Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wade Mollison info@demandprogress.org Date: 2012/1/13 Subject: Wikipedia To: ""emijrp"" emijrp@gmail.com
Emily,
Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA, the Internet censorship bills. *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of complacency, and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
*Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark? Just click here.*
And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Thanks!
Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.orghttp://demandprogress.org/) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
*One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.
There is a dedicated website too. http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wade Mollison info@demandprogress.org Date: 2012/1/13 Subject: Wikipedia To: ""emijrp"" emijrp@gmail.com
Emily,
Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA, the Internet censorship bills. *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of complacency, and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
*Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark? Just click here.*
And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Thanks!
Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.orghttp://demandprogress.org/) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
*One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's response (if anything) is going to be? Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout, etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get community consensus for any action?
FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 13 January 2012 09:07, Paolo Massa paolo@gnuband.org wrote:
There is a dedicated website too. http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wade Mollison info@demandprogress.org Date: 2012/1/13 Subject: Wikipedia To: ""emijrp"" emijrp@gmail.com
Emily,
Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA, the Internet censorship bills. *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of complacency, and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
*Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark? Just click here.*
And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Thanks!
Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org<
http://demandprogress.org/%3E)
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions
are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
*One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a
Demand
Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Paolo Massa Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org Blog: http://gnuband.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just a quick note that it was the subject of yesterday's office hours, which includes several links to on-Wiki discussions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12
Maggie
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's response (if anything) is going to be? Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout, etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get community consensus for any action?
FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 13 January 2012 09:07, Paolo Massa paolo@gnuband.org wrote:
There is a dedicated website too. http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wade Mollison info@demandprogress.org Date: 2012/1/13 Subject: Wikipedia To: ""emijrp"" emijrp@gmail.com
Emily,
Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and PIPA, the Internet censorship bills. *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of
complacency,
and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
*Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark?
Just
click here.*
And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Thanks!
Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org<
http://demandprogress.org/%3E)
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions
are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
*One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a
Demand
Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Paolo Massa Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org Blog: http://gnuband.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case for GLAMs.
On 13 January 2012 13:27, Bastien Guerry bzg@altern.org wrote:
A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case for GLAMs.
-- Bastien
We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in their own infrastructure.
Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
-Liam
I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case for GLAMs.
-- Bastien
...
Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to
what
SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any
other
place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
And running an advance warning - a central banner saying Wikipedia or Commons go black for a day - would certainly not harm our credibility.
Cheers Yaroslav
Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com writes:
We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in their own infrastructure.
Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are just providing copies? Just wondering.
Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic.
On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry bzg@altern.org wrote:
Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com writes:
We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in their own infrastructure.
Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are just providing copies? Just wondering.
Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope that they're not giving us the only copy of the file! That would be a terrible use of their role as guardians of their country/region/city heritage to outsource their hosting costs to us and not have an in-house database!
Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic.
Any cultural organisation that is proactively donating multimedia to Wikimedia knows that we're not "merely" a host like Flickr Commons or YouTube etc. They know that there is a statement of principles, of cultural free-access, that comes with working with us. Whilst Wikipedia might have an editorial policy of Neutrality, GLAM organisations especially understand that fighting for cultural access is a non-neutral activity and requires people to take a stand. So I am not pessimistic about this potentially negatively affecting our reputation with GLAMs.
In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not. Many individuals from cultural organisations have privately told me that they appreciate how we take a stand on the non-copyrightability-of-scans (a.k.a. Bridgeman v. Corel) even though they can't say that in their official capacity. I suspect that fighting SOPA might be similar.
-Liam
Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com writes:
Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope that they're not giving us the only copy of the file!
Not the only copy... but perhaps the "only freely licensed one".
That would be a terrible use of their role as guardians of their country/region/city heritage to outsource their hosting costs to us and not have an in-house database!
Compare these two pictures:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toulouse._Caf%C3%A9_Albrighi._Juillet...
http://basededonnees.archives.toulouse.fr/4DCGI/Web_DFPict/034/51Fi1/ILUMP17...
Same pictures. The first one is free. The second one is advertized as "Tous droits réservés DIRECTION DES ARCHIVES MUNICIPALES DE TOULOUSE".
Any cultural organisation that is proactively donating multimedia to Wikimedia knows that we're not "merely" a host like Flickr Commons or YouTube etc. They know that there is a statement of principles, of cultural free-access, that comes with working with us. Whilst Wikipedia might have an editorial policy of Neutrality, GLAM organisations especially understand that fighting for cultural access is a non-neutral activity and requires people to take a stand. So I am not pessimistic about this potentially negatively affecting our reputation with GLAMs.
I agree with you here. And I was only half ironic in my previous post: I hope that GLAMs will understand the strong need to host their content on their website under a free license. And a copy on Wikipedia if they want to reach the free encyclopedia.
