geni writes:
What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can?
geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington working on public-policy issues for non-profits (including EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Public Knowledge). One of the principal lessons of that experience was that public-interest participation in policymaking debates added a lot of value precisely because opponents couldn't write off a charity as simply being interested in expanding its market or profits.
And the synergies between corporate lobbying and public-interest policy initiatives -- on the occasions when their interests do line up -- have a greater political impact than either faction can have working alone. If you've spent time on Capitol Hill, or meeting with bureaucrats at federal agencies, you already know that a standard tactic of your opponents is to marginalize you. So if you're Google, the rap on you is that you're a quasi-monopoly spending Washington dollars to maintain your position as a market leader. And if you're ACLU or EFF, you're dismissed as arguing fringe issues that don't represent the mainstream of American political thought.
But when Google (or Microsoft or Intel) come to policymakers and say the same things that the nonprofit groups (EFF or ACLU or -- someday, perhaps -- WMF) are telling them, it gets much, much harder for the opposition to dismiss the message.
(The content companies already know this -- that's why they took such pains to sign up a bunch of nonprofits as supporters of SOPA and PIPA, even though many of the latter bailed when they realized MPAA was perhaps not the best guide on these issues.)
None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation, and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google -- counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most policymakers think twice.
At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed] here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here.
--Mike Godwin
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed] here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here.
There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Is there any independent research on this topic?
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming from. But you made a conflicting point yourself....
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation, and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google -- counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most policymakers think twice.
If WMF were to spend 50% of what it raised last year on lobbying, it would still be microscopic compared to Google and others. I know the impact of a united front would be much stronger on this. But as I saw it, we already made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw some measurable impact in the standing within congress, not to mention the coverage and support in the media.
I am not an american, and I am not privy to how lobbying works in Washington - I hear a lot of americans don't know that either. We do however have limited revenues, from small donations, and as I understand registered non-profits in the US are legally bound to not spend more than a certain percentage of revenues on lobbying, for the reason I am stating. It might not be a worthwhile use of the money, considering all the millions floating around on lobbyists between for-profit corporations, this might be more than what we should take on at the time?
We blacked out Wikipedia for a day to get our voice heard, I thought that was the right action to do at that point. Lobbying generally sounds of closed door dealings, and large amounts of money spent on convincing politicians, in this case, convincing them to do the right thing. When a non-profit engages in it publicly, one that prides itself on being small and independent, it affects my perception of it. It might just be me, but I would rather see public statements, and actions like the blackout over lobbying any day.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming from. But you made a conflicting point yourself....
<text omitted>
But as I saw it, we already made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw some measurable impact in the standing within congress, not to mention the coverage and support in the media.
Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency.
It might not be a worthwhile use of the money, considering all the millions floating around on lobbyists between for-profit corporations, this might be more than what we should take on at the time?
I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.)
Lobbying generally sounds of closed door dealings, and large amounts of money spent on convincing politicians, in this case, convincing them to do the right thing.
That's certainly a common stereotype. In practice, however, and under American law, those meetings get reported and publicized, and nonprofit organizations that meet with policymakers are held strictly accountable for what they do. And, it must be stressed, they can't spend "large amounts of money" on "convincing politicians." We have laws about that here.
When a non-profit engages in it publicly, one that prides itself on being small and independent, it affects my perception of it. It might just be me, but I would rather see public statements, and actions like the blackout over lobbying any day.
This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing.
--Mike
Mike, I noticed you have been equating "getting our voice heard" with general lobbying. I am curious, mostly because I don't know what it entails.
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the process, usually a pretty hefty sum. Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard?
You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be.
You may have heard the other stereotype about lobbying, that people who actually propose and support legislation like SOPA and PIPA are backed by lobbyist on behalf RIAA, MPAA and other large publishers, who have very deep pockets. It is not an uncommon assumption that the majority of the lobbying industry backs the other side on the issue, since it is about money and employing a lobbying firm's services is only a matter of how much money someone is willing to spend on it. I considered lobbyists as a tool for the wealthy to get their say, who can't state their opposing positions openly. Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming from. But you made a conflicting point yourself....
