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
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Tom
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law.
On 4 October 2011 13:56, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law.
Unless I have mistaken the law (I admit my Italian is shaky at best, and my tame Italian is in a mood with me) this applies to websites, not people.
There does not seem to be any provision under the law to sue or otherwise harass people that add stuff the company/individual etc. objects to.
I could be wrong; but this looks a lot like a case of getting an email saying "make this change at once, under Italian law XXX" and us responding "Actually, no, sorry - but can we work this out via discussion?" Tom
An official statement will be published in Foundation-l.
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
Ilario
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4 October 2011 14:03, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
An official statement will be published in Foundation-l.
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
It's an interesting (and very idiotic) new law for sure.
From my latter reading it quite clear distinguishes that the *owner* or
*webmaster* is liable.
As with a lot of laws/internet stuff it kind of falls apart when faced with something like a Wiki. But I doubt this is worth being too concerned about.
Campaign against it certainly, point out how problematic it becomes. But don't lose sleep :)
Tom
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users.
Ray
Not really Ray. And even so, the problem is not the fear of getting arrested, is more the cost of a law suit. In Italy (as in some other Latin countries) law suits are expensive (really, REALLY expensives) and take forever to end. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 5 October 2011 09:46, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users.
Ray
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/05/11 2:06 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
Not really Ray. And even so, the problem is not the fear of getting arrested, is more the cost of a law suit. In Italy (as in some other Latin countries) law suits are expensive (really, REALLY expensives) and take forever to end.
Lawsuits can be expensive anywhere, and they can be started by anyone who believes that he has been injured. It does not matter if that belief is legitimate. It does not matter if you have gone through extraordinary efforts to remain within the law. SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuit against public participation), and some of these suits are no better than criminal extortion. Conceding to them means the bullies have won.
Yes, by all appearances, the proposed Italian law is evil and fascist, but there are more strategies available than the suicide strategy chosen by the Italian Wikipedia. They are not the only group in Italy opposing this, so there is plenty of room for common cause. If the law passes, there will certainly be others willing to take this matter through the courts.
Ray
On 5 October 2011 09:46, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users.
Ray
Am 05.10.2011 10:46, schrieb Ray Saintonge:
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy.
If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users.
Ray
But what about Italian re-users? If it.wikipedia does decide to edit anonymously and someone in Italy re-uses their content, then he might be in trouble. Which means that it will end up in additional restrictions, hurting the mission of the project, even if maybe not self affected.
nya~
Ray Saintonge, 05/10/2011 10:46:
If they are so fearful they can use pseudonyms. They would then need to get a legal order from a US court to identify the users.
But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine accounts...
Nemo
On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine accounts...
Personally speaking, this is the aspect that swayed my opinion from "um, this is a bit extreme" to "entirely appropriate reaction". Arbitrary volunteer editors being liable to fines for not changing the wiki within 48 hours to anything demanded by arbitrary individuals? Shutting down the wiki is merely a preview of the obvious consequences of the law.
- d.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:56, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law.
Every individual contributor should abide by the laws of the country he lives, operates or has property in.
Mathias
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Regards Theo
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:56, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to follow Italian law.
Every individual contributor should abide by the laws of the country he lives, operates or has property in.
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Regards Theo
Any news coverage?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while
ago.
All content and pages direct to the notice.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Regards Theo
Any news coverage?
Yes, from what I heard it is getting a lot of local coverage.
http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/news/wikipedia_in_bianco_contro...
http://www.corriere.it/politica/11_ottobre_04/wikipedia-italia-bavaglio_b4a6...
Only a matter of time, till it gets international coverage.
Regards Theo
One in English: http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:57, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while
ago.
All content and pages direct to the notice.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Regards Theo
Any news coverage?
Yes, from what I heard it is getting a lot of local coverage.
http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/10/04/news/wikipedia_in_bianco_contro...
http://www.corriere.it/politica/11_ottobre_04/wikipedia-italia-bavaglio_b4a6...
Only a matter of time, till it gets international coverage.
Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The redirect is not working properly on the secure website.
