Dear all,
Wikimedia District of Columbia Board of Directors has released its position on SOPA and PIPA in a press release[1] and blog post[2].
1. http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press#Official_statement_of_Wikimedia_DC_on_SOPA... 2. http://blog.wikimediadc.org/2012/01/the-fundemental-flaws-of-sopa-and-pipa/
Sincerely,
Nicholas Michael Bashour Vice President Wikimedia District of Columbia Washington, DC, USA
Why were the Board's deliberations on this press release hidden from the view of members? Was it done by unanimous written consent? I did not see any notice of a special meeting regarding it. I am curious. Thanks, -- Bob Platt
Dear all,
Wikimedia District of Columbia Board of Directors has released its position on SOPA and PIPA in a press release[1] and blog post[2].
http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press#Official_statement_of_Wikimedia_DC_on_SOPA... 2. http://blog.wikimediadc.org/2012/01/the-fundemental-flaws-of-sopa-and-pipa/
Sincerely,
Nicholas Michael Bashour Vice President Wikimedia District of Columbia Washington, DC, USA
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
To clarify the procedural aspects of this a bit, the current press release has been authorized by the President of Wikimedia DC. The Board will be formally endorsing the President's statements at our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Cheers, Kirill
-- Kirill Lokshin Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, bob@racepacket.com wrote:
Why were the Board's deliberations on this press release hidden from the view of members? Was it done by unanimous written consent? I did not see any notice of a special meeting regarding it. I am curious. Thanks, -- Bob Platt
Dear all,
Wikimedia District of Columbia Board of Directors has released its position on SOPA and PIPA in a press release[1] and blog post[2].
http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press#Official_statement_of_Wikimedia_DC_on_SOPA...
http://blog.wikimediadc.org/2012/01/the-fundemental-flaws-of-sopa-and-pipa/
Sincerely,
Nicholas Michael Bashour Vice President Wikimedia District of Columbia Washington, DC, USA
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Kirill, Thank you for your clearing this up. I would suggest that the document could use a careful review. For example, it says "over 1800 individuals in the active community of Wikipedia contributors recognized the need to act in order to confront these dangerous legislations." The largest vote was 736, not 1800. Also, I think the sentence puts words in the mouths of those voters, many who would not use a word like "dangerous" to describe the legislation. What basis do we have for the claim that SOPA would be on the "backs of millions of innocent online users."
Regardless of whether one is for or against SOPA or PIPA, there is the larger question of whether Wikipedia, WMF and WikiDC should be involved in advocating legislation and whether a blackout "protest" is ever an appropriate step. I would prefer a more neutral role with WikiDC hosting a pro vs con SOPA debate at one of its meetings.
The claim, "Wikimedia District of Columbia (Wikimedia DC) stands firmly with the decision of Wikipedia editors and administrators to shut down the English Wikipedia" is disputed within the membership of the Society. The Board owes it to the membership to schedule a meeting and engage in a discussion with any interested members present *before* making such a policy decision. There were hundreds of editors who did not favor a shutdown and many who opposed any action whatsoever.
Instead of endorsing the shutdown, I would hope that going forward WMF and the chapters would draw a firm line saying that we are never going to do a blackout again. Otherwise, activitists will seek shutdowns for a variety of causes. For example, if Wikipedia were around in 2002, would people demand a shutdown to protest the start of the Iraq and Afganistan millitary conflicts? Those decisions cost many more lives than SOPA, but is that Wikipedia/WMF/WikiDC's role? Thanks, -- Bob
To clarify the procedural aspects of this a bit, the current press release has been authorized by the President of Wikimedia DC. The Board will be formally endorsing the President's statements at our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Cheers, Kirill
-- Kirill Lokshin Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, bob@racepacket.com wrote:
Why were the Board's deliberations on this press release hidden from the view of members? Was it done by unanimous written consent? I did not see any notice of a special meeting regarding it. I am curious. Thanks, -- Bob Platt
Dear all,
Wikimedia District of Columbia Board of Directors has released its position on SOPA and PIPA in a press release[1] and blog post[2].
http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press#Official_statement_of_Wikimedia_DC_on_SOPA...
http://blog.wikimediadc.org/2012/01/the-fundemental-flaws-of-sopa-and-pipa/
Sincerely,
Nicholas Michael Bashour Vice President Wikimedia District of Columbia Washington, DC, USA
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
On 18 January 2012 16:23, bob@racepacket.com wrote:
Otherwise, activitists will seek shutdowns for a variety of causes. For example, if Wikipedia were around in 2002, would people demand a shutdown to protest the start of the Iraq and Afganistan millitary conflicts? Those decisions cost many more lives than SOPA, but is that Wikipedia/WMF/WikiDC's role?
