1. WIKIMEDIANS ASKING THEIR GOVERNMENTS: Might it be appropriate
and feasible for the Wikimedia Foundation to ask supporters in different
countries how they feel about asking their governments -- and candidates
in elections -- about their reactions to China's request? Wikimedians
who feel so inclined might ask that their government to oppose China's
request. If China's request succeeds, might Wikimedian ask their
government to invite WMF representatives to join their negotiating team
as unpaid staff? We should be clear that the WMF avoids taking
political positions except when it comes to freedom of information.
2. WIKIRADIO: What do you think about trying to organize a team of
volunteer to produce content for community radio stations worldwide? I
have an account with "audioport.org",[1] which is used to distribute
content for free to radio stations all over the world, mostly those in
the Pacifica Radio Network,[2] including 90.1 FM,
KKFI.org, Kansas City
Community Radio, where I volunteer.[3] I'm currently preparing a piece
on the "Local Journalism Sustainability Act" in the US House;[4] I see
this as related to freedom of information and promoting democracy. We
could post anything we want to
audioport.org and hope that some radio
stations will find it worth airing. The material I think could get the
greatest distribution might be a weekly "Wikijournal" that could range
from 30 seconds to 30 minutes. We could experiment with one, perhaps
making something 29 minutes with condensations at 3 minutes and 30
seconds. If we got enough volunteers to do another, we could do that,
then maybe make it quarterly, monthly or weekly, depending on the
availability of volunteers. Content could be a mix of policy questions
like those discussed on this list with trending articles that are
attracting the most pageviews and interviews with leading Wikimedia
volunteers on why they contribute to Wikimedia Foundation articles. Key
contributors to featured articles could be invited to contribute brief
descriptions in text or audio summarizing what they think are most
important about those articles.
Spencer Graves
[1]
https://audioport.org
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pacifica_Radio_stations_and_affiliates
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKFI
[4]
https://kkfi.org/program-episodes/local-journalism-sustainability-act-conce…
On 2020-09-25 12:53, Sherwin Siy wrote:
[A quick TL;DR, for those who have heard the news: Is
this about
censorship? Or Taiwan? Maybe in the larger context, but the point at
WIPO isn't who agrees with whom on these issues, but why anyone should
think they matter for the purposes of admission. Confused by this? I'll
try to explain.]
Hi everyone--
I wanted to update this list on something that happened in Geneva this
week. On Wednesday
<https://c.connectedviews.com/05/SitePlayer/wipo?session=109586>, the
delegation from China objected to the Wikimedia Foundation's application
for observer status
<https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/observers/index.html> at the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (An eyewitness-level view
from our friends at KEI is here <https://www.keionline.org/33999>, press
coverage from Quartz here
<https://qz.com/1908836/china-blocks-wikimedia-from-un-agency-wipo-over-taiwan-dispute/>,
and ZDNet France here
<https://www.zdnet.fr/blogs/l-esprit-libre/la-chine-empeche-la-fondation-wikimedia-d-obtenir-un-statut-d-observateur-a-l-ompi-39910151.htm>)
Because of this, WMF will not be able to attend as an observer NGO until
our application can be considered again next year.
This is highly unusual for WIPO, frustrating for us at WMF, and an
unnecessary barrier for our communities and movement. WIPO is where the
world's countries gather to write the treaties that shape the laws that
govern the world's knowledge. If you've ever complained about DRM laws
being ubiquitous
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty#Protection_Granted_by_the_Treaty>,
you can blame lobbying that took place at WIPO; if you're glad for
recent laws that make it easier for blind and visually impaired people
to access books <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_VIP_Treaty>,
you can thank lobbying that took place at WIPO, too.
Those treaties are negotiated among country delegations that typically
sit in a big impressive room in Geneva. Meanwhile, hundreds of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representing publishers,
broadcaster, record labels, libraries, and civil society organizations
sit at the back of the room, observing the negotiations as they happen
and, in between official sessions, those groups hold side briefings,
pass out position papers and white papers, and try to make sure that the
negotiators don't forget about their particular interests.
We wanted to make sure that the Foundation could be a part of those
conversations, as a way to bring more members of the community to WIPO,
and make sure that our movement's interests don't get left behind. On
Wednesday, though, the delegation from China asked that the Wikimedia
Foundation's application be set aside from all of the others, vaguely
mentioning they had some questions about the application itself, but
more pointedly noting the existence of Wikimedia Taiwan. China is
particularly sensitive about Taiwan, and insists in many forums that
people adhere to a "one China" policy.
It's tempting here to discuss the merits of that kind of policy, or to
raise the issues of Chinese censorship or other human rights issues. But
I think that that's missing the point that's most relevant within
WIPO--which is whether we deserve a seat at the table. (The
/observer's/ table, even.)
The criteria for being an observer don't hinge on the geopolitical
positions the organizations take; a large number of the 193 member
states of WIPO have been roundly criticized by many of the civil
society, academic, and even industry groups that observe there. Observer
groups have their own opinions, and their members or associated allies
do, too. Groups representing actors or recording artists aren't barred
from observer status even when some of their members are explicitly
vocal on geopolitical issues. Nor is the existence of a Taiwan chapter
some sort of outlier. Many of the other observer organizations have
members or businesses in Taiwan.
All of that is to say that it's disappointing that we'd be blocked for
reasons completely unrelated to our application, and for reasons that
seem plainly inconsistent with the standards by which other
organizations have been routinely admitted for years.
So what are we doing now? The Foundation has issued a press release
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/09/24/china-blocks-wikimedia-foundations-accreditation/>
on the matter, and we've been seeing messages of support from other
globally-focused groups working on IP (Creative Commons
<https://creativecommons.org/2020/09/25/in-support-of-the-wikimedia-foundation-wipo-application/>,
Communia
<https://www.communia-association.org/2020/09/25/blocking-wikimedia-becoming-wipo-observer-unacceptable/>,
Alek Tarkowski
<https://twitter.com/atarkowski/status/1309416601301598209> at Centrum
Cyfrowe, Sean Flynn
<https://twitter.com/Sean_Fiil_Flynn/status/1309126606196178945> at
PIJIP, and others, to start). Wikimedia Deutschland has its own
statement
<https://www.wikimedia.de/presse/china-blockiert-antrag-der-wikimedia-foundation-auf-beobachterstatus-bei-der-weltorganisation-fuer-geistiges-eigentum/>
(Justus at WMDE has been tracking WIPO and was following this meeting
closely), and Wikimedia Taiwan covered the events in an update
<https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.tw/posts/3193465514023069> on its
Facebook page. In the meantime, we're continuing to work on unblocking
this process for the next go-round next year.
Thanks everyone, and hope you're doing well.
Sherwin
--
Sherwin Siy (he/him)
Lead Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy