2011/10/4 Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>om>: 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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: 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

On 10/05/11 2:06 AM, Béria Lima wrote: 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

Ray Saintonge, 05/10/2011 10:46: 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 Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:56, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote: Every individual contributor should abide by the laws of the country he lives, operates or has property in. Mathias

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote: Any news coverage?

One in English: http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10 On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:57, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan <nawrich(a)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? Mathias

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that was his point. Austin

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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: my the with this own

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Is this the first time that WMF has actively taken a stance on politics and legislation? -- John Vandenberg

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:26 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask

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

2011/10/5 David Richfield <davidrichfield(a)gmail.com>om>: 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

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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: 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. 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

On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote: 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

yet in affect. If the law passes, it'll be too late

They can block Italian Wikipedia in Italy, right? If so, it is a concern. -- Tanvir Rahman Wikitanvir on Wikimedia

On 4 October 2011 08:57, Tanvir Rahman <wikitanvir(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf Page 24. On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16: It's PD in Italy at least for local laws. Nemo

Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_… (Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that) http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_… (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-i… [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8498981/Mayfair-art-dealer-Mark-Weis… [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wik… [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/silvio-berlusconi-media-gag-law…   --- On Wed, 5/10/11, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 6:23 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> 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. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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 Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: 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

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40 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

No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>escreveucreveu: 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

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(a)gmail.com>escreveucreveu:

Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40: 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

Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 00:23: Which law? And which law speaks of website owner? Anyone can be asked to publish the correction/statement. 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

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 &lt;jalo75(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Firefox 7.0.1 on OS X 10.6.6, not logged into anything. Austin