[Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

??? wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sat Aug 4 11:16:06 UTC 2012

On 04/08/2012 00:44, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1
>>>> day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits
>>>> alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which
>>>> sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that
>>>> derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated,
>>>> or who make money from advertising on pirate sites.
>>> I don't know what "other representatives" you could be referring to.
>> You have two board members that are closely associated with or paid by
>> Google. One of which is a development manager for YouTube
> I see, you mean https://creativecommons.org/board#glenn who moved on
> to Twitter almost a year and a half ago. Someone will update that
> listing appropriately.

When I'm on committees and such like we swap email addresses, and 
contact details, and what is astonishing those contact details don't all 
change simple because someone has moved on elsewhere.

I note that also on the board you have listed three members from the 
Berkman Center, and Google provides 10% of all the Corporate Funding of 
that organisation. Direct corporate donations to Creative Commons are I 
believe dominated by large companies whose interests are similarly 
aligned with Google.

The issue here isn't that there is some smoking gun of direct corruption 
where people are told to do the Emperor's bidding, but that the 
antecedence of a SOPA boycott on wikipedia came 1 day after a CC board 
meeting the members of whom are Google friendly.

For legitimate content creators and filesharers in the US, SOPA held no 
worries, for the mega corporations of the internet that derive a large 
part of their income from infringing content, SOPA could be seen as a 
problem. Both wikipedia and Creative Commons sided with the Fat Cat's 
against the interests of the small content creators. In the case of 
Wikipedia the justification for doing so was tenuous in the extreme.


More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list