Salut la liste!
At this year's Wikimania in Hong Kong we launched a survey targeted mainly at Wikimedians asking them which policy issues are most important to them. We had 137 people filling out the questionnarie, which is a decent number for a first go. A summary of the results, as well as the full data itself can be accessed via a dedicated meta page [1].
As with everything else, fell free to share, copy re-mix and re-use as you see fit.
Greeting from Brussels! Dimi
Thank you, Dimi, this is very helpful.
Government freedom of information and Wikipedia is indicated as top importance, but Jimmy Wales recently indicated that we should not release logs about what IP addresses assigned to specific public agencies have been reading. I am okay with that, but there are other issues recently involving an editor from the EPA responsible for pesticide testing trying to downplay the toxicity of the neonicotinoids, and do I ever have a story to tell you about depleted uranium, but per the following I have become very eventualist about it:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Gulf-War-and-HealthTreatment-for-Chronic-Mul...
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
http://www.smj.org.sa/PDFFiles/May12/Uranium.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242351/
http://www.marciainhorn.com/olwp/wp-content/uploads/Effect-of-war-on-fertili...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/04/are-scientists-being-muzzled-a-look-at-th...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-healt...
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
Best regards, James Salsman
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com wrote:
Salut la liste!
At this year's Wikimania in Hong Kong we launched a survey targeted mainly at Wikimedians asking them which policy issues are most important to them. We had 137 people filling out the questionnarie, which is a decent number for a first go. A summary of the results, as well as the full data itself can be accessed via a dedicated meta page [1].
As with everything else, fell free to share, copy re-mix and re-use as you see fit.
Greeting from Brussels! Dimi
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22/10/13 10:30 AM, James Salsman wrote:
Thank you, Dimi, this is very helpful.
Government freedom of information and Wikipedia is indicated as top importance, but Jimmy Wales recently indicated that we should not release logs about what IP addresses assigned to specific public agencies have been reading. I am okay with that, but there are other issues recently involving an editor from the EPA responsible for pesticide testing trying to downplay the toxicity of the neonicotinoids, and do I ever have a story to tell you about depleted uranium, but per the following I have become very eventualist about it:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Gulf-War-and-HealthTreatment-for-Chronic-Mul...
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
http://www.smj.org.sa/PDFFiles/May12/Uranium.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242351/
http://www.marciainhorn.com/olwp/wp-content/uploads/Effect-of-war-on-fertili...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/04/are-scientists-being-muzzled-a-look-at-th...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-healt...
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
Best regards, James Salsman
Wait, what? You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
I should think WMF would first allow such functionality to non-government citizens, then NGO/corporates, then government. IMO the government has the least justification for such privacy, and the greatest responsibility for transparency.
Amgine
2013/10/22 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
It could be fun exercise to ask you how long it takes for the average brain to connect the topic of Freedom of Information with specific editing behaviour of government employees in Wikipedia. I am afraid of the answer.
Mathias
Amgine wrote:
... You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
When I asked for universal private browsing, Foundation Legal staff accused me of trying to frustrate the NSA. I am not sure whether there has been a reply to my question about how asking them to come in to compliance with the law is more frustrating than helpful to them. In the mean time, I would rather address specific instances of government attempts to conceal information by editing Wikipedia. Again, this is a very eventualist attitude and I worry that it may be too eventualist.
Best regards, James Salsman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de wrote:
2013/10/22 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
It could be fun exercise to ask you how long it takes for the average brain to connect the topic of Freedom of Information with specific editing behaviour of government employees in Wikipedia. I am afraid of the answer.
Mathias
-- Mathias Schindler Projektmanager Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam - http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
HI everybody,
the difficult part here is that Freedom of Information is a huge term that regularly cascades into privacy and freedom of speech discussions. I nevertheless believe that for the sake of the survey it means "right to know" rather than "right to privacy" (although the two are of course connected).
I think that by Freedom of Information, for the purposes of this report, we are talking about the laws giving the general public access to government documents and data (i.e. open government and open records) and not so much about private/anonymous editing. Thus being said, the relevant overview article woud be "FoI laws by country" [1].
Dimi
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country
2013/10/22 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
Amgine wrote:
... You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
When I asked for universal private browsing, Foundation Legal staff accused me of trying to frustrate the NSA. I am not sure whether there has been a reply to my question about how asking them to come in to compliance with the law is more frustrating than helpful to them. In the mean time, I would rather address specific instances of government attempts to conceal information by editing Wikipedia. Again, this is a very eventualist attitude and I worry that it may be too eventualist.
Best regards, James Salsman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de wrote:
2013/10/22 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
It could be fun exercise to ask you how long it takes for the average brain to connect the topic of Freedom of Information with specific editing behaviour of government employees in Wikipedia. I am afraid of the answer.
Mathias
-- Mathias Schindler Projektmanager Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam - http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, James Salsman wrote:
Amgine wrote:
... You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
When I asked for universal private browsing, Foundation Legal staff accused me of trying to frustrate the NSA.
James, can you elaborate on that?
Marcin Cieślak User:Saper
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2013-August/000209.ht... explains the use of the term, but does not suggest that the Foundation is more interested in an NSA conformant to the principles of the Fourth Amendment's requirements that no warrants shall issue without probable cause and a list of the items to be searched and searched for. I am hoping for further clarification on that and whether the Foundation intends to ask Google and the other cloud providers for information processing solutions which allows them to abide by the Privacy Policy.
Sincerely, James Salsman
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, James Salsman wrote:
Amgine wrote:
... You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
When I asked for universal private browsing, Foundation Legal staff accused me of trying to frustrate the NSA.
James, can you elaborate on that?
Marcin Cieślak User:Saper
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org