Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the process, usually a pretty hefty sum.
Yes, you're wrong.
Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard?
No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise you on how to be effective, but the word "private" is inappropriate here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as well.
You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.
You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means to "lobby" in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine.
Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either.
Hugely far off, actually.
To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom.
If you really think that (for example) the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any surprise.
(I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.)
--Mike
Hi Mike
I want to talk for a minute about lobbying in general, aside from the WMF position on it. Because this might be one of those international issues where perceptions might differ based on the culture and nationality of someone. I know my position on this might be naive or flawed, but I know others who feel the same way.
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here was called something else.......bribery. Now, I know that it is miles away from what you are talking about, since it is strictly regulated in the US and UK. If not for the public reporting, and rules regulating it, you would see the thin line that others in the Global south see running through it. It is not something that inspires transparency and confidence.
In US politics, general lobbying in addition to rulings like the Citizens united, put large corporation in a powerful position to buy voices in Washington. If it is indeed going to be about getting voices heard *only* through lobbyists, I think the publishers can scream the loudest.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer
the
client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in
the
process, usually a pretty hefty sum.
Yes, you're wrong.
That was partly based on my reading of the en.wp article on lobbying ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), when you have a minute, do re-write the sections of the article where it is wrong. The lead section of the article itself covers the morality and ethics of lobbying quiet well, mentioning the similar stereotype I spoke of earlier, "Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law". As the article states, it is a form of power struggle, motives range from predation to self-defense. My question was who usually spends more? non-profits who run a free encyclopedia or giant publishers whose daily revenues are directly affected by these decisions?
Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard?
No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise you on how to be effective, but the word "private" is inappropriate here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as well.
Actually politico didn't publicize the engagement exclusively, the link kim provided, mentions it as one brief story in a list of 10 others, stating, "The foundation has snagged Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, according to a newly filed lobbying disclosure, to focus on “legislation related to online intellectual property infringement, including H.R. 3261, S. 968 and S. 2029.” Those bill numbers coincide with SOPA, PIPA and the OPEN Act." Along with the foundation did not return to comment to MT before press time.
You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open,
direct
and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.
You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means to "lobby" in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine.
Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that
far
off either.
Hugely far off, actually.
To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom.
Again this might be one of those things that differ from country to country and perceptions influenced by cultures. To use your analogy, police work, and general law and order, has existed for several centuries, the institutions and the idea of lobbying is relatively new. This is more true for regulated lobbying now in US and UK, than any other place. Some countries still make do with no lobbying all together. If you look at the regulated lobbying section by country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#Lobbying_by_country), even the regulation to govern lobbying came in late 90's.
There are still a lot of powerful institutions and organizations, who get their message through, and make measurable impact without moving a single lobbyist. This is the first time we are engaging one, so just curious about what impact it has on perception of others.
It's about ROI and impact of money invested. We have the biggest and direct way to get measurable impact on these issues, Wikipedia and the projects, with 400 million people watching. The blackout proved that, incurring little or no actual external cost in the process.
If you really think that (for example) the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any surprise.
That is sadly the impression I have, along with a lot of others. I am not an american but that has been the view cultivated by several years of following american politics, tech news and listening to the likes of Jon stewart, Huffpo and other reputed sources.
(I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.)
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here was called something else.......bribery.
I know you know this, but for those who don't, lobbying in the USA is highly regulated. Bribery in the USA is a felony.
In US politics, general lobbying in addition to rulings like the Citizens united, put large corporation in a powerful position to buy voices in Washington. If it is indeed going to be about getting voices heard *only* through lobbyists, I think the publishers can scream the loudest.
Where did that "*only*" come from? I hope not from anything I've written.
As for the Citizens United case, well, it's one of those cases that's widely talked about but rarely read. The real core case on campaign finance is the one I name below, now more than 30 years old. It is a complicated case dealing with the intersection of corporate regulation and constitutionally protected political speech, and one could teach a whole course about it, just to prepare someone to read Citizens United. Here's the enwiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti.
