Forwarding, as this doesn't yet seem to have made it through from the Announce list (possibly because of the HTML content; but trying anyway. The message can also be read at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2012-August/000450.... ).
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.org To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:34:05 -0700 Subject: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline Hi all,
Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics. That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a review process in place, especially where there is strong community interest in an issue.
To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political Affiliations Guidelinehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guidelineto clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and political issues. This guideline is an internal “rule of thumb” covering requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
We are also establishing an open Advocacy Advisory Group to provide a community venue to discuss political and legislative developments worldwide that affect our mission, such as censorship laws and proposals that seek to restrict a free and open Internet.
The new guideline incorporates consultation with the Advocacy Advisory Group into the review process. With the most important cases, WMF will also seek a community Request for Commentshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RFC(RfC) for consultation or consensus.
We encourage community members interested in political and policy issues to join the Advocacy Advisory Group, and members should feel free to apply to be moderators. You can join the advisory group here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors .
If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on the talk page. You can find the guideline at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
Cheers,
Geoff
Geoff Brigham General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
Geoff Brigham wrote:
Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics. That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a review process in place, especially where there is strong community interest in an issue.
To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political Affiliations Guidelinehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guidelineto clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and political issues. This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
MZMcBride
Hi MZ -
I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't impact community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to the Foundation. It seems logical that there be a uniform process for routing those internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the community what that process is. The alternative is to have no policy for handling it and make it up every time.
Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out at the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or adjust the policy in some way?
PB ----------------------- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Geoff Brigham wrote:
Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics. That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a review process in place, especially where there is strong community interest in an issue.
To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political Affiliations Guidelinehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guidelineto clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and political issues. This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
There has been discussion about this in the past.
To second Philippe's comment: A uniform process makes sense. In practice, most of the advocacy or policy positions of the WMF have for years taken the form of amicus briefs. And positions the WMF takes on behalf of promoting, preserving, or collaborating on free knowledge fall under the mandate of the LCA team (since this spring).
So we're starting from a position where that team has the most experience and day-to-day concern with such positions. And there is no t yet an organized community body that tracks such things - despite the idea of an advocacy advisory group.
I do think there are quite a lot of different staff with "approval" in the current guideline. Must it be so time-consuming? And I would love to see the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and responsibility to non-staff groups. We have no shortage of energy, talent, and experience there in the community.
SJ
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation < pbeaudette@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi MZ -
I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't impact community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to the Foundation. It seems logical that there be a uniform process for routing those internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the community what that process is. The alternative is to have no policy for handling it and make it up every time.
Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out at the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or adjust the policy in some way?
PB
Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Geoff Brigham wrote:
Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics. That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a review process in place, especially where there is strong community interest in an issue.
To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are
involved
in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and political issues. This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 8/2/12 7:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
And I would love to see the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and responsibility to non-staff groups. We have no shortage of energy, talent, and experience there in the community.
In addition, there's a fairly well-organized set of advocacy groups in related areas (Creative Commons, FSF, EFF), who perhaps some of the work could be delegated to? There would still be a need for a process to decide when Wikimedia should do things such as agreeing to sign on to an EFF amicus brief. But imo it makes sense to leave most of the legwork to advocacy organizations who focus on it.
-Mark
On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel.
Um ... that's a bizarre perception.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General Counsel.
Um ... that's a bizarre perception.
Is it?
I read through the page at Meta-Wiki and couldn't help but notice that every involvement required the approval of the General Counsel. I read the linked Board resolution (https://wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affiliations) and looked around wikimediafoundation.org and Meta-Wiki trying to find a resolution or vote that directed the General Counsel to develop this kind of policy, but didn't find anything.
Philippe seemed to suggest that there's a distinction between outside groups approaching the Wikimedia Foundation for support and the community making its own requests. The distinction seems incredibly murky and doesn't seem likely to become clearer over time.
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
MZMcBride
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question.
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Brandon Harris wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question.
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community initiative" or not?
Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012 SOPA blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is this correct?
The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me, especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days.
MZMcBride
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Brandon Harris wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in
November
2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question.
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
into
existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community initiative" or not?
Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012 SOPA blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is this correct?
My sense is that the statement is written as a response to the overtures that have been made to the WMF since the January 2012 SOPA blackout. Like many people outside of the WMF umbrella (and quite a few inside it, as well, based on comments we see regularly), it seems that many of these advocacy groups believe that WMF=Wikipedia. Those of us "in the know" understand that there's an awful lot more that is involved, and that there are widely divergent opinions on many issues between projects and within the broader community.
It's easy to forget (in fact, most people have forgotten) that the English Wikipedia community had been discussing some form of action in relation to SOPA for almost two months before the blackout. The Italian Wikipedia blackout in late 2011 demonstrated some significant fault lines if a large project suddenly closes up shop; because of this, I think the WMF justifiably had an interest in ensuring that if the English Wikipedia community followed suit, it was done in a controlled way that would not cause short-term or long-term harm to the actual project. I'm not talking "reputational harm", but damage to the hardware, software, and data that are integral to the project.