Go to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobr...
and then hit random page
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/wiki/Speciale:PaginaCasuale
that takes the reader to:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Lengthy and critical email on why this is a flabbergasting response...
At this time we now have a Wikipedia taking a political position, and indeed political action. In essence they have made an operational decision and abused their autonomy as a Wikipedia within the foundation.
Don't get me wrong, if the editing community want to strike and make noise (say, a site notice) then I am 100% behind their right to do that. Removing access to Wikipedia is a huge step beyond.
Our primary mission is to provide a knowledge service to the world; and they have now removed that from Italians (in their native language).
And lets examine the reasons...
Sure, there is a legitimate base to their concerns. But have these questions be answered:
- Have they had legal advice? From my semi-legal reading of the material this is not something that will bite them, but that certainly needs to be clarified.
- Were the foundation informed before today? (and if not why has there been no response??)
- Why was the wider community not informed till, basically, after the fact. This is something we could definitely have helped with.
There is no indication that there is an extant threat to any editors of Italian Wikipedia, or indeed any immediate risk. This is purely a protest against an (admittedly silly) upcoming law. And as a protest it is disappointing, against community ideals (of neutrality) and a potential PR nightmare (once the mainstream media pick up it will be pitched as "Wikipedia restricting access to Italy in protest over new laws" - which is a disastrous headline...
Abusing their situation having being trusted with autonomous control of a large internet property is just disappointing.
Fight this; but do it right.
I have a further question; where the hell are the foundation? It has been stony silence all afternoon on what is clearly an urgent situation. That, also, is flabbergasting :S
Tom
Thomas Morton, 04/10/2011 22:25:
Lengthy and critical email on why this is a flabbergasting response...
Just replying to some bits.
- Have they had legal advice? From my semi-legal reading of the material
this is not something that will bite them, but that certainly needs to be clarified.
Actually, it's sure that the law would oblige random editors to publish the corrections (unmodified and not commented) /somehow/ and if they don't they're threatened with jail and 12.500 € fines. The law is actually /thought/ for websites hosted in other countries, by the way. The details are not clear with regard to Wikipedia, but prominent jurists have explained why this is absolutely dangerous for all websites. Wikimedia Italia is trying to get some more official legal advice (to be offered to the community) for the special case of Wikimedia wikis, and would use some help.
- Were the foundation informed before today? (and if not why has there been
no response??)
- Why was the wider community not informed till, basically, after the fact.
This is something we could definitely have helped with.
This has been done in a hurry because the final discussion in the low chamber starts tomorrow, which is AFAIK the last term for amendments. Final approved is expected for the 12th. I don't think the local community felt to be bound to a global discussion or a WMF approval...
There is no indication that there is an extant threat to any editors of Italian Wikipedia, or indeed any immediate risk. This is purely a protest against an (admittedly silly) upcoming law. And as a protest it is disappointing, against community ideals (of neutrality) and a potential PR nightmare (once the mainstream media pick up it will be pitched as "Wikipedia restricting access to Italy in protest over new laws" - which is a disastrous headline...
Even the most right-wing and pro-government (Berlusconi-owned) Italian newspaper doesn't put it so hard and considers the strike quite unsurprising, currently. http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/ddl_ntercettazioni_pdl_tratta_centristi_e_wikipedia_si_autosospende_protestare/ddl_intercettazioni-wikipedia-polemica-trattativa/04-10-2011/articolo-id=549889-page=0-comments=1
Nemo
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago. All content and pages direct to the notice.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
Regards Theo
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect.
It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not.
~Nathan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect.
It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not.
How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections?
Mathias
That's stupid.
On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect.
It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not.
How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections?
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections?
That's stupid.
I think that was his point.
Austin
On 04.10.2011 22:19, Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaansteun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not yet in affect.
It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not.
~Nathan
When you write in Wikipedia, you are the main actor of your culture. You are an "active" member of the culture and you are not a spectator.
When you see that someone is killing the freedom and it's forcing to don't be an actor of the free culture and he would steer the culture, you have only two choices: or to be passive and to stop to write, or to be active and to understand that you can defend your rights.