Almost invariably, when I hear people talk about Citizens United in informal discussions, I'm hearing people who haven't invested the time it takes to understand why these issues are entangled. And of course I can't invest the time to give you a semester's worth of coursework either. But one shorthand way to look at this is, do we want to say that corporations don't have freedom of expression or the right to engage in political speech? Because if we flatly decide that, what happens to The New York Times Company (a for-profit corporation)? Should the Times be barred from political speech? Or the American Civil Liberties Union? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Civil_Liberties_Union&action=submit.) My point here is to underscore that public discussions of Citizens United and other cases rarely, in my experience, rise above sloganeering. The problems involved in corporations' legal status are subtle and complicated ones, not reducible to tweets and chants. I support reform of corporate influence in politics, but not at the price of making it impossible for an incorporated NGO to speak for individuals who otherwise might remain unheard.
That was partly based on my reading of the en.wp article on lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), when you have a minute, do re-write the sections of the article where it is wrong.
I hope I may be forgiven that this particular task can't be at the top of my to-do list just now. But I invite others to contribute to that article. As is usually the case, a Wikipedia article is a fine place to start research, but not itself an authority, as I think we all agree.
My question was who usually spends more? non-profits who run a free encyclopedia or giant publishers whose daily revenues are directly affected by these decisions?
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost.
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia?
Actually politico didn't publicize the engagement exclusively, the link kim provided, mentions it as one brief story in a list of 10 others, stating, "The foundation has snagged Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, according to a newly filed lobbying disclosure, to focus on “legislation related to online intellectual property infringement, including H.R. 3261, S. 968 and S. 2029.” Those bill numbers coincide with SOPA, PIPA and the OPEN Act." Along with the foundation did not return to comment to MT before press time.
Note the words "newly filed lobbying disclosure." So much for our big secretive lobbyist arrangement!
There are still a lot of powerful institutions and organizations, who get their message through, and make measurable impact without moving a single lobbyist. This is the first time we are engaging one, so just curious about what impact it has on perception of others.
I expect the impressions are more positive among those who are more knowledgeable about political processes in the United States. As for whether WMF should have engaged someone in DC to advise in this context, I don't have an atom's worth of doubt that this was the correct and appropriate strategy to keep Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects alive and vital in the face of ill-considered American legislation.
It's about ROI and impact of money invested. We have the biggest and direct way to get measurable impact on these issues, Wikipedia and the projects, with 400 million people watching. The blackout proved that, incurring little or no actual external cost in the process.
I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that, but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are implemented on many levels, and, in my view, it is naive to suppose that mere protest, standing alone, is enough. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when countless individuals took to the streets all over the world. It was exciting, but it was also followed by decades of repressive governmental action that disillusioned many of the most hopeful and idealistic. To learn from 1968, you can't indulge the notion that mere mass protest is enough. Certainly there are plenty of people who remember Tienanmen Square who'll tell you the same thing.
That is sadly the impression I have, along with a lot of others. I am not an american but that has been the view cultivated by several years of following american politics, tech news and listening to the likes of Jon stewart, Huffpo and other reputed sources.
Better than following the reputed sources is to lead them -- to make the news and not merely consume it. The reason the news media are called "media" is that they "mediate" -- you're not getting direct experience, but only what media believe will capture your attention and/or entertain you. Consider for example the works if this influential Canadian (almost as influential in my life as Canadians Sue Gardner and Jay Walsh ;) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan .
--Mike
I find this discussion interesting, although after Sue's clarification, it might be moot. But I am going to continue it, until someone asks to take this off-list.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of
government
and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced
here
was called something else.......bribery.
I know you know this, but for those who don't, lobbying in the USA is highly regulated. Bribery in the USA is a felony.
My point was, it became regulated fairly recently. Before that, the lines between gaining influence from politicians for legislation existed in an entire spectrum of what might be ethical or moral; it still lies on the grey end of the spectrum in some countries, where bribery is not uncommon. And I did not mean the USA before and I don't mean it now, I did however mean, it is a matter of perspective based on where you are coming from on this.
