Here's an excerpt of an e-mail I got from the FFII. I think all Wikipedias with languages spoken in Europe should take part in the online demo. This isn't NPOV, but software patents could have serious consequences for our project in the future, so I think we should take a firm stand here.
Kurt
-------- Original Message --------
Dear FFII/Eurolinux supporter[1],
The European Parliament is voting on September 1st on a proposal which, while pretending to aim at restricting patentability, in reality ensures that algorithms and business methods like Amazon One Click Shopping indisputably become patentable inventions (and indisputably pass the bogus requirement of "technical contribution in the inventive step").
As past experience shows, it is possible for powerful lobbies to push incredibly bad directives through the European Parliament. But it is also possible to have them rejected. Everything depends on how well we use last week of August.
[...]
Needed: Your Website Blocked Next Wednesday August 27th
If the JURI proposal passes, important websites will be forced off the Net in the near future. It would seem preferable to take them off the Net now, as a demonstration, for a few days. Or, in a more gentle manner, to hide the content behind a "Page Closed" screen of the following kind:
see
Online Demonstration Against Software Patents http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html
The www.ffii.org title page is already hidden in this way and will continue to stay hidden until after the vote.
You might consider hiding some or all pages at least on August 27th and persuading your friends, especially those who administer much-visited software download pages, to do likewise.
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Suppose the next political protest we're asked to participate in is pro-war? Or anti-war? Or whatever. Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Heck, our server goes down regularly anyway. Maybe we'll participate unintentionally. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
If Wikipedia was to start to do any lobbying for legislation, a strict policy would need to be implemented so that any such activities don't jeapardize its proposed 501(c)(3) tax exemption. Alex756 From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Suppose the next political protest we're asked to participate in is pro-war? Or anti-war? Or whatever. Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Op do 21-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef Alex R.:
If Wikipedia was to start to do any lobbying for legislation, a strict policy would need to be implemented so that any such activities don't jeapardize its proposed 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
Since when does an act of Free Speech joepardize a not-for-profit organisation?
From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
I understand that. There are a lot of causes that need attention and that are worth fighting for. But most of them have no direct relation with Wikipedia / free software / open content.
Suppose the next political protest we're asked to participate in is pro-war? Or anti-war? Or whatever.
There is a war going on: the battle between openness and closedness. As a social movement, we are stronger if we stand together.
Taking sides is something that
all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals,
I strongly disagree with that. Organisations & companies are continually taking sides, eg lobbyists, the Catholic Church,... And they have in general more power to social reform than they are willing to admit. Saying that decisions for creating a better world is up to the individual, and only the individual, is choosing for the status-quo.
Of course Wikipedia's situation is very different because of its very loose structure, and decision-making.
This is an action of protest, of making things known to the outside world. But it's not exactly a black and white situation either: or the webpage down, or nothing. A middle way is to show a big red protest-box, leaving all the rest the same.
but
Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
What if Microsoft had some patents on some Encarta features? Let's not forget: frames & stylesheets are already patented. If you are little and unimportant there is no need to fear such patents. If Wikipedia is going to be big and disruptive, would the current establishment use the legal system to stop it? Maybe or maybe not.
Op do 21-08-2003, om 22:13 schreef Erik Moeller:
The MediaWiki developer team can take a position against software patents (on the software page at SourceForge, for example),
Where no one of the audience you want to reach is gonna read it. Only the already converted. Very efficient.
Wikimedia should try to maintain neutrality on all controversial issues in the interest of credibility.
In the articles, yes. Do Free Speech advocates need to shup up on controversial issues in the interest of credibility? Patentibility of software is controversial *because we achieved to make it so*!
Wikipedia has credibility to win or to loose with this action. Let's not confuse neutrality with indifference.
Wouter Vanden Hove
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:20:27AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Suppose the next political protest we're asked to participate in is pro-war? Or anti-war? Or whatever. Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Well, software patents may be dangerous to Wikipedia as a project. We could have become target of legal action by Unisys, or Fraunhofer, or somebody else with weird patent. Maybe they'll patent wiki ? Or hyperlinks ?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Of course not. Wikipedia should take part because software patents could have direct effects on the project. They threaten free software (like MediaWiki) in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed to have a patent on "websites which are editable by visitors" (of course formulated much more eloquently).
Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Sorry, but that sounds a bit naive to me.
Kurt
Kurt Jansson wrote:
Of course not. Wikipedia should take part because software patents could have direct effects on the project. They threaten free software (like MediaWiki) in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed to have a patent on "websites which are editable by visitors" (of course formulated much more eloquently).
Well, lots of things could possibly affect us. War, changes to the U.S. tax laws, proposed 'hate speech' laws in the U.S. and Europe, the list is endless.
Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Sorry, but that sounds a bit naive to me.
Maybe, but that's what's so charming about me, isn't it? ;-)
Seriously, though, I think it's naive to think that we can start down a path of using Wikipedia for political purposes and not set some very bad precedent for the future, bad *internal* precedent, leading to huge amounts of internal dissent. As if we don't have enough already.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
Of course not. Wikipedia should take part because software patents could have direct effects on the project. They threaten free software (like MediaWiki) in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed to have a patent on "websites which are editable by visitors" (of course formulated much more eloquently).
Well, lots of things could possibly affect us. War, changes to the U.S. tax laws, proposed 'hate speech' laws in the U.S. and Europe, the list is endless.
I read the proposal for Wikipedia support, and I treated it as some kind of borderline spam. I am very concerned about IP laws and how they might affect the open nature of our projects. What I saw was a reference to a proposed European law, and one individual's interpretation of what it '''might''' mean. Even if we were to seriously consider some kind of support, I for one would want a lot more concrete information about the matter than one person's amateur interpretation. Anything else would not be prudent.
Taking sides is something that all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals, but Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
Sorry, but that sounds a bit naive to me.
Maybe, but that's what's so charming about me, isn't it? ;-)
Seriously, though, I think it's naive to think that we can start down a path of using Wikipedia for political purposes and not set some very bad precedent for the future, bad *internal* precedent, leading to huge amounts of internal dissent. As if we don't have enough already.
There is a difference between taking sides as individuals and as a collective. As individuals we accept the consequences for ourselves; as a collective we accept those consequences on behalf of others. I agree with Jimbo's interpretation. If we are at any time to take a political stand on this sort of thing it must be fully discussed beforehand, and it must have an immediate connection to the vital interests of Wikimedia. Prudence and due dilligence are important preconditions.
Ec
Kurt-
Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Of course not. Wikipedia should take part because software patents could have direct effects on the project. They threaten free software (like MediaWiki) in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed to have a patent on "websites which are editable by visitors" (of course formulated much more eloquently).
The MediaWiki developer team can take a position against software patents (on the software page at SourceForge, for example), but I think Wikipedia/ Wikimedia should try to maintain neutrality on all controversial issues in the interest of credibility.
Regards,
Erik
Kurt Jansson wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
Of course not. Wikipedia should take part because software patents could have direct effects on the project. They threaten free software (like MediaWiki) in general, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed to have a patent on "websites which are editable by visitors" (of course formulated much more eloquently).
On this issue I think free Wiki's may actually be the first to utilize the concept, which would make it not a problem for us.
In any case, starting to take political stands gets a bit murky. Perhaps since we're a GFDL encyclopedia, some of us see copyrights as being detrimental to our work, since we cannot freely integrate material from copyrighted sources. But should we therefore lobby for the abolition of copyrights? Some would say yes, but many would say no. I think we should basically stay out of all these political disputes as much as possible, and let the individual contributors make whatever personal political stands they want to. Having Wikipedia make official stands is only going to alienate contributors who disagree with those stands. I would think people who support software patents are still welcome to write articles on Wikipedia, but if Wikipedia starts taking such stands they may feel unwelcome here.
-Mark
Wikipedia is and should remain very much an impartial forum. Impartiality goes down the drain when you take sides in political things like this. I sympathize, but I think Wikipedia should stay above this sort of thing.
--Jake
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org