Ilario
Rather than try to respond to a specific post in this fast moving thread, my belief is that the WMF is likely trying to work directly with members of the Italian Wikipedia community primarily right now rather than keeping up with mailing lists. While I do look forward to seeing some communication on this issue, that community needs to be the focus.
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Risker
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Thanks! It should be noted that this the decision has been supported by 100% of WM RS Board members who voted (via email or phone). After the fifth support, we didn't search for the rest two voting members, as the statement already had majority.
The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now.
It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position.
The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment.
Thanks, Sue On Oct 4, 2011 1:33 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than try to respond to a specific post in this fast moving thread,
my
belief is that the WMF is likely trying to work directly with members of
the
Italian Wikipedia community primarily right now rather than keeping up
with
mailing lists. While I do look forward to seeing some communication on
this
issue, that community needs to be the focus.
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his
own
local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Risker _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now.
It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position.
The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment.
I do think it's sometimes appropriate to use the sites to make a point; the message is well-written, and it's good for everyone who visits the site to see it. Our existence itself is not politically neutral, and I do think that WMF, as well as local chapters and communities, should get involved in policy where it affects the ability of the sites to operate (actually, this has already been on the agenda for this weekend's board meeting). And this is exactly the kind of thing where the Wikimedia community can and should use our voice (as opposed to things that are only distantly related, such as global warming, or election procedures).
I am happy to see the Italian community behind the opposition to the proposed law because I do think it's contrary to what Wikimedia does, and to see that there is consensus among the Italian community to do something drastic; there will be a far greater effect on the Italian wiki than a short blockage if bad laws are passed. (And part of me--the part that's been around for a billion years--is thrilled to see a community coming to such a decision on their own, via what seems like a reasonable process, without waiting for approval or support.)
But I'm not sure about denying access completely for several days. I agree that for a protest to be effective, it must cause real disruption, enough to cause people to see the effect and get attention. I'm not even sure what I would suggest as an alternative--perhaps a shorter duration of complete blackout, and a gigantic sitenotice afterward (or beforehand)? Advertising the existence of mirrors? Allowing people to access articles in a tiny window below a gigantic notice? I'm not sure. I think the action that was done may be too much, that maybe something could have been done to generate as much attention without cutting off access as much.
I also think I agree with Sue: "what's done is done" at least for now. If this isn't going to be a one-time action (and I'm sure it won't; bad laws are proposed more and more as governments begin to really fear what the uncontrolled internet can do) we should figure out how to resolve these problems in advance.
-Kat
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now.
It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position.
Is this the first time that WMF has actively taken a stance on politics and legislation?
-- John Vandenberg
The WMF has not taken a stance even at this - individuals at the WMF did, and the WMF did decide so far that it will not break the strike. That is something else than the WMF taking an active stance. Which it maybe should, maybe shouldn't (that depends on the wordings etc).
Lodewijk
No dia 5 de Outubro de 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.comescreveu:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now.
It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the
Italian
Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position.
Is this the first time that WMF has actively taken a stance on politics and legislation?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:26 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Is this the first time that WMF has actively taken a stance on politics and legislation?
No. Well, in this case, really, Wikimedia hasn't acted except to observe, though several individuals have stated opinions.
But Wikimedia has acted to influence policy--for one, recently we signed on to the EFF's amicus brief in a US Supreme Court copyright case, Golan v. Holder:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066452.html
Beyond that we've taken several positions that support various stances--on "sweat of the brow" copyrightability of scans, for example, or the enforceability of free content licenses. Through that alone we are not politically neutral, and can't be while the ability to do what we're doing depends on favorable law.
-Kat
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back.
Domas
There's no need to be so drastic. If WMF wishes the block to be removed, it simply can ask it and we'll do. In a couple of minutes. We're not moving war against WMF.
Howerer, at the moment WMF seems to support this choice
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment.
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it.
it.wikipedia is not "failing" at spreading knowledge. it.wikipedia is taking all steps it can to make sure that it can succeed at that aim in future.
2011/10/5 David Richfield davidrichfield@gmail.com:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment.
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it.
it.wikipedia is not "failing" at spreading knowledge. it.wikipedia is taking all steps it can to make sure that it can succeed at that aim in future.
