Le 22/01/2012 20:04, Mike Godwin a écrit :
Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency.
I agree. Current times require a "wikifreedom" project whose objective would be to fight censorship through sharing knowledge and raising awareness. One of the main branches could be technological know-how to build radios or bypass internet censoring. Giving access to tor-hidden services like an encyclopedia or wikinews can change it ALL for censored peoples.
I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.)
That's an important fact, but if the communities and donors are to delegate their power to a representant, it must be through a referendum amongst the 300 000 makers of Wikipedia. I think anyone who ever registered should be contacted and informed about such elections.
Money is already already dangerous for a cause, political power is even more. « Beware the steward »
This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing.
I agree. In fact, I think the power of Wikipedia and sister projects is not shown in the money, but in the huge and resourceful communities commited to them.