On 1/18/12 4:23 PM, bob(a)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