I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar "blackout" should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship?
Am 05.10.2011 06:25, schrieb Aaron Adrignola:
Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar "blackout" should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship?
You can pretty much count on that. And what'cha gonna do then? De-sysop people who carry out the will of the very community that elected them to be sysops in the first place? Risk a fork of the third-largest Wikimedia project and a relatively large (and wealthy) WMF chapter? Like it or not, while the WMF may own the infrastructure and have a vaguely defined ownership when it comes to the projects, all that counts for nothing if you don't have the community to fill this with life. So try to keep calm and don't come up with an 'emergency' heavy-handed response that you're going to regret.
Regards, Oliver
You heard about consensus and anti-censorship actions: all is allowed with community polls as seen in Italian Wikipedia yesterday.
German Wikipedia, go ahead and blank your wiki is WMF try to force the image filtering on you. The same for other Wikipedias that don't agree with the filter. Enjoy the Italian precedent support, WMF.
2011/10/5 Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com
I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar "blackout" should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/05/2011 06:25 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on the proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is being allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar "blackout" should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship?
Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader.
--Tobias
On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml < church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2011 06:25 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on
the
proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the debate. I am quite concerned about the precedent that it.wikipedia is
being
allowed to set. Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to
stage
a similar "blackout" should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship?
Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader.
A quote:
The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences.
The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view...
Tom
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31:
On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml
Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader.
A quote:
The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences.
The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view...
I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring. I'd like to add that despite the "us vs. them" feeling (WMF against the community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference between a "foreign" organization part of your own movement (and which runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to effective actions required. We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long story short).
Nemo
On 10/06/11 6:33 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31:
On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml
Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only minor effects for the reader.
A quote:
The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences.
The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view...
I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring. I'd like to add that despite the "us vs. them" feeling (WMF against the community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference between a "foreign" organization part of your own movement (and which runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to effective actions required. We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long story short).
I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country.
Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them.
Ray
Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11:
I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country.
I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction, but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite get the discussion about the alleged "right to strike vs. right to be informed" thing.
The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this?
Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them.
This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one may arise (as in this case).
Nemo
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11:
I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country.
I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction, but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite get the discussion about the alleged "right to strike vs. right to be informed" thing.
The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this?
Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them.
This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one may arise (as in this case).
If I may so crass as to rephrase both arguments without adding any of of my own... Preventing people from producing content in their own language is still preventing them from producing content.
We need to find a modality of affecting an effect directed at forces that mean to diminish our manners of producing content in the ways we are accustomed... To better enable us to keep producing the content.
This previous action may have been a wake up call.. But long term, we need something more tenable as a tool for change. Trying to find a thing I really need to add to this, and coming up short...
On 08.10.2011 11:11, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. Other major languages are official in several important countries, and it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed law in only one country.
Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the least harm to those around them.
Ray
Honestly I don't appreciate this kind of analysis.
It's like to say that the strikes are disruptive because the strikes are bad for business.
If the strikes would not be disruptive, probably no one will defend their rights with strikes.
In that way I would say that the strike of it.wikipedia has demonstrated that it.wikipedia needs to have some rights to be alive.
We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia available to the person living in totalitarism.
The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike.
I agree that Wikipedia must not close for any kind of problems, for example to solve economic problems or to solve the problem of desertification, but there were in discussion some principles that would have put Wikipedia to operate "without freedom" (I would underline this point "without freedom").
Here there were in discussions some principles that would have broken some pillars of Wikipedia: it means *a free and neutral information*.
Italian Wikipedia has defended these pillars and not a "general" problem.
I have not understood the points of some persons saying that Italian community has broken the settlement with the users.
There is no sense to food a body if this body is risking his health. I need to heal the body and after to food it. If I can heal and food it, it would be better.
In my opinion some persons here think that the pillars of Wikipedia are like the Tables of the Law of the Holy Bible, they EMANATE freedom and neutrality with their presence. Probably we need to be sure that we apply them in Wikipedia but also that the local government give us the ability to *apply* them.
Please be kind that the whole world is not like US or Canada.
Please don't "globalize" the world with the idea that the pillars of Wikipedia can be applied in any countries as you apply them in North America.
In some places the pillars of Wikipedia can generate conflicts.
Ilario
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org