On 13 January 2012 09:45, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry bzg@altern.org wrote:
I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic.
...
In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not.
Indeed, there isn't much of a question where most people who work for cultural institutions stand on the issue. Let's not forget that cultural institutions, and especially libraries, are major holders of copyrighted material, and they are put in the position of trying to make it available for research and use while staying within the bounds of the law. Back in November, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries, which collectively essentially represent the profession as a whole within the United States, issued a joint statement against SOPA, which you can read here: http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf. They highlight the fact that libraries could be subject to felony criminal prosecution for unintended infringement for non-commercial purposes.
Dominic
I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on copyright issues. For example, the American Library Association enthusiastically joined us in our amicus brief on Golan v. Holder last year. While there are a few art galleries that disagree with our PD-Art policy, I think that disagreement is an exception rather than the rule when it comes to copyright issues.
Ryan Kaldari
On 1/13/12 8:24 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
On 13 January 2012 09:45, Liam Wyattliamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerrybzg@altern.org wrote:
I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic.
...
In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not.
Indeed, there isn't much of a question where most people who work for cultural institutions stand on the issue. Let's not forget that cultural institutions, and especially libraries, are major holders of copyrighted material, and they are put in the position of trying to make it available for research and use while staying within the bounds of the law. Back in November, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries, which collectively essentially represent the profession as a whole within the United States, issued a joint statement against SOPA, which you can read here:http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf. They highlight the fact that libraries could be subject to felony criminal prosecution for unintended infringement for non-commercial purposes.
Dominic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org writes:
I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on copyright issues.
I have no doubt on this.
But see my concrete real-world example, where the Archives of Toulouse uses © for pictures while commons uses free licenses. The black-out will leave only © versions in the wild. The Archives of Toulouse should fix this. I'm just being curious whether this "mistake" is a rare occurrence or something more common -- in the latter case, GLAM should rethink their strategy, and the GLAM movement should be very clear on advocating the importance of free license on top of the importance of contributing to the projets. Just a matter of priority.
On 14 January 2012 10:15, Bastien Guerry bzg@altern.org wrote:
Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org writes:
I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on copyright issues.
I have no doubt on this.
But see my concrete real-world example, where the Archives of Toulouse uses © for pictures while commons uses free licenses. The black-out will leave only © versions in the wild. The Archives of Toulouse should fix this. I'm just being curious whether this "mistake" is a rare occurrence or something more common -- in the latter case, GLAM should rethink their strategy, and the GLAM movement should be very clear on advocating the importance of free license on top of the importance of contributing to the projets. Just a matter of priority.
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
As a contributor and admin on English Wikinews, I'd be opposed to English Wikipedia consensus being used to impose anti-SOPA action on Wikinews. Of course, if Wikinews and other English projects choose to participate in the anti-SOPA actions, that's fine. If the Foundation implement enwiki consensus we get all the downsides of project independence (having to grit our teeth and welcome banned sockpuppetting trolls who enwiki have had the wisdom to ban) but without the independence to be able to decide whether to participate or not in things like the SOPA thing.
Given the popularity (or lack thereof) of sister projects like Wikinews, the possible cost of overriding project independence isn't worth the benefit in having some minor sites taken offline in solidarity. (Plus, Wikinews might want to cover the reactions to the Wikipedia shut-down. :P )
On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
AIUI this is the case - it's a per-wiki, community-driven initiative.
- d.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
Cheers Yaroslav
On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described. 'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal. Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual (Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).
To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is not binding on Commons. ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Svip svippy@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org
wrote:
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described. 'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal. Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual (Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A short note on an individual basis of my own (not community's behalf):
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is not binding on Commons.
Fine but it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider if each other community, specially English language ones, joins the action the English Wikipedia community is now discussing and developing, or for the English Wikipedia community to ask the other projects to call for participation of her action.
Slightly OT but I wish someone leaves a neat comment during the discussion on SOPA, copyright, US legislative in general or anything worth to quote so that we at Wikiquote would love to cite later, and oh belated happy birthday big sister Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Svip svippy@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org
wrote:
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described. 'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal. Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual (Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Le 14/01/2012 08:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter a écrit :
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on enwiki).
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the English sister projects.
Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
What about serving only one image, always the same: "this is what happens when internet is censored", on a black background? Much more impact than shutting down Commons.
Bastien Guerry wrote:
A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
I think this would make a much better CentralNotice banner...
Apparently there's now a vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action.
Not sure why there's a vote. Or why, if you're going to have a vote, you'd use MediaWiki...
MZMcBride
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's response (if anything) is going to be? Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout, etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get community consensus for any action?
FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?
-Liam
Hey Liam and all,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action for an RFC page on what (if any) community action to take, and when.
-- phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org