This law proposal has been around in Italy for quite a long time. If I'm correct it's about three years. Last year there has been a period when the law was in the mainstream media (while it was also dubbed as "legge ammazza-blog", "blog-killer law"), but then (for other political reasons) the topic was forgot, the law proposal eliminated from discussion in parliament, and nobody discussed it much more. At that time (~ 15 months ago) Wikimedia Italia issued a press communique and asked on it.wiki Village Pump if there were Wikipedians who would like to sign it to show their support. That communique collected circa 300 signatures. There also was a discussion about putting a link to it in the sitenotice, there was a large majority (> 2/3 of many voters) but given the fact that it seemed to be a strong move, and in the meanwhile the topic "faded away", nothing was done in the end.
In the last few days, though, the law proposal returned in the mainstream and it is going to be discussed in parliament today and in the next days. This time the community itself discussed and autonomously produced the communique you see now. It was put in the village pump and after two days of discussion where an *outstanding* majority (I will say almost unanimous) agreed to lock the site and put the communique in his place, we have arrived to the current situation.So it has not been neither an easy or quick decision.
Hope that helps to contextualize the situation.
Cristian
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back.
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
Wikis are great for organizing work. By necessary extension, they are also great for organizing its discontinuation.
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course.
When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done...
How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite?
Domas
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 16:03, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done...
When truck drivers go on strike in France, you are not able to drive your car there.
Of all the ways to protest the law, I think it.wp chose the most noticeable way. If something like a sitenotice were implemented, many people would just scroll past it. Even if not, they would only read it a couple times, because people access Wikipedia for the content. OTOH, just locking Editing privileges would only impact the people who are already aware of the proposed law. The protest would have no impact on the readership.
Just my two cents
Matthew Bowker http://enwp.org/User:Matthewrbowker Sent from my iPod
On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:03, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course.
When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it wasn't pulled ;-) If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive disease correction is not done...
How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite?
Domas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am sure other people can fill in, but I heard there has been some movement within the parliament in reaction. They are reconsidering a portion of that law that might affect us, or so I have been told.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111
Can someone clarify?
Regards Theo
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:06 PM, User:Matthewrbowker < matthewrbowker.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Of all the ways to protest the law, I think it.wp chose the most noticeable way. If something like a sitenotice were implemented, many people would just scroll past it. Even if not, they would only read it a couple times, because people access Wikipedia for the content. OTOH, just locking Editing privileges would only impact the people who are already aware of the proposed law. The protest would have no impact on the readership.
Just my two cents
Matthew Bowker http://enwp.org/User:Matthewrbowker Sent from my iPod
On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:03, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without
terminating the service entirely.
Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
Full-page banners or whatever else may work, of course.
When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right,
it wasn't pulled ;-)
If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive
disease correction is not done...
How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out
of spite?
Domas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without terminating the service entirely. Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out.
How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out of spite?
In contrast to strike actions, in those countries that recognize the right to organize collectively, sabotage and destruction are generally considered illegal and beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Certainly we should not support anyone in the Italian community who thought it was a good idea to vandalize or delete portions of the encyclopedia as part of their protest. But I don't think someone acting out of spite is a good comparison, since it seems pretty clear that this action is not being taken out of spite. I am happy to keep my trust in the Italian Wikipedia community, that it is in the best position to judge whether this protest is needed, what measures are appropriate to the situation, and how long to carry on with it.
--Michael Snow
2011/10/5 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com
On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
The only thing we truly could do is restore read access. But if the it.wikipedia community really wants to strike, there's very little we can do to stop them. :)
I sure agree with that. There're plenty of ways to inflict pain without
terminating the service entirely.
Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out.
Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure.
How do we deal with an editor who starts deleting his contributions out
of spite? In contrast to strike actions, in those countries that recognize the right to organize collectively, sabotage and destruction are generally considered illegal and beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Certainly we should not support anyone in the Italian community who thought it was a good idea to vandalize or delete portions of the encyclopedia as part of their protest.
Oh yeah, just like worst actions exist (vandalism) we have to respect medium-bad (?) ones (blanking the entire site).
