Nathan, when you write "the very nature of Wikipedia is
maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia",
it's very easy for me to fully and totally agree -- as I would have, three
years ago. But in those three years, I've seen things in the US that I had
never thought I would see. I've seen the rights that I considered
inviolable... violated. I've seen the resurgence of a brand of
conservatism that I find alarming.
I find myself, reluctantly, agreeing with Fae that there should be a backup
plan. However.... I choose to believe this is also an opportunity. What
about a fully distributed version that's hosted everywhere, and nowhere?
What other options, besides the traditional, can the WMF's bright staff and
creative volunteers come up with? Surely there's something ....
Failing that, there's always Iceland. :-)
Philippe
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Fae,
I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
resurgence?
Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
side of the Great Firewall.
Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
glaringly public flaws.
To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
Nathan
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a
moment and ponder the
following,
For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is
not
inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
content.
If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
Links:
1.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
2.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
3.
https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-co…
"... this order was designed to empower
certain governmental agencies
with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
disasters and security emergencies."
4.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency…
"The president could seize control of U.S.
internet traffic, impeding
access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
pro-Trump content as the top results."
5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: