Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jalo75 at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 1:31 PM

Post #51 of 126 (2845 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

>
> Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately
>
desysopped under emergency procedures


We knew about this danger. But in the case, you have to desysop many of us.
The responsible is not only the one who edited the page, but all of us that
agreed on the strike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 1:32 PM

Post #52 of 126 (2855 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


millosh at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 1:50 PM

Post #53 of 126 (2841 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> 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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


sgardner at wikimedia

Oct 4, 2011, 1:58 PM

Post #54 of 126 (2845 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


gustavocarra at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 2:23 PM

Post #55 of 126 (2845 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 2:33 PM

Post #56 of 126 (2840 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


werespielchequers at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 2:46 PM

Post #57 of 126 (2849 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Hi Jalo,

Re "Italian police will get my name using my IP" it would be interesting to
know whether the WMF or Google would give the Italian police an IP address
in such circumstances. Perhaps someone from the Foundation could answer that
one, and you might want to ask Google re your Gmail account.

I'm also intrigued as to how this would affect former editors. Would the law
just be interested in current administrators?

There's also the question of retrospective legislation. Especially if the
WMF or anyone else was to keep a copy of the Italian Wikipedia from before
this legislation came into effect. Article 7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rightsand
the 6th title of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Unionboth
prohibit retrospective legislation. If someone tried to use this law
to
force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the
freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation?

WereSpielChequers




> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:00:25 +0200
> From: Jalo <jalo75 [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CADJoiUTaHs8Vr6KkWdCTU_0x4M2rPZ+HfF6vkKs-PSepW6Q10Q [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be
> > surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. Legally speaking, we're
> all
> > just users of the website
>
>
> Maybe you're right, but it's not so obvious. [Sorry for my english] There
> is
> a lawsuit opened by a person against WMItaly, 'cause wikipedia was stating
> something against him (all referenced).
>
> WMItaly is not related to it.wikip, but the lawsuit is brought, and we have
> to spend money for lawyers 'till the lawsuit conclusion.
>
> It'll be the same for this law. Italian police will get my name using my
> IP,
> the italian political will bring a lawsuit against me 'cause I didn't
> published his amendment, and I'll have to spend money (too much money, to
> me) 'till the judge will says he's a stupid.
>
> I cannot do this, almost all it.wikip users cannot do, and so I'll stop
> contributing.
>
> I remember you, if it's necessary, that the amendment must be published
> without comment and unmodifiable, so we'll have to block all articles in
> which an amandment is required (almost all politicals articles, sport
> players articles, merchandising sellers articles and so on).
>
> Jalo
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


kat at mindspillage

Oct 4, 2011, 3:09 PM

Post #58 of 126 (2838 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> 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


--
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat [at] wikimedia * Personal: kat [at] mindspillage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage
IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:14 PM

Post #59 of 126 (2845 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

WereSpielChequers, 04/10/2011 23:46:
> If someone tried to use this law
> to
> force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the
> freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation?

I don't see why. Web pages are permanent, they ask the
correction/declaration to be published after the new law (there's no
time limit for it) and you have to publish it. You're not punished for
having published the original text.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:19 PM

Post #60 of 126 (2841 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage <neil [at] thebabbages> wrote:
> Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right
> (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In
> any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to
> their management.

The WMF can override the local community if they want.

The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be
influencing legislation.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


de10011 at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:24 PM

Post #61 of 126 (2846 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:49 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage <neil [at] thebabbages> wrote:
> > Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right
> > (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In
> > any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to
> > their management.
>
> The WMF can override the local community if they want.
>
> The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be
> influencing legislation.
>
>
Not really John, I don't think you saw Sue's statement on this thread
earlier.

It is the community's position, the Italian community is influencing
legislation, WMF is not.

Theo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:25 PM

Post #62 of 126 (2847 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 4 October 2011 23:19, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Neil Babbage <neil [at] thebabbages> wrote:
> > Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right
> > (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In
> > any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to
> > their management.
>
> The WMF can override the local community if they want.
>
> The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be
> influencing legislation.
>
> Jimbo has already stated support FWIW.

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:26 PM

Post #63 of 126 (2842 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


lodewijk at effeietsanders

Oct 4, 2011, 3:33 PM

Post #64 of 126 (2843 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail>escreveu:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia>
> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


mnemonic at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:36 PM

Post #65 of 126 (2839 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Kat Walsh writes:

> 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.)

Speaking only for myself, this precisely reflects my views. I applaud
the Italian Wikipedians' decision to challenge this law so directly.

> But I'm not sure about denying access completely for several days. 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 understand Kat's doubts here, but my intuitive reaction, having
dealt with government censorship of various sorts for more than 20
years, is that more dramatic action is most likely to be effective in
persuading a government to change course. Governments that want to
censor -- like the USA, the United Kingdom (through its public-private
partnership), and now the Italian government -- tend to build up a lot
of inertia behind their policy choices. It's very hard to get a
government to change its mind. You have to challenge government
officials in a big, dramatic (and usually longer-lasting) way to get
their attention and make them responsive.

Of course this is an experiment -- we don't yet know whether the
Italian Wikipedians' efforts will be successful. But I think it's
probably better to dare too much than too little. I think the Italian
Wikipedians are courageous on this issue, and they totally have my
personal support.

I'd also like to +1 the thought that the very existence of Wikipedia
is not itself NPOV -- it reflects a philosophical and political
position, and one that just about all of us here agree with.

There are some governments that won't respond positively to any
protest effort -- the People's Republic of China is one of these, and
not just because Chinese readers have an alternative in Baidu. Let's
hope the government of Italy takes a better position than the PRC
would.


--Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


mnemonic at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:53 PM

Post #66 of 126 (2845 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Milos writes:

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> 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.

I agree entirely with Risker, and I want to applaud the WM RS Board
members for responding so quickly in support of the Italian
Wikimedians on this issue. Milos, I missed your board's public
statement -- can you send me a link so I can share it in my networks?


--Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


bdamokos at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 3:59 PM

Post #67 of 126 (2850 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic [at] gmail> wrote:

> I agree entirely with Risker, and I want to applaud the WM RS Board
> members for responding so quickly in support of the Italian
> Wikimedians on this issue. Milos, I missed your board's public
> statement -- can you send me a link so I can share it in my networks?
>
http://rs.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_2/2011

Best regards,
Bence

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phnash at blueyonder

Oct 4, 2011, 4:01 PM

Post #68 of 126 (2850 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Mike Godwin wrote:
> Kat Walsh writes:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Speaking only for myself, this precisely reflects my views. I applaud
> the Italian Wikipedians' decision to challenge this law so directly.
>
>> But I'm not sure about denying access completely for several days. 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 understand Kat's doubts here, but my intuitive reaction, having
> dealt with government censorship of various sorts for more than 20
> years, is that more dramatic action is most likely to be effective in
> persuading a government to change course. Governments that want to
> censor -- like the USA, the United Kingdom (through its public-private
> partnership), and now the Italian government -- tend to build up a lot
> of inertia behind their policy choices. It's very hard to get a
> government to change its mind. You have to challenge government
> officials in a big, dramatic (and usually longer-lasting) way to get
> their attention and make them responsive.

When you say "big and dramatic", what level of bribe did you have in mind
for Italian officials?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thogol at googlemail

Oct 4, 2011, 4:33 PM

Post #69 of 126 (2847 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

2011/10/5 John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail>:
> The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be
> influencing legislation.
>

Why should the WMF not (at least try to) influence legislation if that
helps the goal of distributing free knowledge? I think it should do
exactly that, whenever possible and suitable, as for instance in this
case. And it is done by chapters already. Wikimedia Serbia has made a
good example in this Italian law case on how that can be done (thx to
Milos), namely for example by writing WM-official protest or support
notes to politicians, embassadors, etc. Another such thing was what WM
Germany did in the past for state or federal elections, when they
interviewed the candidating parties about certain questions relevant
for the free knowledge movement and publishing these interviews, which
is a much more indirect way to influence legislation, but still.

BR
Th.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


rkaldari at wikimedia

Oct 4, 2011, 4:50 PM

Post #70 of 126 (2851 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
though, and definitely not true for the communities.

Ryan Kaldari

On 10/4/11 4:33 PM, Thomas Goldammer wrote:
> 2011/10/5 John Vandenberg<jayvdb [at] gmail>:
>> The WMF is very unlikely to approve of this, as that would be
>> influencing legislation.
>>
> Why should the WMF not (at least try to) influence legislation if that
> helps the goal of distributing free knowledge? I think it should do
> exactly that, whenever possible and suitable, as for instance in this
> case. And it is done by chapters already. Wikimedia Serbia has made a
> good example in this Italian law case on how that can be done (thx to
> Milos), namely for example by writing WM-official protest or support
> notes to politicians, embassadors, etc. Another such thing was what WM
> Germany did in the past for state or federal elections, when they
> interviewed the candidating parties about certain questions relevant
> for the free knowledge movement and publishing these interviews, which
> is a much more indirect way to influence legislation, but still.
>
> BR
> Th.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thogol at googlemail

Oct 4, 2011, 4:56 PM

Post #71 of 126 (2848 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

2011/10/5 Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari [at] wikimedia>:
> The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
> non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
> though, and definitely not true for the communities.
>
> Ryan Kaldari

not for/against the US legislation, that means? Or world-wide? So, can
WMF write an official letter to the Italian embassador under this
non-profit status or would that be unlawful under the non-profit
terms?

Th.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


delirium at hackish

Oct 4, 2011, 5:21 PM

Post #72 of 126 (2840 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 10/5/11 1:50 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
> non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
> though, and definitely not true for the communities.
>
Somewhat true, but not a red line. The IRS gives this wonderfully vague
formulation: "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but
too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status".

In addition, "organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare
and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public
policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their
tax-exempt status". For example, perhaps, in suitable cases, Wikimedia
could issue factual statements about proposed legislation likely to
affect its operations, with a neutral legal analysis of if and how the
legislation would do so.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


kat at mindspillage

Oct 4, 2011, 5:28 PM

Post #73 of 126 (2852 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:26 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> 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

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat [at] wikimedia * Personal: kat [at] mindspillage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage
IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Oct 4, 2011, 5:44 PM

Post #74 of 126 (2846 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail> wrote:
> 2011/10/5 Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari [at] wikimedia>:
>> The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
>> non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
>> though, and definitely not true for the communities.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>
> not for/against the US legislation, that means? Or world-wide?

The US laws apply to lobbying internationally as well as in the US.

The WMF is allowed to lobby, but additional regulations apply when they do.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phnash at blueyonder

Oct 4, 2011, 5:51 PM

Post #75 of 126 (2846 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Mark wrote:
> On 10/5/11 1:50 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>> The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our
>> 501c3 non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for
>> chapters though, and definitely not true for the communities.
>>
> Somewhat true, but not a red line. The IRS gives this wonderfully
> vague formulation: "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some
> lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt
> status".
>
> In addition, "organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare
> and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public
> policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their
> tax-exempt status". For example, perhaps, in suitable cases, Wikimedia
> could issue factual statements about proposed legislation likely to
> affect its operations, with a neutral legal analysis of if and how the
> legislation would do so.
>
> -Mark

I don't think that there is a distinction between "lobbying" and
"campaigning". It cannot be assumed that a charitable organisation should
not be able to protect its own status, because I think the law should assume
that right. The issue is to how that is to be achieved, and by what means,
and that is where a political dimension arises. Thus far, it is by words and
gestures. Politicians, at a practical level, are sometimes more used to more
physical expressions of dissent. I doubt it will come to that in this case.
However, I would be surprised if the message did not reach its intended
target in this instance.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.