But I don't think someone acting out of spite is a good comparison, since it seems pretty clear that this action is not being taken out of spite. I am happy to keep my trust in the Italian Wikipedia community, that it is in the best position to judge whether this protest is needed, what measures are appropriate to the situation, and how long to carry on with it.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote:
2011/10/5 Michael Snowwikipedia@frontier.com
On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out.
Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure.
If there was a part of the Italian Wikipedia community insisting on preserving the ability to edit, this might be more relevant. But since the protest has started, the only voices I've seen speaking against the protest have been from outside that community. That seems to me like a persuasive indication about the level of consensus behind this decision. Questions about crossing picket lines and the right to work are interesting theoretical problems when using this analogy, but they aren't presenting themselves under the current circumstances.
--Michael Snow
2011/10/5 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com
On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote:
2011/10/5 Michael Snowwikipedia@frontier.com
On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
When labor unions go on strike, they do more than not show up for work. They form picket lines and take other actions designed to obstruct activity so that company operations cannot proceed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the Italian Wikipedia community collectively wants to go on strike, then what they have done is apply the full range of tools to carry that out.
Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right
to
work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yesterday, today? Sure.
If there was a part of the Italian Wikipedia community insisting on preserving the ability to edit, this might be more relevant. But since the protest has started, the only voices I've seen speaking against the protest have been from outside that community. That seems to me like a persuasive indication about the level of consensus behind this decision.
It is not consensus, it is just a small number of users kidnapping the content generated by a much bigger and fuzzy community.
The right to edit and the right to access to knowledge have been killed in Italian Wikipedia.
They have done more harm than any China blockage or any stupid law. Wikimedia projects are not secure to archive and spread knowledge anymore.
Questions about crossing picket lines and the right to work are interesting theoretical problems when using this analogy, but they aren't presenting themselves under the current circumstances.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Very hard times for Wikimedia Italia. This goes for you all, going on working under very hard conditions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXqYkQj1QC4
All my support. From the bottom of my heart.
2011/10/4 Tanvir Rahman wikitanvir@gmail.com:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern.
The other issue is, that if you are italian citizen and have admin account anyone at any moment can ask you to change/delete content on the basis on this new law, and if you fail to do it within 48 hrs.you are commiting a kind of crime.
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitanvir@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern.
Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the "new" law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia.
Risker
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say? Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content? I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated. Andreas
--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker.wp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitanvir@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern.
Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the "new" law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia.
Risker _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Page 24.
On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say? Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content? I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated. Andreas
--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker.wp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitanvir@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern.
Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the "new" law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia.
Risker _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and translate it into other languages.
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and translate it into other languages.
It's PD in Italy at least for local laws.
Nemo
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and translate it into other languages.
It's PD in Italy at least for local laws.
Which Commons template applies to Italy laws?
On English Wikisource we have the following template to cover foreign laws
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-GovEdict
There is a slightly differently worded template
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-GovEdict
Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia:
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2... (Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that)
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2... (Edit summary translation: removal, replacement, impossible to assert that on the basis of the proposed law)
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template). They would *not* have the right to have the content replaced by their version. (The Italian statement now says "chiedere l'introduzzione di una rettifica", i.e. "request the introduction of a correction", while the English version says "request to publish a corrected version".)
Frankly, given some of our past BLP problems, I am in part sympathetic to BLP subjects having some easy comeback against online writings which they feel portray them in an unduly poor light. There are two sides here -- see the Robert Fisk article from a few years ago.[1]
Just as legal cases are lengthy and expensive for bloggers and the like, they are also expensive for BLP subjects who feel they are being defamed by an anonymous source on the Internet, including Wikipedia.[2]
I think the WMF statement[3] is a bit over-optimistic here! If anonymous crowds were so effective at writing neutral BLPs, the board resolution and years of hand-wringing on BLPs would not have been necessary.