The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me, especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days.
Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to be an "outside group", whereas an initiative from one or more WMF communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall under these guidelines. The recent request for comment with respect to the Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would fall within this guideline, I think.
I think your questions illustrate the need for improving some of the prose within the guideline so that these issues are clear to future readers, both inside and outside of our broader community. It's quite possible that my own interpretation is off the mark as well.
Risker/Anne
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me
Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to be an "outside group", whereas an initiative from one or more WMF communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall under these guidelines. The recent request for comment with respect to the Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would fall within this guideline, I think.
That is my reading of it as well.
Are there guidelines or discussions on it:wp or en:wp about how to handling future community initiatives?
SJ
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community initiative" or not?
The community's decision to blackout a project would not be within this guideline, but any additional WMF resources would require legal and financial review. There are strict laws in the U.S. that limit when a non-profit organization may engage in political and legislative activity, and it is the General Counsel and CFA's duty to ensure that the WMF complies with those laws. The community has procedures for determining consensus for action, and most of the time the community can implement that action without any additional resources from the WMF.
On 8/3/2012 10:47 AM, Stephen LaPorte wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community initiative" or not?
The community's decision to blackout a project would not be within this guideline, but any additional WMF resources would require legal and financial review. There are strict laws in the U.S. that limit when a non-profit organization may engage in political and legislative activity, and it is the General Counsel and CFA's duty to ensure that the WMF complies with those laws. The community has procedures for determining consensus for action, and most of the time the community can implement that action without any additional resources from the WMF.
Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist yet, but Geoff was actively involved and I believe the staff was generally quite conscious of the limitations on what they should do in their official capacity. There's always room for honest disagreement about whether the protest was desirable or necessary, but just in terms of the process, I think things were entirely appropriately handled.
I agree that the community retains the authority to reach its own decisions about future actions of this type. I think the policy should be understood primarily as something the foundation will adhere to in its operations, not something that regulates the community's autonomy.
--Michael Snow
On 3 August 2012 19:12, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
I agree that the community retains the authority to reach its own decisions about future actions of this type. I think the policy should be understood primarily as something the foundation will adhere to in its operations, not something that regulates the community's autonomy.
And, arguably: disabling Italian or Russian Wikipedia (which are very sizable and popular sites) did not require as much WMF coordination as disabling English Wikipedia, which remains around a third, IIRC, of our size, load and readership - that took much more serious technical consideration, and the Foundation is the relevant body.
- d.
Stephen LaPorte wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community initiative" or not?
The community's decision to blackout a project would not be within this guideline, but any additional WMF resources would require legal and financial review. There are strict laws in the U.S. that limit when a non-profit organization may engage in political and legislative activity, and it is the General Counsel and CFA's duty to ensure that the WMF complies with those laws. The community has procedures for determining consensus for action, and most of the time the community can implement that action without any additional resources from the WMF.
Thank you for this reply. It was helpful.
There's still a disconnect for me between what's being said on this mailing list and on the Meta-Wiki talk page and what's being written in this new statement. What I'm hearing being said is that this _internal_ policy is mostly a guide for legal reasons to avoid trouble for the Wikimedia Foundation, its employees, and its non-profit status under U.S. law. If so, wouldn't the policy mostly be a matter of "ask the General Counsel's office whether involvement in a particular action would be legally problematic"?
This policy seems to extend far beyond "what _can_ the Wikimedia Foundation legally involve itself in?" and by requiring Board approval and community approval (sometimes), seems to be a policy about what _should_ the Wikimedia Foundation be involving itself in. Is this accurate?
This is where I see the disconnect. If it's simply a matter of keeping Wikimedia out of trouble with the IRS, there are simple legal tests that have no relevance as to whether there's Board approval or community approval or the approval of the Head of Communications or anything of that nature, right?
Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's mission? This is what's confusing me.
People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki have seemed to suggest that you would _want_ this type of policy to cover administrator actions as administrators are often unelected and hold lifetime appointments.
It's completely possible that it's just me, but something still isn't adding up in my head when I consider this policy and what exactly it covers and does not cover.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's mission? This is what's confusing me.
People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki have seemed to suggest that you would _want_ this type of policy to cover administrator actions as administrators are often unelected and hold lifetime appointments.
It's completely possible that it's just me, but something still isn't adding up in my head when I consider this policy and what exactly it covers and does not cover.
I'd suggest what you're struggling with may be the impression that someone very much *wants* Wikimedia or Wikipedia to lobby for political causes. I wouldn't even be surprised if the idea that Wikimedia should have a community advocacy department was suggested by some of Wikimedia's partners and sponsors.
