[Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at...

[Foundation-l] We need more...

emijrp

4 Oct 2011 4 Oct '11

11:30 p.m.

Hi all; The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] Italian Wikipedia has about 500,000 page views per hour,[4] and readers are getting worried about how long is this going to last. A global encyclopedia managed in these ways is not trustworthy. This is worst in public image than any gender, global south or image filtering media flame war. Furthermore, this only make me more concerned about the missing updated, secure and trustworthy mirrors of Wikipedia content. Fortunately, you still can read the mobile version, but it is "limited".[5] (Please, spread the word about this) Regards, emijrp [1] http://it.wikipedia.org [2] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision [4] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm [5] http://it.m.wikipedia.org/

Show replies by date

Fred Bauder

4 Oct 4 Oct

11:32 p.m.

...

No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience. Fred

Mathias Schindler

11:38 p.m.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

...

No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official… makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any time soon.

M. Williamson

11:55 p.m.

Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project; there are speakers of Italian in Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and in smaller numbers in lots of other countries who may not care so much what happens in Italian politics. If the UK proposed a new law to shut down Wikipedia, what would US, Australian, Canadian and other non-UK users say if sysops tried to shut down en.wikipedia for everybody? Granted, the Italian language doesn't have the same level of multinational character as en.wp, but Wikipedias are for languages, not countries, and we can't forget this. 2011/10/4 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com>

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official… makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any time soon. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Mathias Schindler

11:58 p.m.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;

No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) media law might come? Mathias

Milos Rancic

5 Oct 5 Oct

12:07 a.m.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:58, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;

So, you think that it is reasonable that Italian Wikipedia lays on Italian speaking community from Kiribati? If this law passes, the most reasonable choice of every editor of Italian Wikipedia would be to abandon it.

Jalo

12:08 a.m.

...

Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) media law might come? Mathias

You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page version (that is 100% of articles). Kiribatian users edits all en.wikip articles? 100% of articles may be written by the person to which the article refers, and all these articles will be blocked infinite. Maybe this scenario, this italian law, is a little bit worst than a Kiribati law?

Mathias Schindler

12:10 a.m.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page version (that is 100% of articles).

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way?

Jalo

12:11 a.m.

...

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way?

I've already told that: 100% of articles. Do you need a larger threshold?

Dirk Franke

12:14 a.m.

They should be enough, to convice the rest of the community. And when Kiribati users are actually able to convince all the others on en, then: Go Kiribati! Go! southpark On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new

law

will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single

page

version (that is 100% of articles).

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Benjamin Lees

12:15 a.m.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way?

Unless the WMF decides it should intervene, the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an admin make the necessary changes and not be reverted. As a practical matter, the Kiribati-based community would not be able to do something like this on the English Wikipedia.

Thomas Morton

12:19 a.m.

On 4 October 2011 22:15, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way?

FWIW because of the way this has been implemented, it is not (at least obviously) possible to rollback/reverse via the web interface (it appears to be a change in common.js - and even that page redirects to the message). Tom

Jalo

12:23 a.m.

...

You can disable javascripts and css in your browser. For firefox: *tools -> Options -> content -> deselect "Enable javascript" *view -> page style -> no style

Jalo

12:20 a.m.

...

the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an admin make the necessary changes and not be reverted

You can see the consensus in http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia I know, it's in italian and google translate sucks, but you can see the "opposite" "favorable" templates. Italian wiki community (not only italian inhabitants) are compact

Mark

1:25 a.m.

On 10/4/11 11:20 PM, Jalo wrote:

...

the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an admin make the necessary changes and not be reverted

This is one reason I think non-it.wikipedian action should be fairly cautious. Afaik, language communities generally run their wikis' affairs, unless they depart so far from the mission that the Wikimedia Foundation finds it necessary to overrule them and intervene. It's relatively easy to intervene to e.g. desysop a few rogue admins and restore control to the community, but if the vast majority of a language's editors and admins are making the decision deemed "rogue", it's a bit trickier. It may be that, their point made, the it.wiki community would agree to put the site back up in a day or two, or, if they don't want to put it back up themselves, perhaps informally agree to have the Wikimedia Foundation restore it without opposing that move. Imo that would be the best action. I don't think it would be helpful to intervene in a heavy-handed manner (certainly no mass-desysopping of an entire language's editor base). -Mark

Fred Bauder

12:16 a.m.

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page version (that is 100% of articles).

Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language edition of Wikipedia in such way?

Defining such a threshold would be inappropriate. We need to do what is appropriate in the circumstances we encounter. Fred

M. Williamson

2:01 a.m.

Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. 2011/10/4 Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com>

...

Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?) media law might come? Mathias

Cristian Consonni

4:41 p.m.

2011/10/5 M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia.

Dan Rosenthal

5:10 p.m.

This may have been answered by Kaldari already but... Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same risks as Italian wikipedia so long as you are in Rome). This way, it.wp readers worldwide (except italy) could continue to browse/edit if they chose, but say an Albanian reading it.wp would not have the same issue. I don't even know if that is technically possible, or if that is what Kaldari was referring to above. Or maybe the community considered and rejected it. Just throwing it out there. Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about the Latin Wikipedia? Dan Rosenthal On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

2011/10/5 M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>om>:

Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia.

About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000 followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. Cristian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Peter Coombe

5:20 p.m.

Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass that too, but it's probably beyond the skill of most readers). Pete / the wub On 5 October 2011 15:10, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2011/10/5 M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>om>:

Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Dan Rosenthal

5:26 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

But that wouldn't matter right? The goal is to send a message to people about it.wp's vulnerability to laws like this, not to actually prevent people from accessing. I'd venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of it.wp (or any project for that matter) readers wouldn't even know to disable javascript. I probably wouldn't have figured it out unless someone told me. -Dan

Fred Bauder

12:14 a.m.

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;

Different fact situation. Doesn't sound like it would be a good idea though. Fred

church.of.emacs.ml

1:50 a.m.

On 10/04/2011 10:38 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official… makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any time soon.

Ryan Kaldari

2:47 a.m.

Yes, you could easily limit the protest to just within Italy by using CentralNotice. And keep in mind that a CentralNotice banner can include JavaScript code (and doesn't have to be dismissible), so you could do something creative like showing the user the page for a couple seconds and then sliding a notice over the entire screen with the protest message. If anyone really needed to access the site, they could just turn off Javascript. Here's some very rough sample code for such a CentralNotice Banner: <style type="text/css"> #cn-sliding-banner { position:absolute; top: -416px; // height + padding-top + padding-bottom + border left: 10em; height: 315px; width: auto; padding: 50px 10px; background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92; border-top: none; text-align: center; } </style> <script type="text/javascript"> $banner = '<div id="cn-sliding-banner">Protest Text Goes Here</div>'; $(document).ready(function() { if ( wgCanonicalNamespace !== 'Special' ) { $( 'body' ).append( $banner ); $( '#cn-sliding-ad' ).delay(2000).animate({'top': '+='+$( '#cn-sliding-banner' ).outerHeight() }, 'fast'); } } ); </script> Ryan Kaldari On 10/4/11 3:50 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:

...

On 10/04/2011 10:38 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:

No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official… makes me wonder if we are going to have fun at en.wikipedia.org any time soon.

It's probably possible to limit such a protest to one country via CentralNotice's geotargeting feature. At least a huge banner would be trivial to implement, a read lock is going to be harder (you could to it with JS, which can be circumvented easily). --Tobias _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

4:30 p.m.

This is a reminder. Not a direct comment on any words on this thread. We are all on the same side here. We want information to be free. We are arguing about the details, not the big picture. Just keep that in mind. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Amir E. Aharoni

1:21 a.m.

2011/10/4 emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>

...

1: In 1995 the famous Russian TV journalist [[Vladislav Listyev]] was murdered. A day after the murder most Russian TV channels were blanked for a whole day in protest against the rampaging lawlessness and violence. As far as i know, most people who watched TV in Russian - in Russia, as well as in Israel, Germany and elsewhere - identified with the protest. 2: A few weeks ago the Israeli court required the Channel 10, a Hebrew TV channel, to apologize to the millionaire [[Sheldon Adelson]] after broadcasting a journalistic investigation that showed him in negative light. The channel tried to claim that the investigation was well-based, but broadcast an apology nevertheless. A few minutes after the apology the news presenter Guy Zohar told the viewers that he quits his position in Channel 10 in response to the events; in addition, the news bulletin ended with blank credits list. The whole thing took about 30 seconds and received wide attention iring the few days after that. 3: Is this Italian law proposal as bad as a murder of a journalist? As bad as a court-forced TV apology? Maybe it is and maybe it is not. I know too little about this affair to state an opinion here; I am just giving a couple of cross-cultural points of comparison. -- Amir

4581

days inactive

4582

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

25 comments

17 participants

tags (0)

participants (17)

Amir E. Aharoni
Benjamin Lees
church.of.emacs.ml
Cristian Consonni
Dan Rosenthal
Dirk Franke
emijrp
Fred Bauder
Jalo
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
M. Williamson
Mark
Mathias Schindler
Milos Rancic
Peter Coombe
Ryan Kaldari
Thomas Morton