The difference is those wars did not pose an imminent threat to the mere *existence* of Wikipedia, unlike SOPA and PIPA.
Luke: If that is your test, I would feel better if WMF had a policy that said, "No blackouts unless the existence of Wikipedia is threatened." If you read the Senate bill you can see that is not the case now. As a US website, Wikipedia is liable for contributory copyright infringement now, but this does not threaten its existence. If Wikipedia moved offshore, the bill would allow a court to order it to take technically feasible steps to remove links to a priate website. (We have an external link blacklist already.) So, that is not the threat.
Wikipedia has no plans to promote pirate websites from offshore. It does not process money for repayment to pirate websites.
Unless the Justice Dept and Federal judges go crazy, where is the existential threat? I think we need more rational discourse and less passion in all of this. Reading through the RFC does not instill confidence in Wikipedia decision-making process. Thanks, --Bob
The difference is those wars did not pose an imminent threat to the mere *existence* of Wikipedia, unlike SOPA and PIPA.
Bob, the WMF is potentially vulnerable to provisions in SOPA/PIPA through many avenues: 1) It hosts a large number of servers overseas in order to serve the other Wikimedia communities. This could cause it to be interpreted as one of those "rogue foreign sites" and subject it to censorship. 2) It has a large number of domain names it uses or that are associated with it that are on foreign registries (e.g. wikimedia.de) that could cause it to be interpreted as one of those "rogue foreign sites" and subject it to censorship. 3) The encyclopedia itself is highly reliant on external sources, many of which are hosted overseas, and which could start disappearing under concerted censorship campaigns by people or corporations with vested interests. Imagine the Church of Scientology successfully getting DNS entries for sites critical of Scientology blocked, and then turning around and white-washing the Wikipedia articles by removing lots of facts which can no longer be sourced.
I don't think this list is appropriate for an involved discussion of the pros/cons of SOPA/PIPA, but your views on the matter are well outside the technological mainstream, which by and large does see grave dangers from SOPA/PIPA. It's not a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians were in favor of a Wikipedia blackout.
Some more info here: http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:15 PM, bob@racepacket.com wrote:
Luke: If that is your test, I would feel better if WMF had a policy that said, "No blackouts unless the existence of Wikipedia is threatened." If you read the Senate bill you can see that is not the case now. As a US website, Wikipedia is liable for contributory copyright infringement now, but this does not threaten its existence. If Wikipedia moved offshore, the bill would allow a court to order it to take technically feasible steps to remove links to a priate website. (We have an external link blacklist already.) So, that is not the threat.
Wikipedia has no plans to promote pirate websites from offshore. It does not process money for repayment to pirate websites.
Unless the Justice Dept and Federal judges go crazy, where is the existential threat? I think we need more rational discourse and less passion in all of this. Reading through the RFC does not instill confidence in Wikipedia decision-making process. Thanks, --Bob
The difference is those wars did not pose an imminent threat to the mere *existence* of Wikipedia, unlike SOPA and PIPA.
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
2012/1/18 Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com
- It has a large number of domain names it uses or that are associated
with it that are on foreign registries (e.g. wikimedia.de) that could cause it to be interpreted as one of those "rogue foreign sites" and subject it to censorship
In fact, a foreign domain extension qualifies you as such a site. See http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html: "This legislation naively ignores this complexity, and simply labels a site 'foreign' or 'domestic' based solely on the domain name."
On 1/18/12 4:23 PM, bob@racepacket.com wrote:
Kirill, Thank you for your clearing this up. I would suggest that the document could use a careful review. For example, it says "over 1800 individuals in the active community of Wikipedia contributors recognized the need to act in order to confront these dangerous legislations." The largest vote was 736, not 1800. Also, I think the sentence puts words in the mouths of those voters, many who would not use a word like "dangerous" to describe the legislation. What basis do we have for the claim that SOPA would be on the "backs of millions of innocent online users."
I think the "1800 individual...recognized the need to act" is poor phrasing; the vote page on Wikipedia says 1800 people participated, but not that that number supported the action. The rest is clearly all statements of opinion from Wikimedia DC, which is the document's purpose. The idea that in fashioning its own statement, Wikimedia DC needs to find a wording that all of the many hundreds of supporters of the blackout would agree upon doesn't make much sense, though.
Regardless of whether one is for or against SOPA or PIPA, there is the larger question of whether Wikipedia, WMF and WikiDC should be involved in advocating legislation and whether a blackout "protest" is ever an appropriate step. I would prefer a more neutral role with WikiDC hosting a pro vs con SOPA debate at one of its meetings.