<text omitted>
But as I saw it, we already made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw some measurable impact in the standing within congress, not to mention
the
coverage and support in the media.
Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency.
It might not be a worthwhile use of the money, considering all the millions floating around on lobbyists between for-profit corporations, this might
be
more than what we should take on at the time?
I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.)
Lobbying generally sounds of closed door dealings, and large amounts of money spent on convincing politicians, in this case, convincing them to do the right thing.
That's certainly a common stereotype. In practice, however, and under American law, those meetings get reported and publicized, and nonprofit organizations that meet with policymakers are held strictly accountable for what they do. And, it must be stressed, they can't spend "large amounts of money" on "convincing politicians." We have laws about that here.
When a non-profit engages in it publicly, one that prides itself on being small
and
independent, it affects my perception of it. It might just be me, but I would rather see public statements, and actions like the blackout over lobbying any day.
This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing.
--Mike
The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away, is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts.
A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that Google has already put into force, of diversifying datacenters that have our non-fungible assets, so that for enforcement they would have to invade sovreign territory. But for a non-profit, our best line would be to say that we are making those plans, but actually want to keep the US have the PR benefit of being able to say that WMF like entities find the US best to be incorporated in. And then grin very hard, so they know we mean business. Follow up with saying the very real contingency plans can not wait on their realizing they have the wrong end of the stick, so we have to act now.
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be bullied by US jurisdiction. But we have a much more expansive plan which we tell we will eventually realize. But the legislators in the US have to understand we are doing this all so they realize what they are working on is harmful to prosperity around the globe.
And if they play ball, (we won't give a cent of tribute, sorry) we will not accelerate the rate at which we realize the full international nature of the Wikimedia Foundation.
That is pretty much the line of "education" that might be effective, without costing the Foundation a single backhander.
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took considerable effort and planning, so it's not a trivial task. And the key, of course, is not "do we have a few hundred squids?" but "where does the really pretty centralised MySQL database for that particular wiki live?" But this suggests a significant part of the hard thinking on this issue has been done.
This ties into the question (which should be easier to raise now) of "how forkable is Wikipedia in practice?" Not for purposes of forking with rancor, but for basic backup hygiene: given the available data, software and configuration information, is it actually feasible to create a working backup of Wikipedia, if the WMF is hit by a legal meteor?
This is getting towards a wikitech-l discussion ... but your basic concept is sound: as digital natives, we understand instinctively that the way to preserve something is to spread *lots* of copies of it around. Even if doing so is quite difficult and unwieldy.
- d.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took considerable effort and planning, so it's not a trivial task. And the key, of course, is not "do we have a few hundred squids?" but "where does the really pretty centralised MySQL database for that particular wiki live?" But this suggests a significant part of the hard thinking on this issue has been done.
"You might very well think so, I couldn't possibly comment. (for one, not to embarrass your view of your own acumen)" :-D
This ties into the question (which should be easier to raise now) of "how forkable is Wikipedia in practice?" Not for purposes of forking with rancor, but for basic backup hygiene: given the available data, software and configuration information, is it actually feasible to create a working backup of Wikipedia, if the WMF is hit by a legal meteor?
Just for my own purposes, I do have to profess and and proclaim; if I ever did talk about forking in rancour, I did say I would bankroll their way, not join them out from the ship. And keep the money reins tight so they didn't ever turn hostile in earnest.
But the last point is cogent. OPEN is a Pandoras Box. It isn't a legal meteor, it is a hangmans noose around the whole Internet. And as such, it would pretty much force a thousand Baidu Baidus around the world to bloom, which is why Google is not waiting, but is acting right now. And sadly wikipedia is still not living in the real world on this.
This is getting towards a wikitech-l discussion ... but your basic concept is sound: as digital natives, we understand instinctively that the way to preserve something is to spread *lots* of copies of it around. Even if doing so is quite difficult and unwieldy.
While I would love the wikitech people to be on the ball and do some hardcore contingency planning, the real issue is strategic, and entails moslty that we show ability and willingness no make a stand, not just for one day, but for all time.
What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of itself? Does it sound unwordly? It could be a good complement to the server based versions.
Le 22/01/2012 20:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit :
The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away, is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts.
A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that Google has already put into force, of diversifying datacenters that have our non-fungible assets, so that for enforcement they would have to invade sovreign territory. But for a non-profit, our best line would be to say that we are making those plans, but actually want to keep the US have the PR benefit of being able to say that WMF like entities find the US best to be incorporated in. And then grin very hard, so they know we mean business. Follow up with saying the very real contingency plans can not wait on their realizing they have the wrong end of the stick, so we have to act now.
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be bullied by US jurisdiction. But we have a much more expansive plan which we tell we will eventually realize. But the legislators in the US have to understand we are doing this all so they realize what they are working on is harmful to prosperity around the globe.
And if they play ball, (we won't give a cent of tribute, sorry) we will not accelerate the rate at which we realize the full international nature of the Wikimedia Foundation.
That is pretty much the line of "education" that might be effective, without costing the Foundation a single backhander.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:13 AM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of itself? Does it sound unwordly?
Not so much unwordly (sic?) as a diversionary conversational technique (if you weren't really trolling you will know you are innocent, and need feel no shame). Blue sky thinking has its times, This is not it. We are in a war-zone.
It could be a good complement to the server based versions.
Le 23/01/2012 05:08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:13 AM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of itself? Does it sound unwordly?
Not so much unwordly (sic?) as a diversionary conversational technique (if you weren't really trolling you will know you are innocent, and need feel no shame). Blue sky thinking has its times, This is not it. We are in a war-zone.
War zone? Diversionary technique? Troll? I don't understand why you think I'm your ennemy. I'll ask on wikitech, anyway.
On 22 January 2012 23:33, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
You may have heard the other stereotype about lobbying, that people who actually propose and support legislation like SOPA and PIPA are backed by lobbyist on behalf RIAA, MPAA and other large publishers, who have very deep pockets. It is not an uncommon assumption that the majority of the lobbying industry backs the other side on the issue, since it is about money and employing a lobbying firm's services is only a matter of how much money someone is willing to spend on it. I considered lobbyists as a tool for the wealthy to get their say, who can't state their opposing positions openly. Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either.
Yes, it certainly does have a negative connotation. But, remember, (with appropriate citation needed tag) that lobbying, certainly in Britain, is a right every citizen has: to ask their Member of Parliament to meet them in the lobby of the Palace of Westminster to discuss their concerns.
Le 22/01/2012 20:04, Mike Godwin a écrit :
Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency.
I agree. Current times require a "wikifreedom" project whose objective would be to fight censorship through sharing knowledge and raising awareness. One of the main branches could be technological know-how to build radios or bypass internet censoring. Giving access to tor-hidden services like an encyclopedia or wikinews can change it ALL for censored peoples.
I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.)
That's an important fact, but if the communities and donors are to delegate their power to a representant, it must be through a referendum amongst the 300 000 makers of Wikipedia. I think anyone who ever registered should be contacted and informed about such elections.
Money is already already dangerous for a cause, political power is even more. « Beware the steward »
This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing.
I agree. In fact, I think the power of Wikipedia and sister projects is not shown in the money, but in the huge and resourceful communities commited to them.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming from. But you made a conflicting point yourself....
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation, and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google -- counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most policymakers think twice.
Just a technical point - companies like Google etc. don't spend hundreds of millions on lobbying. If I remember correctly, Google spent on the order of $6 million on lobbying last year... So if the WMF spent half its budget in Washington, it would certainly become the new lobbying behemoth of the tech sector! (And promptly forfeit its budget for the following year, of course...).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org