Basically, Wikipedia has enough traffic to be a top-ten website. So if Wikipedia says or does something, it's noticed by a heck of a lot of people. The job of the Advocacy Advisory Group seems to be to make sure that "the community" says the right thing.
Several of the six decision types listed on the proposed policy page, e.g. "Collaborative Advocacy" (collaborating with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question) and "Limited Trademark Endorsement" (permitting another organization to use the Wikimedia name and trademark to promote a policy or political cause), require neither board input nor wider community input, just consultation of the AAG.
As I said on the proposed policy's talk page, that Advocacy Advisory Group is an odd thing. On the one hand, the proposed policy insists the AAG is a community organ, implying it is not under the Foundation's control. On the other hand, though, the proposed policy says the group is "managed by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department", which is part of the Foundation. So what does that mean? And who is in this group? Its name is hyperlinked to yet another mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg Group, using Google as its tool, has subverted the movement for its own aim of global domination.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest what you're struggling with may be the impression that someone very much *wants* Wikimedia or Wikipedia to lobby for political causes. I wouldn't even be surprised if the idea that Wikimedia should have a community advocacy department was suggested by some of Wikimedia's partners and sponsors.
Basically, Wikipedia has enough traffic to be a top-ten website. So if Wikipedia says or does something, it's noticed by a heck of a lot of people. The job of the Advocacy Advisory Group seems to be to make sure that "the community" says the right thing.
Several of the six decision types listed on the proposed policy page, e.g. "Collaborative Advocacy" (collaborating with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question) and "Limited Trademark Endorsement" (permitting another organization to use the Wikimedia name and trademark to promote a policy or political cause), require neither board input nor wider community input, just consultation of the AAG.
As I said on the proposed policy's talk page, that Advocacy Advisory Group is an odd thing. On the one hand, the proposed policy insists the AAG is a community organ, implying it is not under the Foundation's control. On the other hand, though, the proposed policy says the group is "managed by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department", which is part of the Foundation. So what does that mean? And who is in this group? Its name is hyperlinked to yet another mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
<lots of stuff>
Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something like this with Google?
Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?
Risker/Anne
Well, if you don't see a problem, please explain how you see the matter.
Who is the advocacy advisory group, and why is it said that they (a) represent the community's voice and (b) are managed by a Foundation department?
I presume the underlying idea of the policy is that there should be checks and balances. The Foundation and the community are supposed to balance each other, in some sense. But there is something odd about a proposed policy that says that the Foundation has to consult only one community organ – one which is "managed" by the Foundation – and that the community proper will only be consulted "if there is time" (a vague expression if ever I've heard one).
In addition, the proposed policy says that everything it says in it may be ignored at will, for it ends with the sentence,
"WMF reserves the right to deviate from this policy depending on the circumstances. The General Counsel must approve any such deviation."
So, per this policy, the combined weight and value of over a decade's worth of contributions by tens of thousands of volunteers with completely disparate political views can be thrown behind any political cause just as long as the General Counsel approves. Great! What do you think of that?
Andreas
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
<lots of stuff>
Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something like this with Google?
Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directedit into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
Yeah, and I remember how users were directed (by WMF staff, wasn't it?) to stop marking votes by single-purpose accounts and IPs, as is common in every other minor community discussion in the English Wikipedia. SPA and IP votes are routinely discounted in garden-variety AfDs. But they counted in the blackout vote.
It's a fact, and quite unprecedented. Why?
And the timeline of the Italian blackout in October, the half-a-million-dollar Google donation in November, the first Wikimedia endorsement of the Google position, also in November, and the subsequent SOPA blackout in January, are what they are.
Politicians may protest, "Oh, my lobbying for Mr Rich had nothing to do with the $500,000 they gave me at about the time I started lobbying for them". But people generally aren't stupid.
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration in return for what has been given is disgusting.
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in
November
2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.
This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true, perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not morally true.
We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration in return for what has been given is disgusting.
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening the stall today."
So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars ...
One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well and truly been lost.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.
This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true, perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not morally true.
We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent
my
work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi,
Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick.
Then I don't think people here are misinformed as you says. You may question that the blackout was the best strategy, but there was a public debate and vote about it.
Finally, I don't think there is anything unethical about fighting against SOPA. Quite the contrary IMO.
Yann
2012/8/3 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com:
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening the stall today."
So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars ...
One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well and truly been lost.
(warning, tl;dr!) ** *@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I don't agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law - one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like some read science fiction or fanbooks. It doesn't mean in any way I'm expert but I read draft legislation. So I'm not dependent on any WMF writer to assist on that.
NPOV works well in articles with divided views, and suggests a good approach is to characterise the issue and the divisions. In that spirit, my attempt to fairly bridge the gap and explain where I see things diverging:
1. Some bring stolen goods to the party, we can agree. In this case that means that some people breach copyright in a severe way online, which can fairly be characterised as theft if one ignores technicalities such as the minority of countries that don't make it a crime. In the vast majority we can agree it's theft in all jurisdictions. So yes, theft takes place. We can agree it's significant, though in the context of global trade and dubious "facts"there's a big dispute about the impact. 2. *(Evidence: The UK govt review of copyright theft online, Hargreaves or something, I may have edited it, certainly read it, said of the various studies into online piracy that most were figures based on unproven assumptions, or plucked from the air, or something of that kind, and that not one study could be found that was actually reliable in the sense of unbiased fair and methodically rigourous conclusions)*. 3. Theft in general web-wide was never the reason or issue for the protests by Wikimedians, or the WMF's involvement. It was not at any time a purported reason why *_Wikimedians_ *objected through *_this_ *site.There was never a plausible claim that Wikimedian protest was even slightly motivated by a wish to retain the ability of other sites to continue crime. 4. As regards Wikimedia itself and its community, as far as I can tell, both have very strong views that theft (ie copyvio) should not be allowed on this site. I see no evidence that parts of the regular/established/core/active community have an agenda to improve our project's use, or ability to use, copyvio material, see no evidence anyone here tries to turn a blind eye to it. We already have community policies that set standards far higher than the law requires. 5. Is it therefore fair to characterize the objections to SOPA/PIPA as "we want to do illegal things, someone wants to stop us, and we don't want that"? I can't see how that's sustainable. 6. I have the impression your complaint is that Wikimedians may have protested on grounds that were (a) not well founded in that in your view, the suggested risks were inaccurate, and (b) in protesting they chose to overlook harm elsewhere which these laws could have improved. 7. I think it's fair to characterize the objections of individual users en masse and how they felt as, "We don't want to do illegal things, but illegal things may be done or claimed wrongly to be done, or actions threatened on the assertion of illegality. If this law passes, that could cause some things to be shut down for bad faith reasons or mistake without recompense, or legal concerns to have a chilling effect, and we don't want that"? 8. They could be correct or incorrect to have that concern. I'm looking here at what individual Wikimedians like me, supporting the protest, may have believed and felt. In other words, were Wikimedian community protesters acting from a good faith belief there was a real concern, or in bad faith to gain by pretence a means to allow crime to occur? I think the former. 9. As supporting evidence I also note that the objections were not to the basic princviple of cutting off piracy. They were to matters that would allow harm without good cause. It targeted DNS issues where the markup committee had admitted they didn't know what technical issues would arise. It targeted shut down without fair hearing, and immunity for bad faith or mistake, no matter the harm done. Those could have been fixed. In the alternative OPEN bill, they generally were. One can judge the protests' intent by the points protested about. Whether or not that concern was well-founded, it was a good faith concern by individual members of the community expressing concerns.
From your complaints and descriptions, it's *not* that the projects offer
things "without consideration" as you suggested first. We do expect and require consideration, such as attribution and license compliance in return (see above). It's *not* that we give on the basis of "No strings" and later make demands - see above, giving does not imply indifference and doesn't exclude the right to say "we see a problem here, please don't let that problem happen". It *isn't* that we are hosting a giant volunteer party and noticing some goods brought to be given away are stolen and we want to ensure that can continue - we have rigorous standards and there's no evidence people want to have looser ones or turn a blind eye to breaches.
Your stated issues so far - that something was given and later had conditions added, or stolen material is covertly desired to be usable - really dont stack up. What I *_think_* your *real** *issue is, is that you feel the impact of SOPA/PIPA was exaggerated and it would not have had the stated effects, and you feel the natural and rightful concern of community members to protect freedoms and free speech and user-created sites, was manipulated or given "spin" to motivate action which protected rights that (in your view) werent at risk in the ways suggested. In the worst case scenario, you suggest such manipulation, or spin, was driven by large internet businesses and their links to WMF.
So maybe your *real *question is, were the legal analysis and the proposed fears, significant/realistic, or were they manipulated, spun, and "sold" to community members. That's a fair question. *If the analysis was valid*then the community acted in good faith and with good reason. *If the analysis was invalid* then the community acted in good faith but was "sold" the idea on false or exaggerated grounds, perhaps to benefit others' business (in your suggestion). It comes down to the validity of legal analysis.
What is *not *fair is suggesting *the protests by mass Wikimedians* was somehow intended either to support theft, or to impose demands related to material understood to ave been freely gifted with no strings.
If that's close, then can you comment so far and we'll carry on.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening the stall today."
So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars ...
One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well and truly been lost.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's
not
the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of
this
knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and
often
to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further
humanity.
This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's
the
same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally
true,
perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not morally true.
We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge
and
humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us
putting
this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming
the
ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely
ethical
and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply
resent
my
work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to
listen
to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I am not sure that needed to be that prolix. :) But yes, let's tease out some things:
1. Wikimedia projects have quite strongly worded policies against copyright violations. Many volunteer editors make good-faith efforts to uphold them. Many other editors, knowingly or unknowingly, break them, and the Wikiproject that deals with infringing contributors has a very large backlog. In Commons, assertions that materials are "free" are not infrequently unreliable.
2. I am concerned that the dangers of SOPA to Wikipedia were apparently overstated for psychological effect.
3. I am concerned that users were told to stop marking single-purpose accounts and IP editors in the – rather rushed – SOPA poll.
4. I am concerned at the whole timeline that began with a successful and spontaneous Italian blackout protesting proposed legislation there, then moved, via a large Wikimedia donation from Sergey Brin and his wife, to official Wikimedia endorsements of Google's (and other large corporations') anti-SOPA initiative, and the equally successful English Wikipedia blackout.
Let's remember that this was an unprecedented, very public departure from a policy of neutrality that had served Wikimedia well for many years. I don't think that paste will ever go back in the tube.
5. I am convinced that, as you say, many Wikipedians supported the blackout in good faith, because they thought SOPA would "hurt Wikipedia". That's what they were told, after all. And if they believed it was necessary for Wikipedia's survival, why wouldn't they?
6. As for "supporting theft", I am certain that there are a fair number of Wikipedians who do support what is presently "theft", or, to put it differently, who support copyright reform and decriminalisation of various types of copyright infringement that are illegal today. For God's sake, Jimbo himself has been campaigning for a dude who put "fuck the police" on his new website when his old one was shut down by law enforcement, and generously said that same dude reminds him "of many great Internet entrepreneurs". Wonderful.
7. When I joined this project, political neutrality was one of its main pillars. Internet regulation is a party-political issue today, at least in Europe, where the Pirate Party is burgeoning. I don't see blackouts to protest Internet legislation as any different from blackouts to support or oppose any other type of legislation along party-political lines. In my view, Wikimedians who want to campaign should do so in their own names, and take pains to disassociate Wikimedia (or Wikipedia) from their stance if their association with Wikimedia is well known.
8. We've had this talk in the past about how Wikipedia is a "temple for the mind", unsullied by political and commercial interests. It doesn't look that way any more, if it ever did.
You see, I *liked* some of those ideals (if not necessarily the practice).
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
(warning, tl;dr!) ** *@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I don't agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law
- one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an
area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like some read science fiction or fanbooks. It doesn't mean in any way I'm expert but I read draft legislation. So I'm not dependent on any WMF writer to assist on that.
NPOV works well in articles with divided views, and suggests a good approach is to characterise the issue and the divisions. In that spirit, my attempt to fairly bridge the gap and explain where I see things diverging:
- Some bring stolen goods to the party, we can agree. In this case that
means that some people breach copyright in a severe way online, which can fairly be characterised as theft if one ignores technicalities such as the minority of countries that don't make it a crime. In the vast majority we can agree it's theft in all jurisdictions. So yes, theft takes place. We can agree it's significant, though in the context of global trade and dubious "facts"there's a big dispute about the impact. 2. *(Evidence: The UK govt review of copyright theft online, Hargreaves or something, I may have edited it, certainly read it, said of the various studies into online piracy that most were figures based on unproven assumptions, or plucked from the air, or something of that kind, and that not one study could be found that was actually reliable in the sense of unbiased fair and methodically rigourous conclusions)*. 3. Theft in general web-wide was never the reason or issue for the protests by Wikimedians, or the WMF's involvement. It was not at any time a purported reason why *_Wikimedians_ *objected through *_this_ *site.There was never a plausible claim that Wikimedian protest was even slightly motivated by a wish to retain the ability of other sites to continue crime. 4. As regards Wikimedia itself and its community, as far as I can tell, both have very strong views that theft (ie copyvio) should not be allowed on this site. I see no evidence that parts of the regular/established/core/active community have an agenda to improve our project's use, or ability to use, copyvio material, see no evidence anyone here tries to turn a blind eye to it. We already have community policies that set standards far higher than the law requires. 5. Is it therefore fair to characterize the objections to SOPA/PIPA as "we want to do illegal things, someone wants to stop us, and we don't want that"? I can't see how that's sustainable. 6. I have the impression your complaint is that Wikimedians may have protested on grounds that were (a) not well founded in that in your view, the suggested risks were inaccurate, and (b) in protesting they chose to overlook harm elsewhere which these laws could have improved. 7. I think it's fair to characterize the objections of individual users en masse and how they felt as, "We don't want to do illegal things, but illegal things may be done or claimed wrongly to be done, or actions threatened on the assertion of illegality. If this law passes, that could cause some things to be shut down for bad faith reasons or mistake without recompense, or legal concerns to have a chilling effect, and we don't want that"? 8. They could be correct or incorrect to have that concern. I'm looking here at what individual Wikimedians like me, supporting the protest, may have believed and felt. In other words, were Wikimedian community protesters acting from a good faith belief there was a real concern, or in bad faith to gain by pretence a means to allow crime to occur? I think the former. 9. As supporting evidence I also note that the objections were not to the basic princviple of cutting off piracy. They were to matters that would allow harm without good cause. It targeted DNS issues where the markup committee had admitted they didn't know what technical issues would arise. It targeted shut down without fair hearing, and immunity for bad faith or mistake, no matter the harm done. Those could have been fixed. In the alternative OPEN bill, they generally were. One can judge the protests' intent by the points protested about. Whether or not that concern was well-founded, it was a good faith concern by individual members of the community expressing concerns.
From your complaints and descriptions, it's *not* that the projects offer things "without consideration" as you suggested first. We do expect and require consideration, such as attribution and license compliance in return (see above). It's *not* that we give on the basis of "No strings" and later make demands - see above, giving does not imply indifference and doesn't exclude the right to say "we see a problem here, please don't let that problem happen". It *isn't* that we are hosting a giant volunteer party and noticing some goods brought to be given away are stolen and we want to ensure that can continue - we have rigorous standards and there's no evidence people want to have looser ones or turn a blind eye to breaches.
Your stated issues so far - that something was given and later had conditions added, or stolen material is covertly desired to be usable - really dont stack up. What I *_think_* your *real** *issue is, is that you feel the impact of SOPA/PIPA was exaggerated and it would not have had the stated effects, and you feel the natural and rightful concern of community members to protect freedoms and free speech and user-created sites, was manipulated or given "spin" to motivate action which protected rights that (in your view) werent at risk in the ways suggested. In the worst case scenario, you suggest such manipulation, or spin, was driven by large internet businesses and their links to WMF.
So maybe your *real *question is, were the legal analysis and the proposed fears, significant/realistic, or were they manipulated, spun, and "sold" to community members. That's a fair question. *If the analysis was valid*then the community acted in good faith and with good reason. *If the analysis was invalid* then the community acted in good faith but was "sold" the idea on false or exaggerated grounds, perhaps to benefit others' business (in your suggestion). It comes down to the validity of legal analysis.
What is *not *fair is suggesting *the protests by mass Wikimedians* was somehow intended either to support theft, or to impose demands related to material understood to ave been freely gifted with no strings.
If that's close, then can you comment so far and we'll carry on.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made.
And
some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market
stall
says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass
a
law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening the stall today."
So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought
them
in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the
goodwill
these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting
what
the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper,
you
don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your
market
stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars ...
One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how
the
community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about
what
SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was
at
least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has
well
and truly been lost.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's
not
the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of
this
knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met
in
return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't
donating
our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and
often
to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further
humanity.
This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's
the
same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to
me
so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally
true,
perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps
not
morally true.
We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent
to
whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge
and
humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough
that
we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us
putting
this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming
the
ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely
ethical
and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for
dolphins
pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply
resent
my
work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how
"We
gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to
listen
to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Long as it's getting top-posted anyway...
First, copying is not and cannot be theft. That's not to say it's always legally or ethically acceptable, mind you, but it's not theft. In legal terms, there was a court case over that particular matter, that ruled someone could not be charged on a "transporting stolen goods" charge for transporting pirated records. He was still convicted of criminal copyright infringement, of course, but it was ruled that pirate records are not "stolen". Philosophically, if you still -have- what you claim I "stole" from you...that doesn't make much sense, does it?
That aside, let's go back to your hypothetical food bank. What we're saying isn't "Oh, we really DGAF if people (stole|infringed) stuff." Anyone who's worked on Wikipedia knows we absolutely do not tolerate copyright infringements and nuke them on sight, and on repeat offenses, we happily nuke the offenders right along with. So it's more equivalent to your food bank saying "Look, when we realize the goods are stolen, we immediately return them as soon as possible, and if someone keeps bringing us stolen goods we don't allow them back. But sometimes people unwrap the apple pies and donate them to disguise what they're doing, in other cases, supermarkets happily donate some apple pies with the wrapping still on, and in yet other cases, someone's donating some apple pies they bought from the supermarket, with or without the wrapping. We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on balance what we do is good even if something bad occasionally slips through, so we can't support that law. And indeed, since this strikes at the core of what we do and could shut us down entirely, we must do everything in our power to fight the law, including energizing those who use our services to speak up against it."
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening the stall today."
So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars ...
One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well and truly been lost.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration. Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply * indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free knowledge. There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.
This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true, perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not morally true.
We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent
my
work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen to what we have to tell you".
A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on balance what we do is good even if something bad occasionally slips through, so we can't support that law. And indeed, since this strikes at the core of what we do and could shut us down entirely, we must do everything in our power to fight the law, including energizing those who use our services to speak up against it."
That wasn't the situation though, was it? Just quoting Tim here:
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
- Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.*
Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an 'Internet search engine'".
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
The definition was:
"The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but even if it did, what would be the consequences?
"A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link."
Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an "internet site" that would be specified under such a court order is:
"[T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address."
We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.
Maybe SOPA was a "serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence.
---o0o---
So we were talking about Wikipedia – if indeed Wikipedia could legally be considered a "search engine", which seems a stretch – being given five (5) days to convert any direct hyperlinks they were specifically advised of by court order into just alphanumeric, non-clickable links. No?
So all the talk about "If Wikipedia had had just one infringing link on it, they could have shut us down entirely" looks like a bunch of scaremongering nonsense you bought.
Now, who *does* operate a search engine, and would have incurred some extra costs here?
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the "reflection" about the blackout was posted to meta?
It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that already happened and no one can change.
I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in circles and finger pointing. It's tiring, reads like some conspiracy theory and seems to be losing any traction of game changing that it could.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts, as many of us do, I just think they are best preserved on wiki where the majority of participants in the blackout hangout (most aren't active on mailing lists) and can participate in this analysis with you.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on balance what we do is good even if something bad occasionally slips through, so we can't support that law. And indeed, since this strikes at the core of what we do and could shut us down entirely, we must do everything in our power to fight the law, including energizing those who use our services to speak up against it."
That wasn't the situation though, was it? Just quoting Tim here:
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
- Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.*
Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an 'Internet search engine'".
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
The definition was:
"The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but even if it did, what would be the consequences?
"A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link."
Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an "internet site" that would be specified under such a court order is:
"[T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address."
We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.
Maybe SOPA was a "serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence.
---o0o---
So we were talking about Wikipedia – if indeed Wikipedia could legally be considered a "search engine", which seems a stretch – being given five (5) days to convert any direct hyperlinks they were specifically advised of by court order into just alphanumeric, non-clickable links. No?
So all the talk about "If Wikipedia had had just one infringing link on it, they could have shut us down entirely" looks like a bunch of scaremongering nonsense you bought.
Now, who *does* operate a search engine, and would have incurred some extra costs here? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Could we please get back to the subject here?
That would be discussing the proposed guideline[1] instead of dissecting a historical event.
I note that there is quite a bit of commentary on the talk page, and perhaps it would be best if further discussion continues in that central location.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
Sarah,
Well, for one I was not aware that there was a "reflection" about the blackout posted on Meta. A link would be appreciated. Thanks.
Secondly, four or five months ago I would not have been aware of various events on the timeline that preceded the blackout.
Third, this is an ongoing situation, as the subject of this very thread is the proposed policy defining when and how further action like that could be taken.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
Regards,
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the "reflection" about the blackout was posted to meta?
It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that already happened and no one can change.
I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in circles and finger pointing. It's tiring, reads like some conspiracy theory and seems to be losing any traction of game changing that it could.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts, as many of us do, I just think they are best preserved on wiki where the majority of participants in the blackout hangout (most aren't active on mailing lists) and can participate in this analysis with you.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on balance what we do is good even if something bad occasionally slips through, so we can't support that law. And indeed, since this strikes at the core of what we do and could shut us down entirely, we must do everything in our power to fight the law, including energizing those who use our services to speak up against it."
That wasn't the situation though, was it? Just quoting Tim here:
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
- Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.*
Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an 'Internet search engine'".
<
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wik...
The definition was:
"The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but even if it did, what would be the consequences?
"A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link."
Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an "internet site" that would be specified under such a court order is:
"[T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address."
We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.
Maybe SOPA was a "serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence.
---o0o---
So we were talking about Wikipedia – if indeed Wikipedia could legally be considered a "search engine", which seems a stretch – being given five (5) days to convert any direct hyperlinks they were specifically advised of by court order into just alphanumeric, non-clickable links. No?
So all the talk about "If Wikipedia had had just one infringing link on it, they could have shut us down entirely" looks like a bunch of scaremongering nonsense you bought.
Now, who *does* operate a search engine, and would have incurred some extra costs here? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi -
Actually, it looks like there are a few places where people can share their thoughts, etc. about SOPA/Blackoutness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
and other things related but not:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Project-wide_protests https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_agendas https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Advocacy_Agenda (which it looks like you can get involved in!)
I'm sure there are other things too. Risker said it best - let's stick on topic instead of going off on tangents. Perhaps even having a place to discuss WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guidelines is ideal. Oh wait, there is ;)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
As you just shared! Again, this is more inclusive and it can bring your concerns to a broader audience who might not be on this mailing list. Ciao!
-Sarah
On 8/3/12 1:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Sarah,
Well, for one I was not aware that there was a "reflection" about the blackout posted on Meta. A link would be appreciated. Thanks.
Secondly, four or five months ago I would not have been aware of various events on the timeline that preceded the blackout.
Third, this is an ongoing situation, as the subject of this very thread is the proposed policy defining when and how further action like that could be taken.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
Regards,
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the "reflection" about the blackout was posted to meta?
It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that already happened and no one can change.
I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in circles and finger pointing. It's tiring, reads like some conspiracy theory and seems to be losing any traction of game changing that it could.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts, as many of us do, I just think they are best preserved on wiki where the majority of participants in the blackout hangout (most aren't active on mailing lists) and can participate in this analysis with you.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on balance what we do is good even if something bad occasionally slips through, so we can't support that law. And indeed, since this strikes at the core of what we do and could shut us down entirely, we must do everything in our power to fight the law, including energizing those who use our services to speak up against it."
That wasn't the situation though, was it? Just quoting Tim here:
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
- Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.*
Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an 'Internet search engine'".
<
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wik...
The definition was:
"The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but even if it did, what would be the consequences?
"A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link."
Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an "internet site" that would be specified under such a court order is:
"[T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address."
We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.
Maybe SOPA was a "serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence.
---o0o---
So we were talking about Wikipedia – if indeed Wikipedia could legally be considered a "search engine", which seems a stretch – being given five (5) days to convert any direct hyperlinks they were specifically advised of by court order into just alphanumeric, non-clickable links. No?
So all the talk about "If Wikipedia had had just one infringing link on it, they could have shut us down entirely" looks like a bunch of scaremongering nonsense you bought.
Now, who *does* operate a search engine, and would have incurred some extra costs here? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites. On the 14th of December Creative Commons was also calling for a blackout/action over SOPA. Whether you realize it or not you were manipulated by mega-corporations to stick it to the musicians, photographers, and authors, so that said corporations could better profit from the theft of their works.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
On the 14th of December Creative Commons was also calling for a blackout/action over SOPA.
I wrote the December 14 post and an earlier one on the subject November 11, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30836 and http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30375 respectively and started the conversation inside CC about joining other blackouts in January. Nobody on the CC board prompted these things. They were notified and didn't give any pushback to CC staff AFAICT.
Whether you realize it or not you were manipulated by mega-corporations to stick it to the musicians, photographers, and authors, so that said corporations could better profit from the theft of their works.
It is true that I did not wear a tinfoil hat continuously throughout the period above.
Mike
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
You have two board members that are closely associated with or paid by Google. One of which is a development manager for YouTube which we know from the viacom case, originally built its business from copyright infringing content, the scale of which was known by Google when they bought YouTube. You have as vice-chair the mother in law of one of Google's co-founders, a company that was fined $500 million for profiting from illegal counterfeit drug sales. A company that embarked on a massive scofflaw exercise in the scanning of copyright works in the hope that they could build a de-facto monopoly by stiffing the majority of copyright owners with side deal with a couple of large publishing companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/technology/23google.html
Given that SOPA attacked a part of the Google revenue stream: profiting from advertising on pirate and counterfeit good sites, and that SOPA had no effect on US websites. Criticism of Google funded US based organisations that worked to oppose legislation that did not affect themselves but their sponsors is entirely justified.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
You have two board members that are closely associated with or paid by Google. One of which is a development manager for YouTube
I see, you mean https://creativecommons.org/board#glenn who moved on to Twitter almost a year and a half ago. Someone will update that listing appropriately.
Mike
On 04/08/2012 00:44, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
You have two board members that are closely associated with or paid by Google. One of which is a development manager for YouTube
I see, you mean https://creativecommons.org/board#glenn who moved on to Twitter almost a year and a half ago. Someone will update that listing appropriately.
When I'm on committees and such like we swap email addresses, and contact details, and what is astonishing those contact details don't all change simple because someone has moved on elsewhere.
I note that also on the board you have listed three members from the Berkman Center, and Google provides 10% of all the Corporate Funding of that organisation. Direct corporate donations to Creative Commons are I believe dominated by large companies whose interests are similarly aligned with Google.
The issue here isn't that there is some smoking gun of direct corruption where people are told to do the Emperor's bidding, but that the antecedence of a SOPA boycott on wikipedia came 1 day after a CC board meeting the members of whom are Google friendly.
For legitimate content creators and filesharers in the US, SOPA held no worries, for the mega corporations of the internet that derive a large part of their income from infringing content, SOPA could be seen as a problem. Both wikipedia and Creative Commons sided with the Fat Cat's against the interests of the small content creators. In the case of Wikipedia the justification for doing so was tenuous in the extreme.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some discussion on his question.
This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me.
I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog.
Birgitte SB
On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
Good question. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the
General
Counsel.
Um ... that's a bizarre perception.
Well, just look at the number of scenarios where the democratically elected board is entirely out of the loop, or at best (possibly) consulted.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org