Hello,
Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information.
According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not.
Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia.
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours.
Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:16:41 +0530 From: Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Hi
There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction.
Is anyone aware of this situation? Is it likely to have any effect on other projects and outside communities? Is WMF aware since it is mentioned in the discussion as well.
The announcement that was linked to on IRC: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en
A discussion which might be relevant: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia
Theo
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia ) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours.
Being polite; I'd call that a serious overreaction. Akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water!
I bought my tame Italian lunch and she likes me again; so deigned to have a read of this law. As far as we can make out there doesn't seem to be a leg to stand on.. or any real likelihood of risk to editors or content...
In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift.
Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be
managed by WMF, withrelated expenses.
To the extent of a polite response saying "not a chance, sorry", and an offer to hand them off to a volunteer to help resolve any issues. Which is what happens at the moment :) Tom
I think it is fairly easy to make such statements when you live abroad, and are not directly influenced by its outcomes.
As a side note, if this strike goes through (I could both understand it if it does, and if it doesn't), I would recommand to add a link to an English translation at least, for all those foreigners who might be visiting it.wikipedia as well.
An alternative could be to use a really huge sitenotice, so that people are forced to scroll down a lot every time - which is very frustrating, but doesn't deprive you of the actual contents.
Best,
Lodewijk
No dia 4 de Outubro de 2011 15:23, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> escreveu:
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will
make
encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia
) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to
publish
the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This
decision
will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours.
Being polite; I'd call that a serious overreaction. Akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water!
I bought my tame Italian lunch and she likes me again; so deigned to have a read of this law. As far as we can make out there doesn't seem to be a leg to stand on.. or any real likelihood of risk to editors or content...
In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift.
Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be
managed by WMF, withrelated expenses.
To the extent of a polite response saying "not a chance, sorry", and an offer to hand them off to a volunteer to help resolve any issues. Which is what happens at the moment :) Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4 October 2011 14:40, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I think it is fairly easy to make such statements when you live abroad, and are not directly influenced by its outcomes.
I live in the UK; where our defamation laws definitely make it very risky to edit Wikipedia (context; in the UK suing for defamation is very easy - even for things published abroad, even if the defamed person lives abroad, etc.). And during the recent "super-injunctions" debacle there was a very similar scare situation.
I made the same arguments then :)
Having pinged this around a few people; mixing in our law knowledge with some understanding of the Italian legal system I stand by my first response; that there is nothing major to be worried about. The law seems quite clear in indicting the website owner as the one responsible for applying the law.
Perhaps it does leave individual editors open to litigation; but, really, we have always been wide open to litigation anyway.
I don't mean to sound entirely dismissive; certainly it's worth examining, talking to the foundation about and perhaps developing new approaches/responses. But shutting down the Wiki? That's a pretty major step :S
And if, as is suggested in other emails, this is primarily intended as a protest that is *highly concerning*!
Tom
Thomas Morton, 04/10/2011 15:23:
In the modern world countries love to try it on and apply their internet laws across the world. Fortunately courts tend to give that short shrift.
48 h deadline for correction and fines don't need a court; nor does the police to summon and interrogate a sysop (as they've just done for the italian uncyclopedia); and by the way, italian trials are deadly slow and expensive.
Nemo
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3rinik@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information.
According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not.
Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia.
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours.
Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip)
Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?),
Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project.
Nathan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?),
Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project.
Nathan makes a good point. It was the main reason I brought it up here, so the staff and the rest of the community know.
It might be a few hours till WMF staff would be able to comment. But this is a political protest, if the Italian community does indeed wish to go through with it, I hope they get in touch with WMF first and remain in contact with the rest of the community through it.
Theo
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3rinik@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information.
According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not.
Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete mess for Wikipedia.
Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish the following text as full screen sitenotice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English translation is available here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours.
Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip)
Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?),
Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project.
Nathan
The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something.
It means that any action must be done now.
Ilario
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something.
It means that any action must be done now.
Ilario
Sure, I understand. My immediate gut reaction was that I'm leery of Wikimedia projects, of themselves and independent from the WMF, getting involved in political advocacy and protest actions. On second thought, though, I suppose if a U.S. law placed an untenable burden on the English Wikipedia, we might take some action in our organizational self-interest.
I do think the WMF should have a role in this decision; I suppose the question of project self-negation hasn't really arisen in the past - but I'm not sure that, as a general rule, projects should be able to voluntarily make themselves unavailable.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something.
It means that any action must be done now.
Ilario
Sure, I understand. My immediate gut reaction was that I'm leery of Wikimedia projects, of themselves and independent from the WMF, getting involved in political advocacy and protest actions. On second thought, though, I suppose if a U.S. law placed an untenable burden on the English Wikipedia, we might take some action in our organizational self-interest.
I do think the WMF should have a role in this decision; I suppose the question of project self-negation hasn't really arisen in the past - but I'm not sure that, as a general rule, projects should be able to voluntarily make themselves unavailable.
The problem is that the current law of privacy in Italy it's sufficient and can assure to protect any person from calumny.
This law is an additional prevention and it's unbalanced and will not assure the freedom in Internet because it is applying the same law of newspapers to Internet (bloggers, private persons and so on).
The main point is that any blog or online newspaper of other website have 48 hour to make something, if you do nothing you will receive a penalty of a maximum of 12.500 Euros.
If you do something before the 48 hour you need to put in evidence (probably in the homepage) that there is a correction.
The question now is complicated and the Italian users are looking to a scenario of frequent requests and all sysops involved in the block and obscuration of pages to don't face the penalty and don't involve some editors in any risk.
In 48 hours it's difficult to check something and probably the requests will be processed with a preventive block.
It means that the solution that we have is to delete any article about living people because this will reduce the risk a lot.
Ilario
I think that Wikimedians should give response on that: * Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I will email them immediately.) * Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your country. * If you are in EU country, ask your EU parliament members to talk about it with their Italian counterparts. * Other ideas?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Donaldo Papero pap3rinik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
my name is Giovanni (Donaldo stands for Donald [Duck], and is related to my nickname ;))
You are right in understanding that this lock is a way to raise a discussion about a proposed law, which has been developed without any consideration about the consequences on Wikipedia (or disregarding it: we already tryed, in the past, to stess such consequences). In no way our reaction wants to be "political" nor "lobbying" as our only concern is about encyclopedia content: there is no way to make it compliant an unchangeable text (the required amendment) and a wiki, an amendment that can be required also if a statement is true and referenced, with Wikipedia citations policies.
Regards Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik
Thanks Giovanni.
Reading the discussion (with Google-glasses), it looks like there are about 40 people in favor of the lock (with only several opposed), and the lock is planned for "sine die" or until a decision to unlock it is taken by the community. It's not clear that the discussion has reached an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc.
I wonder, would this work almost as well as a rather large sitenotice? Or perhaps an intermediate page before you reach your intended article? By that I mean - you click on the link you want, you get taken to a landing page with a notice first, and then you have to click a "Continue" button to get to your article. That way people can still access the encyclopedia, but they also get the message.
Nathan
On 4 October 2011 10:12, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Reading the discussion (with Google-glasses), it looks like there are about 40 people in favor of the lock (with only several opposed), and the lock is planned for "sine die" or until a decision to unlock it is taken by the community. It's not clear that the discussion has reached an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc.
One has to wonder how the "community" will be able to discuss unlocking the project if the project is locked.
Risker
One has to wonder how the "community" will be able to discuss unlocking the project if the project is locked.
Risker
i.e., we can leave unlocked the village pump
Jalo
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:03, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Wikimedians should give response on that:
- Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I
will email them immediately.)
- Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your country.
- If you are in EU country, ask your EU parliament members to talk
about it with their Italian counterparts.
- Other ideas?
Here is my email to Italian ambassador. As there is no sense to translate the whole email from Serbian to English, I'll give just descriptions of the paragraphs:
Poštovani ambasadore,
Moram vam reći da sam potpuno šokiran činjenicom da će italijansko izdanje najveće enciklopedije u istoriji čovečanstva biti zaključano i uklonjeno s interneta usled novog zakona o internetu [1]! U vremenu kada se borimo da proširimo slobodan pristup znanju na Polineziju, podsaharsku Afriku, među domoroce u Amazoniji, mi, koji se bavimo slobodnim znanjem, moramo da zatvaramo projekat na jeziku kojim govori više od 75 miliona ljudi u jednoj od najrazvijenijih zemalja na svetu!
I am shocked.
Wikipedia na italijanskom jeziku je nastala 2001. godine kao jedna od prvih jezičkih izdanja te enciklopedije na internetu. Danas ima skoro milion članaka. Ta cifra je desetak puta veća od broja članaka u drugoj po veličini enciklopediji na italijanskom. Ti članci su proizvod rada skoro 40,000 saradnika italijanske Vikipedije [2]. Kao takva, ona je obrazovanje prosečne osobe na italijanskom jeziku podigla na potpuno novi nivo. I ne samo to: tih 40,000 saradnika su najbolji ambasadori italijanske kulture koje je Italija ikad imala. Sarađujući s milionima saradnika Vikipedije na drugim jezicima, oni na najbolji mogući način predstavljaju italijansku kulturu i u najdaljim krajevima sveta.
About Italian Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedians.
Na žalost, Vlada Republike Italije nema predstavu o vrednosti koju svojoj zemlji donose saradnici Vikipedije. Umesto da podrži koliko god je u mogućnosti takav projekat i ljude koji na njemu rade, ona aktivno radi na njihovom sputavanju, donoseći Zakon koji rad na Vikipediji čini potpuno nemogućim. Novi zakon propisuje da se na istoj stranici mora postaviti demanti u originalu bez obzira na tačnost tih podataka, ne vodeći računa da je Vikipedija enciklopedija, a ne vreća za iživljavanje italijanskih političara.
Unfortunately, Government of Italy has no idea what Wikipedia means.
Stoga su saradnici Vikipedije na italijanskom, italijanski Vikipedijanci, doneli i jedinu moguću odluku: Prestaće s radom, zaključaće Vikipediju na italijanskom jeziku. Umesto da se slobodno znanje i slobodan pristup obrazovanju širi, na jeziku s jednom od najbronijih populacija govornika na svetu, u najbolju ruku će najveća riznica znanja na svetu ostati zamrznuta, a u najgoru potpuno uklonjena.
The only solution which Italian Wikipedians had is to lock Wikipedia.
I kao neko ko se bavi Vikipedijom i kao čovek kome je stalo do toga da svako na svetu ima slobodan pristup obrazovanju i kao osoba koja je svoju mladost provela uz brojne izdanke savremene italijanske kulture i kao filolog koji je potpuno svestan jedinstvenog mesta italijanske kulture u istoriji savremene civilizacije -- urgiram na vas da se založite da se ovaj Zakon promeni na način na koji Vikipedija i drugi izvori slobodnog znanja neće biti ugroženi.
Urging on ambassador to espouse to change the law.
Srdačno, Miloš Rančić
[1] http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaIT.htm
On 4 October 2011 14:12, Donaldo Papero pap3rinik@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information.
According to the proposal ( http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly defaming text. Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking into account whether the information is true or not and whether references are available for it or not.
Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. Legally speaking, we're all just users of the website. We're responsible for our own actions, of course, but not for anything else. I doubt Italian law sees it any differently.
Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF.
The website owner (it's very clear over this), the website owner is also directly responsible for non-compliance.
Legally speaking,
we're all just users of the website. We're responsible for our own actions, of course, but not for anything else. I doubt Italian law sees it any differently.
Personally I couldn't 100% say that this law is something that could be turned onto an individual in civil litigation - but equally I see no reason that it could be used in that way. Much easier to sue under standard defamation laws (which we are under risk of daily anyway!).
As more of this comes to light it seems to be a protest, rather than realisation of a fear or an actual direct threat.
Which is fine - but as pointed out - locking the whole Wiki is rather dramatic & self-serving :S
Tom
Much easier to sue under standard defamation laws (which we are under risk of daily anyway!).
Not at all! In the italian laws, if you bring lawsuit against me for defamation, you must prove I'm not saying the truth.
With this law you can bring lawsuit against me simply 'cause I've not published your amendment within 48 hours, true or false. You've not to prove anything
Jalo, 04/10/2011 18:04:
Not at all! In the italian laws, if you bring lawsuit against me for defamation, you must prove I'm not saying the truth.
Not really: freedom of press/expression is not so broad in Italy, there's no "exceptio veritatis" (in short truth is not important) for "diffamazione", "calunnia" is another thing. IANAL
With this law you can bring lawsuit against me simply 'cause I've not published your amendment within 48 hours, true or false. You've not to prove anything
But the point stays. :-)
Nemo
Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. Legally speaking, we're all just users of the website
Maybe you're right, but it's not so obvious. [Sorry for my english] There is a lawsuit opened by a person against WMItaly, 'cause wikipedia was stating something against him (all referenced).
WMItaly is not related to it.wikip, but the lawsuit is brought, and we have to spend money for lawyers 'till the lawsuit conclusion.
It'll be the same for this law. Italian police will get my name using my IP, the italian political will bring a lawsuit against me 'cause I didn't published his amendment, and I'll have to spend money (too much money, to me) 'till the judge will says he's a stupid.
I cannot do this, almost all it.wikip users cannot do, and so I'll stop contributing.
I remember you, if it's necessary, that the amendment must be published without comment and unmodifiable, so we'll have to block all articles in which an amandment is required (almost all politicals articles, sport players articles, merchandising sellers articles and so on).
Jalo
Hi,
Wikipedia is a promise, that promise is "free knowledge at all time". By locking read access, you break that promise, you destroy part of the trust that our readers have in Wikipedia.
In order to get the readers attention, it seems equally efficient to me to have a huge sitenotice, but without blocking read access completely.
You can appeal to the reader, warn the reader, make the reader put up with extra effort to get the informtion that he seeks, but please do not eliminate the reason why he visits Wikipedia. Otherwise, he'll just stop using our site.
Thanks, Tobias
Ps.: Other than that, I support your protests. Wikipedia /has/ power in the world, and it's a just effort to use that power to prevent changes, that would render it impossible for us to pursuit our mission.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org