I'm not saying the Italian law as written is a good idea, but I think our analysis should be a bit more measured. Note also that there seem to be far more press freedom issues at stake here than just the posting of corrections. Last year, the entire Italian news industry went on strike for a day over the same bill, which is, after all, known as the *wiretapping* bill, governing the right to publish wiretapping transcripts. Apparently the initiative was sparked by the publication of some of Berlusconi's private indiscretions. See Guardian report.[4] Giving those written about the right to have a statement or correction posted is just a small part of this bill.
The statement shown on it.wikipedia looks like it was knocked up in a hurry. For such a prominent action, it should have been vetted in a bit more detail, and the errors emended before it went live. We shouldn't be misinforming millions of people.
Andreas
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8498981/Mayfair-art-dealer-Mark-Weiss... [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/silvio-berlusconi-media-gag-lawA... --- On Wed, 5/10/11, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 6:23
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and translate it into other languages.
It's PD in Italy at least for local laws.
Which Commons template applies to Italy laws?
On English Wikisource we have the following template to cover foreign laws
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-GovEdict
There is a slightly differently worded template
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-GovEdict
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
That's enough crazy and against NPOV.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
That's enough crazy and against NPOV.
Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate.
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:16
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
That's enough crazy and against NPOV.
Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate. Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
There is no question that it is better to go through OTRS and reach an amicable agreement on what an article should and should not say. But I'd be more sympathetic if we hadn't had cases like Taner Akçam and Philip Mould, or if we didn't sometimes have
editors involved in personal feuds off-site with BLP subjects they are writing about. One recent such case (about a former Playmate of the Year) took five years to resolve (by deleting the article).
So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject if they see one.
Andreas
Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something "bad" on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...).
Aubrey
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44
Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something "bad" on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...).
Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it.
Andreas
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44
Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
Moreover, some people in Italy are quite easy in sueing: Wikimedia Italy is still on trial (in the person of her president) beacuse someone wrote something "bad" on the owners of a political newspaper. (and they asked us 20 million dollars...).
Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it.
Okay. You convinced me totally. That is beyond the pale. I suppose cool heads like we have here up north, just couldn't comprehend mediterranean "think with your balls, not your head, because they will be cooler" thinking. All support to the Italian strike, if the law was that moronic.
Andreas Kolbe, 06/10/2011 02:11:
Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000 fine in the proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday). Yet that €12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include a statement in an article is less of an issue to me than the prospect of being fined €12,000 if it isn't done in time. *That* is where the chilling effect comes from, yet the it:WP statement doesn't mention it.
Yes, in fact I don't understand why this wasn't included in the statement, I asked on the talk but it was too late. I guess it was already long enough and the authors preferred to keep it about principles.
Nemo
On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded "Right of reply law." I don't think it has ever been applied against an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like that. I think it is very cogently only applied to publications with an editorial plate that says the publishers stand behind every word printed on it. Which is not the case for Wikipedia, and would be ludicrous to even contemplate. Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up for a name, it doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a person reaches more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned recently, there is a responsibility that comes with that kind of reach. Saying that "we don't necessarily stand behind what our article says about you the way a newspaper publisher would stand behind an article of theirs" is frankly little consolation to an aggrieved BLP subject.
So while I'd agree that there are clearly *better* solutions than being forced to post a statement from the BLP subject, I disagree that the idea is *that* ludicrous. I also think that our readers would recognise a self-serving and lying statement from a BLP subject if they see one.
I would have no problem with a "Right of Reply" rule. It would not override well-documented information that is already on the page, but merely explain how the subject differs. It could also help to fill holes in non-controversial areas.
It's not a question of standing behind an article, but of recognizing that sources can be wrong.
By presenting it right it would also give the public image of listening to a subject's concerns.
Ray
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
I think not. The transcluded template can be deleted from the article, if you don't block the article itself
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo jalo75@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jalo jalo75@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
I think not. The transcluded template can be deleted from the article, if you don't block the article itself
I'm sure it would not be beyond developers' resourcefulness to set an article up in such a way that the template can only be deleted by an admin. Andreas
Andreas Kolbe, 05/10/2011 12:49:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and protected template).
Oh really? How do you prevent editors from removing it? Implementing an abusefilter rule for every page? Also, how do you interpret the rule that you can't "comment" it? It could mean that you can't explain why the statement is wrong, and because you can't check this, you have to protect the page from further editing (or hire someone to check every edit?).