In US politics, general lobbying in addition to rulings like the Citizens united, put large corporation in a powerful position to buy voices in Washington. If it is indeed going to be about getting voices heard *only* through lobbyists, I think the publishers can scream the loudest.
Where did that "*only*" come from? I hope not from anything I've written.
As for the Citizens United case, well, it's one of those cases that's widely talked about but rarely read. The real core case on campaign finance is the one I name below, now more than 30 years old. It is a complicated case dealing with the intersection of corporate regulation and constitutionally protected political speech, and one could teach a whole course about it, just to prepare someone to read Citizens United. Here's the enwiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti.
Almost invariably, when I hear people talk about Citizens United in informal discussions, I'm hearing people who haven't invested the time it takes to understand why these issues are entangled. And of course I can't invest the time to give you a semester's worth of coursework either. But one shorthand way to look at this is, do we want to say that corporations don't have freedom of expression or the right to engage in political speech? Because if we flatly decide that, what happens to The New York Times Company (a for-profit corporation)? Should the Times be barred from political speech? Or the American Civil Liberties Union? (See < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Civil_Liberties_Union&...
.)
My point here is to underscore that public discussions of Citizens United and other cases rarely, in my experience, rise above sloganeering. The problems involved in corporations' legal status are subtle and complicated ones, not reducible to tweets and chants. I support reform of corporate influence in politics, but not at the price of making it impossible for an incorporated NGO to speak for individuals who otherwise might remain unheard.
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been criticized by President Barak Obama, several prominent Senators including Sen. McCain and John Kerry, Sandra Day O'Connor, several law professors including Professors of Law at Yale and Harvard Law school, New York times in an editorial stated "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon." This is of course, overlooking the recent creation of Super PACs, which is currently being mocked by Stephen Colbert and the like, while GOP primaries and recent spate of negative ads, brought them under more of a spotlight in the media.
My sloganeering opposition, along with several others is summed up by David Kairys "Money Isn't Speech and Corporations Aren't People", I might not know the subtleties and the underlying implications of the ruling, but I side with the aforementioned opposers and the above statement.
You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism section of the ruling page. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#... )
That was partly based on my reading of the en.wp article on lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), when you have a minute, do
re-write
the sections of the article where it is wrong.
I hope I may be forgiven that this particular task can't be at the top of my to-do list just now. But I invite others to contribute to that article. As is usually the case, a Wikipedia article is a fine place to start research, but not itself an authority, as I think we all agree.
My question was who usually spends more? non-profits who run a free encyclopedia or giant publishers whose daily revenues are directly
affected
by these decisions?
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost.
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia?
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at law.
Actually politico didn't publicize the engagement exclusively, the link
kim
provided, mentions it as one brief story in a list of 10 others, stating, "The foundation has snagged Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, according
to a
newly filed lobbying disclosure, to focus on “legislation related to
online
intellectual property infringement, including H.R. 3261, S. 968 and S. 2029.” Those bill numbers coincide with SOPA, PIPA and the OPEN Act."
Along
with the foundation did not return to comment to MT before press time.
Note the words "newly filed lobbying disclosure." So much for our big secretive lobbyist arrangement!
I didn't state the agreement was secretive, the extent of the discussions and consultation with the firm was.
There are still a lot of powerful institutions and organizations, who get their message through, and make measurable impact without moving a single lobbyist. This is the first time we are engaging one, so just curious
about
what impact it has on perception of others.
I expect the impressions are more positive among those who are more knowledgeable about political processes in the United States. As for whether WMF should have engaged someone in DC to advise in this context, I don't have an atom's worth of doubt that this was the correct and appropriate strategy to keep Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects alive and vital in the face of ill-considered American legislation.
In light of Sue's clarification, the extent of the lobbying firm's involvement wasn't near to what I assumed earlier. As far as consultation and advising about political implications, yes, that was correct and the appropriate strategy to take. Beyond that, I would defer to the opinion of the wider community, which might or might not be in-line with yours.
