On 18 January 2012 16:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2012 19:32, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/01/2012, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote: <snip
I was rather concerned by people thinking we need to allow "emergency access" - what kind of emergencies are going to mean people need Wikipedia? And is everyone having such an emergency going to have read the FAQ and know how to get around the blackout?
Speaking as one of the closers of the "RFC", some of the things we were thinking of were a DMCA notice, Legal needing to get something taken down right now or some other OFFICE-type action, removal of an obvious copyright violation, information that needed to be suppressed, or just something that went wrong from the technical end of things and needed fixing right away. Remember this has sort of been put together with baling wire and sealing wax, and we wanted to make sure to leave a door open for unforeseen situations where it was possible to take immediate action if required.
If the whole site is down, you don't really need to worry about takedown orders...
Even if there was a need for an OFFICE action, people in the office are just a short walk away from the ops team that can do whatever needs doing.
Actually, you do need to worry about takedown orders - the site is *not* shut down, it's accessible through Mobile and through very simple, easily discoverable methods. It's just not editable. And the ops team is included in the "emergency" provisions. You don't think we haven't already had significant screaming about the tiny number of edits and actions that have taken place in the last 17 hours? Trust me on this...some people on this list may think that their actions are divorced from "the community", but "the community" doesn't see it that way at all. The back door is for you folks to do your work with the smallest number of pitchfork and torch marks possible.
Risker/Anne