It was intended not just to challenge the US government, but to be an
example for elsewhere,and it has been that.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Seb35
<seb35wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri
<yuri(a)rawbw.com> a écrit :
On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
>
>> Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn't (shouldn't) depend
>> in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed
differently
>> from a culture to another but that's
a cultural question not related to
>> censorship.
>
>
<snip>
I understand your intention with this system, but I find it's not a good
response to the problem; I find a better response is to encourage and
help
the free speech associations, like what was done
during SOPA/PIPA.
I absolutely agree with your sentiment, as I'm sure most do, but I'm
willing to challenge the English Wikipedia SOPA/PIPA blackout as a good
example. The community took its content hostage (IMO :) ) in order to prove
a point to the US Congress, despite the English Wikipedia serving the
world. We've had two years to learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities.
I spoke about it at Wikimania 2012 in a panel discussion and I still don't
think that reaction was appropriate.
Knowledge is, as you said, not dependent on government. I don't think the
WMF (spoken as a volunteer) or Wikimedians should support community
responses to censorship with censorship ourselves. We've had two years to
learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities. Sorry, Yuri, I understand
it's best intentions, but education is the magic bullet.
--
~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>