Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:58, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites.
In Europe, people are able to strike.
Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management.
On 04/10/2011 21:02, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:58, Aaron Adrignolaaaron.adrignola@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites.
In Europe, people are able to strike.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:15, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management.
You are right just if you use the strict sense of the term "property". In not so strict sense, community around Italian Wikipedia is owner of that "property", as well. And that's clear to WMF Board, as well.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management.
The WMF can override the local community if they want.
The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be influencing legislation.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:49 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management.
The WMF can override the local community if they want.
The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be influencing legislation.
Not really John, I don't think you saw Sue's statement on this thread earlier.
It is the community's position, the Italian community is influencing legislation, WMF is not.
Theo
On 4 October 2011 23:19, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to their management.
The WMF can override the local community if they want.
The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be influencing legislation.
Jimbo has already stated support FWIW.
Tom
2011/10/5 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be influencing legislation.
Why should the WMF not (at least try to) influence legislation if that helps the goal of distributing free knowledge? I think it should do exactly that, whenever possible and suitable, as for instance in this case. And it is done by chapters already. Wikimedia Serbia has made a good example in this Italian law case on how that can be done (thx to Milos), namely for example by writing WM-official protest or support notes to politicians, embassadors, etc. Another such thing was what WM Germany did in the past for state or federal elections, when they interviewed the candidating parties about certain questions relevant for the free knowledge movement and publishing these interviews, which is a much more indirect way to influence legislation, but still.
BR Th.
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/4/11 4:33 PM, Thomas Goldammer wrote:
2011/10/5 John Vandenbergjayvdb@gmail.com:
The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be influencing legislation.
Why should the WMF not (at least try to) influence legislation if that helps the goal of distributing free knowledge? I think it should do exactly that, whenever possible and suitable, as for instance in this case. And it is done by chapters already. Wikimedia Serbia has made a good example in this Italian law case on how that can be done (thx to Milos), namely for example by writing WM-official protest or support notes to politicians, embassadors, etc. Another such thing was what WM Germany did in the past for state or federal elections, when they interviewed the candidating parties about certain questions relevant for the free knowledge movement and publishing these interviews, which is a much more indirect way to influence legislation, but still.
BR Th.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2011/10/5 Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Ryan Kaldari
not for/against the US legislation, that means? Or world-wide? So, can WMF write an official letter to the Italian embassador under this non-profit status or would that be unlawful under the non-profit terms?
Th.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com wrote:
2011/10/5 Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Ryan Kaldari
not for/against the US legislation, that means? Or world-wide?
The US laws apply to lobbying internationally as well as in the US.
The WMF is allowed to lobby, but additional regulations apply when they do.
On 10/5/11 1:50 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Somewhat true, but not a red line. The IRS gives this wonderfully vague formulation: "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status".
In addition, "organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status". For example, perhaps, in suitable cases, Wikimedia could issue factual statements about proposed legislation likely to affect its operations, with a neutral legal analysis of if and how the legislation would do so.
-Mark
Mark wrote:
On 10/5/11 1:50 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Somewhat true, but not a red line. The IRS gives this wonderfully vague formulation: "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status".
In addition, "organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status". For example, perhaps, in suitable cases, Wikimedia could issue factual statements about proposed legislation likely to affect its operations, with a neutral legal analysis of if and how the legislation would do so.
-Mark
I don't think that there is a distinction between "lobbying" and "campaigning". It cannot be assumed that a charitable organisation should not be able to protect its own status, because I think the law should assume that right. The issue is to how that is to be achieved, and by what means, and that is where a political dimension arises. Thus far, it is by words and gestures. Politicians, at a practical level, are sometimes more used to more physical expressions of dissent. I doubt it will come to that in this case. However, I would be surprised if the message did not reach its intended target in this instance.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 10/5/11 1:50 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
Somewhat true, but not a red line. The IRS gives this wonderfully vague formulation: "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status".
Thanks, Mark - I was about to say this as well.
The WMF can engage in limited lobbying. I think we should do more than we have to date, where essential to our mission. It would be harder to spread free knowledge to everyone without the open web, which is regularly endangered by short-sighted policies.
A 501c3 is prohibited from influencing elections for public office, but can otherwise influence policy -- limited primarily in how much money or staff time is spent on lobbying. The clearest test for "how much" is an expenditures test. http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
As John V says, the IRS treats all policy lobbying the same here, national or international.
Phil Nash:
I don't think that there is a distinction between "lobbying" and
"campaigning".
One thing a 501c3 is prohibited from doing is influencing elections for public office in a partisan way, including supporting or opposing any specific politician.
CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq
Sam.
There is a petition with over 1430 signatures in 24 hours
http://twitter.com/#!/jayvdb/status/121435650057707520
-- John Vandenberg
2011/10/5 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq
interesting:
Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for example) affiliate that lobbies (according to United States definitions of lobbying) and the affiliate shows up on the IRS 990 Form would its lobbying expenditures count against expenditure limits in this country? A. Yes, the affiliate's lobbying expenditures would count against the expenditure limits of the charity incorporated in this country.
Do WMF chapters count as affiliates? (Does "charity" mean a 501(c)(3) thing?)
Th.
Thomas Goldammer, 05/10/2011 09:21:
2011/10/5 Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com:
CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area: http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq
interesting:
Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for example) affiliate that lobbies (according to United States definitions of lobbying) and the affiliate shows up on the IRS 990 Form would its lobbying expenditures count against expenditure limits in this country? A. Yes, the affiliate's lobbying expenditures would count against the expenditure limits of the charity incorporated in this country.
Do WMF chapters count as affiliates?
No. At least, we all try hard for them not to and we usually think me managed.
(Does "charity" mean a 501(c)(3) thing?)
Yes, although there is some confusion if I remember correctly (browse the archives, we're off topic here :-p).
Nemo
This is going to be a PR nightmare :-s
Tom Morton
On 4 Oct 2011, at 20:58, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
This is going to be a PR nightmare :-s
Tom Morton
On 4 Oct 2011, at 20:58, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of one of its websites. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The IRC channels are going insane because of this. This is likely to lead to a lot of PR, does WMF have a position on this?
Theo
Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately
desysopped under emergency procedures
We knew about this danger. But in the case, you have to desysop many of us. The responsible is not only the one who edited the page, but all of us that agreed on the strike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org