I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything). Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand. Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy. Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed. I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so. That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for. Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit! I suggest the following: Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project." In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well. Dovi foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org wrote: Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Erik Moeller) 2. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Tim Starling) 3. Re: wikiholidays (Cormac Lawler) 4. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Andre Engels) 5. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Marco Krohn) 6. Chinese wikinews and fundamentals (Anthere) 7. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi) 8. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi) 9. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (David Gerard) 10. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Robin Shannon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:39:15 +0200 From: Erik Moeller Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <4275D923.2080609(a)gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Anthere: Dovi makes an important point which I also made in my "State of the Wiki" summary, which is that there are millions of Chinese speakers who would not be affected by censorship in mainland China. So, effectively, there are two communities: one that would feel the censorship, and one that wouldn't. The question is, should lack of support in one of them be sufficient to deny the project to the other? Regards, Erik ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:41 +1000 From: Tim Starling Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dovi Jacobs wrote: I think you're getting actual free speech confused with the paradoxical terminology used by Richard Stallman to describe software with restricted rights of use and distribution. Wikimedia supports the latter but has never supported the former. Rightly or wrongly, Wikimedia projects have been complicit in censorship of various kinds. I don't think the discussion of censorship is aided by conflating these two concepts. -- Tim Starling ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:55:33 +0100 From: Cormac Lawler Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikiholidays To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5/2/05, Anthere wrote: A *real* holiday! Bon voyage.. Cormac ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:01:51 +0200 From: Andre Engels Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <6faf39c9050502020111bb4769(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5/2/05, Dovi Jacobs wrote: Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used, but do we say that's illegal? In that case I still think we should shut up and just allow it. The issue should be availability, not politics. Especially not politics that noone else seems to care about. Andre Engels ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:02:43 +0200 From: Marco Krohn Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <200505021202.43502.marco.krohn(a)web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Monday 02 May 2005 11:01, Andre Engels wrote: FWIW: SuSE as well as RedHat removed the mp3 codecs from their recent distributions. best regards, Marco ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthere Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews and fundamentals To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <20050502115509.58720.qmail(a)web41804.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello ;-) It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a "habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is usually done does not mean it will be done forever. Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a "habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed. Why did it changed ? Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work. You make a very good point here. I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being started. It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if one counts both support and opposition. Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our responsability ? In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-) And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves, * one did not answer * one opposed * one thought the decision should be global community one * one thought the decision should be local community one * one supported However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered. As explained above, our position is not opposition. Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ? Ant __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:18:28 +0100 From: Timwi Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi. I haven't seen the original discussion about a Chinese Wikinews, so this is the first time I hear why it was disallowed. If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by censoring it yourself?... ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:21:16 +0100 From: Timwi Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dovi Jacobs wrote: Taking as an example the infamous Klingon Wikipedia, it was pretty clear that a majority of people felt they were entitled to "vote against" it, even though the argument you mentioned had already been brought up at the time. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 00:12:13 +1000 From: David Gerard Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <20050502141213.GQ10417(a)thingy.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Timwi (timwi(a)gmx.net) [050502 23:19]: And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the world ... Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language projects? Of course it wouldn't. - d. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:28:08 +1000 From: Robin Shannon Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Message-ID: <623d733805050209281a7185ab(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5/3/05, David Gerard wrote: This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers. paz y amor, [[wikinews:User:The bellman]] -- hit me: jab me: This work is released into the public domain. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4 ******************************************* --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!