It's about ROI and impact of money invested. We have the biggest and
direct
way to get measurable impact on these issues, Wikipedia and the projects, with 400 million people watching. The blackout proved that, incurring
little
or no actual external cost in the process.
I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that, but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are implemented on many levels, and, in my view, it is naive to suppose that mere protest, standing alone, is enough. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when countless individuals took to the streets all over the world. It was exciting, but it was also followed by decades of repressive governmental action that disillusioned many of the most hopeful and idealistic. To learn from 1968, you can't indulge the notion that mere mass protest is enough. Certainly there are plenty of people who remember Tienanmen Square who'll tell you the same thing.
I didn't think that at all. it would be quiet childish to think that blackout alone was responsible for the change in the political position. There were a whole host of issues, WMF worked in conjunction with several other internet properties, albeit without prior coordination, to put a united front and a public stance on what it believed in. The same two things I am arguing for now. I really hope you don't think lobbying alone could have achieved that; if your argument is, lobbying in addition to blackout could have achieved that, then my earlier argument of ROI applies, which generated more of a response? As far as our impact goes, WMF could have spent 10 times of what Google did on lobbying, and it wouldn't have compared to the impact the blackout generated.
This is not about mass protest, the opinions greatly out-weigh in one direction over the other.
That is sadly the impression I have, along with a lot of others. I am
not an
american but that has been the view cultivated by several years of
following
american politics, tech news and listening to the likes of Jon stewart, Huffpo and other reputed sources.
Better than following the reputed sources is to lead them -- to make the news and not merely consume it. The reason the news media are called "media" is that they "mediate" -- you're not getting direct experience, but only what media believe will capture your attention and/or entertain you. Consider for example the works if this influential Canadian (almost as influential in my life as Canadians Sue Gardner and Jay Walsh ;) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan .
There is a spectrum of what is considered Media. I'm not sure about new media being mediators but it is indeed a medium, a means of communication, like the internet or Wikipedia. We are Media too, Mike.
My opinions are my own, based on reputed 3rd party sources, and expert opinions, kind of like Wikipedia. I chose them, they are of course conflicting ones out there, but they are as good as any others.
Regards Theo
P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;)
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been criticized by President Barak Obama....
I don't believe I suggested that Citizens United hasn't been criticized by knowledgeable people. (I'm a critic too.) President Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, for example, has surely read both Bellotti and Citizens United. What I said, specifically, was that when I read popular discussions of Citizens United online, more often than not I'm reading commentary from someone who hasn't read the cases.
You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism section of the ruling page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#...)
My habit is to read the decision directly rather than read the Wikipedia entry. No reflection on Wikipedia, of course -- it's just that as a practicing attorney I am professionally driven to consult primary sources.
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at law.
My own habit is to read the cases directly, since I often must discuss them with fellow lawyers who have also read the cases.
We are Media too, Mike.
Just so. And it's something I never forget. All media must be received skeptically.
--Mike
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission, I was referring to David Kairys quote here. [1]
Regards Theo
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_united#Academics_and_attorneys_2
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission
It said that money is speech and corporations are people? Weird. Where does it say that? My search seems to be broken, cause I can't find it.
I was referring to David Kairys quote here.
AFAICT, Kairys' quote was that money *isn't* speech, and corporations *aren't* people.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech
and
corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission
It said that money is speech and corporations are people? Weird. Where does it say that? My search seems to be broken, cause I can't find it.
I was referring to David Kairys quote here.
AFAICT, Kairys' quote was that money *isn't* speech, and corporations *aren't* people.
This seems rather dickish.
Let me re-state, I wasn't quoting Kairy but referring to his opposition. If you read I said "according to recent rulings....", I didn't quote the legislation or Kairy first, but a layman's understanding of the ruling, based in part to a quote by a profesor at law.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
If you read I said "according to recent rulings...."