I'm not saying the Italian law as written is a good idea, but I think our analysis should be a bit more measured. Note also that there seem to be far more press freedom issues at stake here than just the posting of corrections. Last year, the entire Italian news industry went on strike for a day over the same bill, which is, after all, known as the *wiretapping* bill, governing the right to publish wiretapping transcripts. Apparently the initiative was sparked by the publication of some of Berlusconi's private indiscretions. See Guardian report.[4] Giving those written about the right to have a statement or correction posted is just a small part of this bill.
So what? Wikipedia is not affected by that part of the law, therefore it.wiki users didn't comment it because they're not taking a political stance about freedom of press or whatever, they're just explaining why Wikipedia couldn't survive such a law.
The statement shown on it.wikipedia looks like it was knocked up in a hurry. For such a prominent action, it should have been vetted in a bit more detail, and the errors emended before it went live. We shouldn't be misinforming millions of people.
The statement could be better, obviously, but I've already explained why it was written in a bit of a hurry. This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before.
Nemo
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comescreveu:
This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before.
it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for such opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this?
Lodewijk
Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24:
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) escreveu:
This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before.
it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for such opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this?
Yes, there are some, but do you mean for websites in general or for Wikipedia specifically? Are Italian texts enough? I've linked only a statement by Rodotà before because I can't imagine a more authoritative one now (I'm open to suggestions), but WMI is now asking more thorough analysis to legal experts.
Nemo
I mean Wikipedia (or websites like Wikipedia) specific. Italian text will have to do - Google translate does miracles :) I think what would be really great is a set of statements/suggestions, so not just by one expert. For one, the Rodotà statement was not exactly what I was looking for at some point, so perhaps another statement by someone else clarifies better.
Thanks a lot,
Lodewijk
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 15:20, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comescreveu:
Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24:
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) escreveu:
This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of the proposed law for a long time before.
it's not that I dont trust you - but several people have asked me for
such
opinions. Is there somewhere an overview of legal experts interpreting this?
Yes, there are some, but do you mean for websites in general or for Wikipedia specifically? Are Italian texts enough? I've linked only a statement by Rodotà before because I can't imagine a more authoritative one now (I'm open to suggestions), but WMI is now asking more thorough analysis to legal experts.
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks. As far as I can see, the document you link to enumerates proposed changes to an existing law (the text of which is not given). The left column shows changes already approved in 2009, and the right column shows additional modifications now to be voted on.
So we read that after the third subsection of article 8 of the law from 8 February 1948, the following should be inserted (changes and additions only present in the right column are shown in capitals):
---o0o---
For radio and television broadcasts, the statements or corrections are effected pursuant to Article 32 of the consolidated AUDIOVISUAL AND RADIOPHONIC MEDIA services regulation per the Decree of 31 July 2005, No. 177. For web sites, INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES DISTRIBUTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS, the statements or corrections are published within forty-eight hours of a request, with the same graphical presentation, the same methodology to provide access to the site, and the same visibility as the news to which they refer.
---o0o---
Basically, the proposal seems to be about making online media subject to the same regulations that currently apply to television, radio and print media -- i.e. that corrections or complaints must be publicised as prominently as the original statements, and within a defined (and rather short) time period.
Any corrections to my translation from native speakers welcome.
Andreas
--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 22:42
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Page 24.
On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say? Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content? I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated. Andreas
--- On Tue, 4/10/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker.wp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 14:09
On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman wikitanvir@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry!
They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern.
Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google translate? I am unclear what the "new" law says that is leading Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian Wikipedia.
Risker _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content? I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law, along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated.
Paragraph 29 http://www.camera.it/Camera/view/doc_viewer_full?url=http%3A//www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/schedela/apriTelecomando_wai.asp%3Fcodice%3D16PDL0038530&back_to=http%3A//www.camera.it/126%3FPDL%3D1415-B%26leg%3D16%26tab%3D2 It's not entirely clear how it applies to wikis. It says "with the same graphics, the same website access way and the same visibility", and you can't alter or comment it. So, probably put it at the top (or the side) of the article and protect it forever, or something like that. Who knows... The parliament doesn't know how Internet works, and they don't care.
Nemo
On 4 October 2011 23:12, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be
posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
I can read some Italian; a link to the proposed text of the new law,
along with an indication of the relevant section or paragraph, would be much appreciated.
Paragraph 29 < http://www.camera.it/Camera/view/doc_viewer_full?url=http%3A//www.camera.it/...
It's not entirely clear how it applies to wikis. It says "with the same graphics, the same website access way and the same visibility", and you can't alter or comment it. So, probably put it at the top (or the side) of the article and protect it forever, or something like that. Who knows... The parliament doesn't know how Internet works, and they don't care.
I'm still a little bit confused how this will impact Wikipedia, though.
The law seems to be clear in identifying the website owner as the person to contact; which is a US not-for-profit.
Don't get me wrong; despite my moaning I do support thie it.wiki community in opposing this (whether or not it affects them) just as helped I oppose all the idiotic French internet laws that came through some time ago. Indeed I just finished drafting a letter to the IT Consulate here, plus one for my MP & something for the various media contacts I have.
However, you know, I still register my discomfort with actually "closing" it.wiki in protest :S
And I would still be interested to hear actual analysis how this might affect editors directly (because if it does; then this leaves interesting questions like - what about Facebook? Forum posts? Emails? Blog comments? etc.)
Tom
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 00:23:
I'm still a little bit confused how this will impact Wikipedia, though.
The law seems to be clear in identifying the website owner as the person to contact; which is a US not-for-profit.
Which law? And which law speaks of website owner? Anyone can be asked to publish the correction/statement.
Don't get me wrong; despite my moaning I do support thie it.wiki community in opposing this (whether or not it affects them) just as helped I oppose all the idiotic French internet laws that came through some time ago. Indeed I just finished drafting a letter to the IT Consulate here, plus one for my MP& something for the various media contacts I have.
However, you know, I still register my discomfort with actually "closing" it.wiki in protest :S
And I would still be interested to hear actual analysis how this might affect editors directly (because if it does; then this leaves interesting questions like - what about Facebook? Forum posts? Emails? Blog comments? etc.)
Yes. Even blog or Facebook comments are at risk with this law. Everything is subject to it. I hope that the italian prominent jurist Stefano Rodotà confirming that the law would affect Wikipedia badly and the protest is justified will be enough for you: http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/wikipedia-rivolta-on-line/2162962/12
Nemo
A couple of English articles on the new law: https://www.pcworld.com/article/240840/italian_internet_activists_protest_proposed_law.html http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=852&doc_id=234086
Also, I'm not involved in the strike, but the WMF has been somehow informed by the organizers.
Nemo
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be "Wikipedia è rotto."
It's a shitty law. I don't think anyone on this list disagrees. This morning I read up on the Amanda Knox case for the first time, and it seems that the Italian system of law has a lot to answer for. (I think, anyway—my first source for information on Italian law was just made unavailable to me.)
Let's say that I'm an American, and I'm studying Italian in memory of my late godparents, Grandma Jan and Papa Joe Giacinto, second-generation immigrants who frequently spoke Italian around the house during my childhood. Or I'm one of over one million people in the U.S. who speak Italian at home, or I'm from Switzerland, or I'm... well, you get the idea. We're supposed to be about free access to knowledge, and because 40 angry people said so, I'm only able to access the Italian Wikipedia if I download a weeks-old database dump, set up MySQL, Apache, and MediaWiki, and host my own server?
A strike means you stop working. If you want to stop editing, so be it. itwiki is going a step further, however, and undeniably hindering "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
All this because of a proposed law in one country, not mutually exclusive with the language. If San Marino were to pass such a law, would we be here?
Austin
On 05.10.2011 20:43, Austin Hair wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011de10011@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be "Wikipedia è rotto."
Make a logout and after make a new login.
Ilario
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Make a logout and after make a new login.
I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual reader would.
Austin
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jalo jalo75@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it works. Which browser are you using?
Firefox 7.0.1 on OS X 10.6.6, not logged into anything.
Austin
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org