Hello, All: 

      What data and research are available on what motivates our opposition and our supporters to leave the sidelines and support one side or the other in conflict, to increase or decrease their level of support?  What can we do to lobby for more substantive unclassified research on questions like these -- for better evidence-based policy?[a]  If we want to win the war on terror[b] or lobby more effectively for better governmental policies more generally, I think we need to understand better what motivates our opponents and supporters. 

      My research on terrorism, summarized in the Wikiversity article on "Winning the War on Terror", says that more Americans have died in the average year since 2000 (or any other date for which data are available), drowning in bathtubs, hot tubs and spas than have succumbed to terrorism,[c] which suggests that the "War on Terror" is more about maintaining elite control of the media and the political process than it is about terrorism.  The military is the least effective approach to terrorism.  Terrorists have been more likely to win than be defeated militarily.  Much more effective has been negotiations, like the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, and honest law enforcement.[d]

      What are we doing and what can we do to lobby more effectively for better use of data in public policy? 

      Thanks, Anna and Dimi, for all your very valuable work on these and related issues -- and thanks to everyone else, who have tried to move the debate in these areas in directions we all think are more positive.   

      Spencer Graves, PhD
      Founder, EffectiveDefense.org
      Secretary of the Board, KKFI.org, a listener-sponsored (Community) radio station in Kansas City (mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on "List of Pacifica Radio stations and affiliates" and "List of community radio stations in the United States"). 
      4550 Warwick Blvd # 508
      Kansas City, Missouri 64111 USA

[a] or "Evidence-informed" policy.  See the Wikipedia article on "Evidence-based policy". 

[b] 'General Stanley McChrystal, who held several command positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote, "we found that nearly every first-time jihadist claimed [that the torture at] Abu Ghraib had first jolted him into action"', quoted from and cited in the Wikiversity article on "Winning the War on Terror.  The data I've found persuasive has identified only one country as having provided direct support for Islamic terrorist since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and that's Saudi Arabia -- and Saudi Arabia is NOT on US President Trump's Muslim travel ban list. 

[c] Please excuse the reference to the US.  The public health data I've seen are specific to the US.  The Wikiversity article on "Winning the War on Terror" could use better comparisons based on European and general international data.

[d]  "How terrorist groups end" (Wikidata:  Q57515305), cited in the Wikiversity article on "Winning the War on Terror".  

On 2019-10-31 04:55, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:


This month in a short and sweet version: The new Commission still isn’t in office, terrorism is on the agenda and we are pecking away at the copyright reform transposition. 

Anna & Dimi

This and previous reports on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor




For terrorist content regulation proposal, round 3 has started with the first trilogue meeting on October 17th. The three institutions made a presentation on their priorities and agreed on a timetable. Further work was delegated to the technical level. It means that the institutions want to find common ground on minor issues while they are preparing the bigger issues for political decisions - we presume the latter to be potential reinstitution of referrals and proactive measures into the proposal. 

Good news is that the Rapporteur, ECR’s Patryk Jaki (PL), maintained the line adopted by the European Parliament in its final voting streak of the previous EP term. No to upload filters and referrals, exceptions for journalistic, educational, artistic, etc. exceptions, judicial or functionally independent competent authority and no direct cross-border enforcement make the EP position diametrically different from that of both the Council and the European Commission. Looks like a lot to be discussed!

Meanwhile the EC is pushing for the trilogues to be concluded a.s.a.p., meaning until the end of this year. It is hard to imagine since the next trilogue meeting is scheduled for November 20th only. The recent terrorist attacks: in the synagogue in Germany that was live streamed[1] and at a police station in Paris[2] are, the EC argues, a proof that the EU needs the new law now. Since the EC proposal is much broader that the manifestly illegal streaming of violent crimes, so much for the “do something” doctrine, we say.  



Art 17 Stakeholder Dialogue: 


The first Stakeholder Dialogue on Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive took place on 15 October. The European Commission is required by the Directive itself to organise such meetings and issue “best practices for cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders”. 

Wikimedia is represented, along with the two associations we are members of - EDRi and Communia. All in all there were 80 stakeholders ranging from large platforms, over rightholder lobbies to collecting societies. Each EU Member State is also represented in the room. The meeting itself was completely off topic. Instead of discussing best practices for cooperation most stakeholders just repeated their old talking points from years ago. More details in the Communia blog: [3]



Copyright Transposition


IE: The Irish government is starting a string of consultations on the copyright reform transposition. The first round included Articles 14, 15 and 17 and Wikimedia submitted answers. The second round includes Articles 2-7, the deadline is 14 November. [4] If you know individuals or organisations that would like to cooperate on this, please get in touch!


RO: The Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA) is asking about voluntary procedures for complaint resolution for Articles 13, 17(9) and 21. The questions were sent out to known national stakeholders by email. They are asking what alternative dispute resolution procedures should be applicable at national level: mediation, arbitration or another impartial body. H/T to EDRi member ApTI for letting us know!


CY: Communia and Wikimedia organised a copyright transposition workshop in Cyprus together with the national UNESCO Commission, the University of Technology and local law firms. It even made the evening news :D [5]








Publicpolicy mailing list