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is not what the recent rulings said.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
If you read I said "according to recent rulings...."
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is not what the recent rulings said.
WP:OKAY
I hope I am still entitled to my opinion and understanding of a ruling, one that I share with several others, however, flawed you might think it is.
Regards Theo
Le 22/01/2012 20:00, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least I'm transparent about my biases.
I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.)
You have to compare the cost of lobbying with the cost of not lobbying too. Censorship is the worst case against our mission ("knowledge for everyone"), so opposing it is a more worthy stance (less costy) than consenting it. These bills would set up a structure capable of the equivalent of the Great Firewall of China. We're not doing very good in China. That's one fifth of the planet already off-limit of our mission. There's no reason to let a country to shut off another whole part of mankind, in particular when you CAN do something.
On 1/22/12 7:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;)
I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP Law is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IPLaw is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
I agree completely. I love Mike, why on earth would you think I was trying to "school" him? I was talking about general reactions of a US legislation. I have no standing taking on Mike on IP laws.
Regards Theo
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost.
Citation needed.
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia?
We have more. You need to separate Wikipedia from WMF, one is a US based non-profit, the other is an online Encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, or Wikipedia in this case, has to strive to be free of bias and political positions, especially local ones. WMF on the other hand, can facilitate and protect its interest and mission.
If I were to use a simplistic analogy, I would see Encyclopedia Britannica, as a strictly scholar written encyclopedia with 65 thousand articles, who in this model might have no options but to use lobbyist, since they don't have a direct way of communicating with their readers. English Wikipedia at 3.8 million articles, written by you, me and most people on this list, updated every second, might seem more at home by being direct, and talking to the people who read and write it, and let them decide on their own instead.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost.
Citation needed.
Here's a place to start: http://www.americablog.com/2012/01/story-behind-sopapipa-is-campaign-money.html
But my favorite source for "citation needed" taggers is this: http://lmgtfy.com
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia?
We have more.
And who am I to take issue with such an indisputable, uncontroversial statement?
--Mike
Le 22/01/2012 23:30, Mike Godwin a écrit :
I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that, but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are implemented on many levels, and, in my view, it is naive to suppose that mere protest, standing alone, is enough. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when countless individuals took to the streets all over the world. It was exciting, but it was also followed by decades of repressive governmental action that disillusioned many of the most hopeful and idealistic. To learn from 1968, you can't indulge the notion that mere mass protest is enough. Certainly there are plenty of people who remember Tienanmen Square who'll tell you the same thing.
In this case, what do you think of Avaaz.org?
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
Le 22/01/2012 21:16, Mike Godwin a écrit :
Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the process, usually a pretty hefty sum.
Yes, you're wrong.
Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard?
No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise you on how to be effective, but the word "private" is inappropriate here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as well.
You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.
You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means to "lobby" in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine.
Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either.
Hugely far off, actually.
To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom.
If you really think that (for example) the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any surprise.
(I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.)
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_by_country#Rankings
The U.S. is below most of Europe, and Qatar, but we beat France! (The rankings at the link is the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International; as suggested by its name, its based on the perception of corruption as drawn from surveys rather than any empirical measurement.)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_by_country#Rankings
The U.S. is below most of Europe, and Qatar, but we beat France! (The rankings at the link is the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International; as suggested by its name, its based on the perception of corruption as drawn from surveys rather than any empirical measurement.)
Finland finished on the bronze, behind Denmark and New Zealand?!!!
The "fix is in"!!!
On the surface this is a very frivolous post. Funnily enough I have a serious point I have been nursing along for a while. Any list moderators listening? There are times when the mailing list itself can be a source of infighting and internal politics. I submit this is not one of them, and as such, I think modified rules to the soft moderation rules should be adopted. Blatant trolling should get a "one strike and you are on hard moderation" response, and monthly moderation limits should be lifted entirely. We really are on war footing. Not bean-bags at 50 yards footing. We need to sort things out, and more talk is a good thing, not a bad thing.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org