Hoi, There were Wikipedias closed in the past before the recent issue at the Croation Wikipedia because of content, language. It is not only recent, it is more pronounced but not a shift Thanks, GerardM On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 19:00, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Isn't the legal status of the foundation a web host? If it intervenes on projects within the framework of what the law expects from hosting companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of project governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being recognized one day as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with it. Kind regards, Lionel Scheepmans Le 23-08-2021 0:32, Mike Godwin a écrit : _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org Links: ------ [1] http://fastcompany.com

This question reflects a common misunderstanding of the legal framework that protects the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation has broad rights to intervene in Wikipedia content (or other project content) above and beyond what may be strictly required by law. Exercise of these rights does not create "the risk of being recognized as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with it." There is no substitute for reading the scholarship relating to Section 230 and other protections that apply to Wikipedia, to other Wikimedia projects, and to the WMF generally. Those who forgo doing the reading--a good place to start is Professor Jeff Kosseff's book, THE TWENTY-SIX WORDS THAT CREATED THE INTERNET--will almost invariably get caught up by the infectious but false meme that that any intervention in content beyond that which is legally required creates "publisher" status and loses (e.g.) Section 230 protection. I've written on this and related subjects in many places: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1939888751/?tag=slatmaga-20 https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/trump-twitter-section-230.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/clarence-thomas-section-230-cda-conten… https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/antitrust-big-tech-hearing-apple-amazo… https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/three-decades-internet-freedom-activis… This is only a sample of my writings on this and related subjects, but don't let the volume of my prose deter you--my writing style makes up for my prolixity. Mike On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:38 AM Lionel <lionel(a)scheepmans.be> wrote:

I may have missed something somewhere, but I don't think Andreas Kolbe has ever served on the WMF Board of Trustees? Regards, Chris

Mike, On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:42 PM Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, I wouldn't expect it to make the evening news in Korea, Madagascar or Argentina, but in my view it should at least have sounded a few alarm bells in WMF offices, given that these distortions were published under their brand name. If you don't agree ... and you obviously don't ... then I'm not sure any further discussion is going to be of help here. But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today. I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here. Now you say, further, On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation. But you know what? Let's just agree to be glad that something was finally done, let's hope the Croatian Wikipedia manages to recover, and let's hope that similar problems in other WMF projects are successfully surfaced and addressed as well. In the meantime, I salute all volunteers, journalists and academics who research and draw attention to these problems, and everyone at the WMF who takes them seriously. Andreas On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:42 PM Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front >> page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been >> invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning >> to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian >> Wikipedia, as much of its content was "not only misleading but also clearly >> falsified". >> >> So I can't agree that this "was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as less of >> a problem" at the time. It's hard to imagine how it could have been more >> prominent. >> > > Your initial paragraph contradicts your conclusion. ("The term 'fake news' > hadn't been invented yet....") While it is generally true that what happens > in Croatian Wikipedia normally affects the whole world instantaneously > (constrained only by the speed of light!), this may have been one of the > rare instances in which Croatian Wikipedia problems didn't ignite a > universal outcry in all places, everywhere, about disinformation. > > >> So it was all the more welcome that the WMF finally did something this >> year and commissioned an expert to write a report, after a decade of >> complaints from media and the volunteer community. >> > > I love your interpolation of the word "finally" -- never let an > opportunity for moral criticism go unexploited! > > >> > Mike > > >

Hoi, Get your facts straight. Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation. Andreas has a set of hobby horses. That is fine but it does not follow that we have to be grateful for them. Yes, there are plenty of issues with all of our projects and at that, English sets a pattern that is hardly beneficial for the smallest projects. Thanks, Gerard On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 07:43, <hillbillyholiday(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Wikimedia Foundation. Oh, thanks. I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented the WMF in some capacity. Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is either ignorant or some kind of nazi themselves. MC

I believe this is for the first time I see a person who is active in the Wikimedia movement and does not know who Mike Godwin is. Best Yaroslav On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:09 PM <hillbillyholiday(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Are these “facts of the matter” available for evidence focused rational consideration? Cheers, Peter From: Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic@gmail.com] Sent: 30 August 2021 02:30 To: Andreas Kolbe Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check... Andreas writes On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If that does reflect your sentiment, then your mindset seems very much out of tune with WMF thought today. The most generous assessment of this gloss is that you are, in fact, totally misreading me. The less generous assessments I leave to the rhetorically inclined reader. I am not sure you are actually interested in an answer here, but what I did do, for what it's worth, was to make sure that the WP Signpost and WP Kurier covered the story when it first broke, mention it repeatedly over the years in my writing on WO and in the Signpost, as well as in correspondence with journalists and academics, and submit the aforementioned idea to the WMF – to have experts review human rights topics' coverage in Wikipedia language versions that may be subject to undue political influence, and publicly report the results. I think that's about all you could have reasonably expected me to have done here. I also think it is reasonable to expect you not to default to presuming things about the motives of WMF personnel in the absence of evidence. But that's me--I'm evidence-focused. The fact of the matter is that for about a decade, one of Wikipedia's top-50 language versions promoted extremist content, with the WMF's full knowledge. That is Not A Good Thing, whether you work for the WMF or not, and you have given no discernible reason why what was done this year could not have been done years ago, when the WMF was first made aware of the situation. Your characterization of "the fact of the matter" is morally confused. To wit, you want to imply that if some people at WMF knew something about what was happening in the Croatian Wikipedia, it follows that WMF institutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that demonstrate such an institutional decision took place. Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seems self-evident that you're doing so because it's cheaper and easier than understanding what might actually have happened. Mike Godwin <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

I've been involved with hr.wiki case as a steward. I suggested to take a series of quite bold actions but there were reasonable concerns in terms of legitimacy among stewards, there were the ability of smart dudes in the cabal to hijack discussions, there was the reluctance of meta people due to nPOV concerns, [some more very polemic things I prefer to omit], etc etc. Putting it simply hr.wiki case showed some limit of our model, the model I was born and grew up as an user. The *wiki process* of a medium-sized community went broke, with a language (even weaker than some Central Asia wikis) barrier lowering the wiki's accountability, nobody had formally the role to step in. I got my personal dose of clamor during my annual confirmations which probably sounded quite intimidating for anyone willing to tackle the issue. Probably the lesson to be learnt is the need for an audit of contents and some structure with the means to investigate a very very narrow set of very complex complaints, although both things (the first one in particular) are very sensitive in terms of culture neutrality. Vito Il giorno lun 23 ago 2021 alle ore 14:22 Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: