Well, this was about a place where people can post anonymously, wikipedia may be neutral, but there are times when neutrality is not wanted, it may not be to bad to know what to do in this case.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:47:31 -0400, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote: Indeed, and don't forget that the Chinese Wikipedia regularly suffers out-right blocks by the Chinese government, so it's not like our content is uncontroversial. I know comparing the US authorities to the Chinese might seem a little excessive, but with recent "anti-terrorist" legislation, etc, I suspect it is closer to a matter of degree than to a complete difference in nature. As for other people pointing out that no location is safe from such warrants, I guess the best you can do is keep shifting around, so that the content is safe somewhere at every step. Not that we necessarily need do this for Wikipedia, but it is indeed an interesting question to think through... -- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]

Walter Vermeir wrote: Like where? Note that the hard drives seized were not in the US---they were in the UK. So having backup UK servers wouldn't help us in such a case. -Mark

Walter Vermeir wrote: Well, the interplay of governments these days is pretty strong, and not just US/UK. The current rumor going around the Indymedia folks is that the server seizure was actually requested by the Swiss government, and the US merely implemented the request. Apparently Indymedia posted some photographs of undercover Swiss police officers during a protest, was asked to take them down, and didn't. So if the US, UK, and Switzerland are all colluding, I can imagine a good part of the rest of the world is too. -Mark

Hi, Le Monday 11 October 2004 02:50, Delirium a écrit : What's disturbing in this story is that this treaty which is made to fight "international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering" is subverted for dealing with a political issue. Indymedia might be wrong, but using against them this kind of treaty made for criminal cases really endangers free speech and democracy. How this is different that what the Chinese government does? Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux

On 12 Oct 2004, at 22:22, Magnus Manske wrote: ''Earnestly'' folks, that ''is'' a good idea, IMHO: By intelligently leveraging discrepancies between different jurisdictions, we should be able to establish a position of strength, where our standards as regards freedom of information can be set based on a "legal least common ''multiple''" instead of a "least common denominator". The only issue: If we were to use true mirrors, the replication traffic would be insane. Instead, the primary, active copy of different countries' Wikipedias could be located on the servers in the respective countries/on the respective continents, with "only" scheduled replication to all other sites. This could of course mean losing the very latest contributions at a site in case it is taken offline. Then again, maybe even the cross-global replication traffic would actually be bearable. After all, only the actual ''changes'' would need to be replicated. Yes, I confess: I'm an MCSE (among other things). I was young and I needed the money. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

--- Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/default.asp -- mav _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com

On 13 Oct 2004, at 03:32, Anthere wrote: There are two answers to this. One here: http://tinyurl.com/546g3 and one here: http://tinyurl.com/626z2