concept of wiki representatives: each community
elects two persons (or maybe one for very small wikis and three for the
really large) who act as the official contact persons and take care of
communication, approach the foundation if there are problems etc pp.
The larger our projects become, the more we need such a concept IMO.
greetings,
elian
I would like to suggest a few direction of thoughts...
Last year, a couple of concerns erupted before/during/after the elections.
First, some wondered what the role of the board was.
I would be pleased that some feedback is given regarding that topic
during the election. So that the next board may try to do its best for
taking community opinion into consideration.
I have also wondered if it would not be interesting that some of you
prepare a sort of short list of questions, which each candidate would
have to answer or comment.
Second, the participation rate of languages have been very diversed.
English participants represented a huge number of voters.
German were second and french third. Other languages had basically not
participated but for a very few people.
Link : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image%3AElection_participation2.png
Our project is international. It is not very suitable that such a
discrepancy exists.
I would like that all non english editors on foundation-l take special
attention in involving their projects.
Third, last year, some rather heated discussions occured when results
were not fully displayed. I would be pleased that this is set before the
election, so that editors are not surprised when results are not
published. Hence the questions : which results should be published ?
Interest and disadvantages of not publishing certain results ?
Publication of results per projects ? Only limited to bigger projects ?
Fourth, do you have overall some feedback to give on last year
organisation, so that this year organisers can take them into account ?
Thanks.
Anthere
(apologies if this is the wrong list: wikilegal-l doesn't appear to
exist anymore)
Someone pointed me to http://mysic.org/ and asked how they could join
Wikipedia's "affiliates program".
Unless someone has approved this I'm guessing mysic's use of
wikipedia's non GFDL logo, and use of the trademark in this manner,
may be infringing.
--
John Fader
