(changing the topic, since hijacking a thread is considered inpolite)
I think indeed they are incomparable. One is an internal political
discussion, the other is totally external and legal. That alone makes it a
totally different discussion - because I still believe the Wikimedia
Foundation will be reasonable in this and if there is a true majority
against it, I can hardly see them implementing it without further ado. If
the WMF would persue this, you would still have the option to fork Wikipedia
- and continue elsewhere. However, forking a country has proven to be more
controversial and is significantly harder. And if you dont cooperate with
the image filter, the worst thing really that could potentially (and still
unlikely) happen, is getting blocked from *editing* Wikipedia. In the
Italian case, you would get sued and pay high fines.
We're talking about totally different ball parks here.
Lodewijk
No dia 5 de Outubro de 2011 10:53, Thomas Morton <
morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> escreveu:
On 5 October 2011 09:26, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you
clearly
don't
understand at all what some people think the image filter is all
about.
You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world)
without wiki. <mumble> To me, it seems to be "slightly" different
it.wiki are specifically saying that they feel this new law would impact
their ability to provide free and open content.
de.wiki are saying much the same about the image filter...
Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l