...
Instead of endorsing the shutdown, I would hope that going forward WMF and the chapters would draw a firm line saying that we are never going to do a blackout again.
Your idea is that Wikipedia would shut down over popular opposition to American legislation, but the chapter that is centered in the nation's capital should remain silent or neutral on the matter? I suspect you're in a minority of Bob here. If anything, the chapters should have a freer hand with regard to advocacy than the WMF, with its high profile and broader mission.
Otherwise, activitists will seek shutdowns for a variety of causes. For example, if Wikipedia were around in 2002, would people demand a shutdown to protest the start of the Iraq and Afganistan millitary conflicts? Those decisions cost many more lives than SOPA, but is that Wikipedia/WMF/WikiDC's role?
This is just an astoundingly poor analogy. The bills are being opposed on the grounds that they would directly affect Wikimedia's operations. There is no parallel to American wars.
The issue appears to be that, based on your legal interpretation of it, you do not believe that the bill is threatening to Wikimedia. You are at odds not just with the Wikipedia editors in a poll, but essentially every organization that stands for open access and Internet freedom. Actually, I would like Wikimedia DC to take more such stances that make it clear to the public that it belongs in the category of organizations which advocate for open access and copyright sanity. The Public Domain Manifesto has been signed onto by Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia Netherlands, Wikimedia France, Wikimedia Italy, Wikimedia Switzerland, and Wikimedia Czech Republic already. The Berlin Declaration has been signed by the WMF, Wikimedia Poland, and Wikimedia Germany. There may be other similar statements that Wikimedia chapters have become signatories to. Wikimedia DC has never (?) gotten involved as an organization in that realm. I would like to propose that Wikimedia DC hold a discussion about formally signing onto those two, as well as the recent Washington Declaration and possibly others, at some point in the future.
Dominic
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Dominic dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Actually, I would like Wikimedia DC to take more such stances that make it clear to the public that it belongs in the category of organizations which advocate for open access and copyright sanity. The Public Domain Manifesto has been signed onto by Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia Netherlands, Wikimedia France, Wikimedia Italy, Wikimedia Switzerland, and Wikimedia Czech Republic already. The Berlin Declaration has been signed by the WMF, Wikimedia Poland, and Wikimedia Germany. There may be other similar statements that Wikimedia chapters have become signatories to. Wikimedia DC has never (?) gotten involved as an organization in that realm. I would like to propose that Wikimedia DC hold a discussion about formally signing onto those two, as well as the recent Washington Declaration and possibly others, at some point in the future.
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I assume you're referring to the following documents:
(1) Public Domain Mainfesto: http://publicdomainmanifesto.org/manifesto
(2) Berlin Declaration: http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/
(3) Washington Declaration: http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration
Cheers, Kirill
-- Kirill Lokshin Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc
On 1/18/12 5:51 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I assume you're referring to the following documents:
(1) Public Domain Mainfesto: http://publicdomainmanifesto.org/manifesto
(2) Berlin Declaration: http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/
(3) Washington Declaration: http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration
Yes, thank you. You can find the lists of signatories at http://publicdomainmanifesto.org/node/8/signatures and http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/. There is also a useful reference page of similar documents at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Declarations_in_support_of_OA.
Dominic
Hello all,
Catching up with the events of the past week here, I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and explanatory links. I'd like to agree with Bob on one point:
We could really use an educational meeting or event on the SOPA-PIPA question.
It will be to our advantage to have some shared basic knowledge of the issue, and talking points we all agree on.
Questions about SOPA-PIPA are going to continue to come up again between now and Wikimania. We need simple verbal explanations, and back and forth, in person questions, to confirm that a shared understanding exists. Videoconferencing is second best. There's a reason for in-person, face-to-face briefings and discussions: the feedback loop involved prepares you for presenting ideas live and in person yourself. If all our members can respond knowledgeably, that's a plus.
We also need to note that opinion was not unanimous for a blackout as the appropriate response, in DC or overall.
If we get together and work out consensus language for an ongoing position on this question, we'll get the membership on the same page.
We are fortunate to have Nicholas available to draft a press release on short notice. Now that the initial need to respond to the blackout has passed, I'd like to start out here by asking the Board to work out putting together a short, consensus statement on "what is SOPA-PIPA, and why are we concerned" for the membership. (Might even be a brief sentence or two, with a link referencing to WM explanations.)
Kristin
Hello again,
Working my way through all this material (and I am a beginner on this issue!) I'd like to point out the response from Wikipedia India.
http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Announcements/Communication_regarding_SOPA_and_Wiki...
This looks like the sort of informational update we need.
Kristin
wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org