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


wikipedia at frontier

Oct 5, 2011, 10:12 AM

Post #101 of 126 (1265 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote:
> 2011/10/5 Michael Snow<wikipedia [at] frontier>
>> On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>> Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
>> 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.
> Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right to
> work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
> Yesterday, today? Sure.
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

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


emijrp at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 10:31 AM

Post #102 of 126 (1264 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

2011/10/5 Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] frontier>

> On 10/5/2011 9:45 AM, emijrp wrote:
> > 2011/10/5 Michael Snow<wikipedia [at] frontier>
> >> On 10/5/2011 7:03 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> >>> Editor strike means not editing, it doesn't mean full service downtime.
> >> 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.
> > Looks like you forget that as exists a right to strike, there is a right
> to
> > work. Italian Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
> > Yesterday, today? Sure.
> 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.
>

It is not consensus, it is just a small number of users kidnapping the
content generated by a much bigger and fuzzy community.

The right to edit and the right to access to knowledge have been killed in
Italian Wikipedia.

They have done more harm than any China blockage or any stupid law.
Wikimedia projects are not secure to archive and spread knowledge anymore.


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


adhair at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 11:43 AM

Post #103 of 126 (1259 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:
> There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a
> local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even
> mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction.

Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard
vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to
take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be
"Wikipedia è rotto."

It's a shitty law. I don't think anyone on this list disagrees. This
morning I read up on the Amanda Knox case for the first time, and it
seems that the Italian system of law has a lot to answer for. (I
think, anyway—my first source for information on Italian law was just
made unavailable to me.)

Let's say that I'm an American, and I'm studying Italian in memory of
my late godparents, Grandma Jan and Papa Joe Giacinto,
second-generation immigrants who frequently spoke Italian around the
house during my childhood. Or I'm one of over one million people in
the U.S. who speak Italian at home, or I'm from Switzerland, or I'm...
well, you get the idea. We're supposed to be about free access to
knowledge, and because 40 angry people said so, I'm only able to
access the Italian Wikipedia if I download a weeks-old database dump,
set up MySQL, Apache, and MediaWiki, and host my own server?

A strike means you stop working. If you want to stop editing, so be
it. itwiki is going a step further, however, and undeniably hindering
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum
of all knowledge."

All this because of a proposed law in one country, not mutually
exclusive with the language. If San Marino were to pass such a law,
would we be here?

Austin

[0] http://austinhair.org/itwiki.png

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


valdelli at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 12:36 PM

Post #104 of 126 (1265 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 05.10.2011 20:43, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011<de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a
>> local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even
>> mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction.
> Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard
> vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to
> take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be
> "Wikipedia è rotto."
>
>

Make a logout and after make a new login.

Ilario

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


cunctator at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 12:47 PM

Post #105 of 126 (1262 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

That's stupid.

On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans <teun.spaans [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed,
>>> not
>>> yet in affect.
>>>
>>
>> It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or
>> not.
>
> How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and
> parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections?
>
> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


adhair at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 1:36 PM

Post #106 of 126 (1260 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli [at] gmail> wrote:
> Make a logout and after make a new login.

I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual
reader would.

Austin

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


jalo75 at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 1:52 PM

Post #107 of 126 (1264 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

>
> I wasn't logged in, to begin with. I was looking at it as any casual
> reader would.
>
> Austin
>

To me, it works. Which browser are you using?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


adhair at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 2:03 PM

Post #108 of 126 (1269 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, The Cunctator <cunctator [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler [at] gmail> wrote:
>> How many inches are we away from keeping a list of politicians and
>> parties we endorse in national, state and regional elections?
>
> That's stupid.

I think that was his point.

Austin

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


adhair at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 2:07 PM

Post #109 of 126 (1277 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jalo <jalo75 [at] gmail> wrote:
> To me, it works. Which browser are you using?

Firefox 7.0.1 on OS X 10.6.6, not logged into anything.

Austin

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


saintonge at telus

Oct 5, 2011, 2:36 PM

Post #110 of 126 (1271 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 10/04/11 3:14 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> 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.
>
>
And, of course, if someone has forced the site to publish its POV
version, someone with an opposing POV must have the same right.

Ray

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


mnemonic at gmail

Oct 5, 2011, 3:42 PM

Post #111 of 126 (1265 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Domas writes:

> Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back.
> Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it.

I believe this interpretation is both unfair and incorrect. The
Italian Wikipedians are trying to preserve a legal environment in
which spreading the knowledge is possible. Arguably, if the Italian
Wikipedians did *not* challenge this law, they would have failed in
their mission.


--Mike

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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 6, 2011, 4:49 AM

Post #112 of 126 (1264 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Ray Saintonge, 05/10/2011 10:46:
> 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.

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

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


dgerard at gmail

Oct 6, 2011, 4:57 AM

Post #113 of 126 (1268 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> 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...


Personally speaking, this is the aspect that swayed my opinion from
"um, this is a bit extreme" to "entirely appropriate reaction".
Arbitrary volunteer editors being liable to fines for not changing the
wiki within 48 hours to anything demanded by arbitrary individuals?
Shutting down the wiki is merely a preview of the obvious consequences
of the law.


- d.

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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 6, 2011, 6:25 AM

Post #114 of 126 (1267 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Thomas Goldammer, 05/10/2011 09:21:
> 2011/10/5 Samuel Klein<meta.sj [at] gmail>:
>>
>> CLPI has a good practical summary of the law in this area:
>> http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faq
>
> interesting:
>
> Q. If a charity incorporated in this country has an Australian (for
> example) affiliate that lobbies (according to United States
> definitions of lobbying) and the affiliate shows up on the IRS 990
> Form would its lobbying expenditures count against expenditure limits
> in this country?
> A. Yes, the affiliate's lobbying expenditures would count against the
> expenditure limits of the charity incorporated in this country.
>
> Do WMF chapters count as affiliates?

No. At least, we all try hard for them not to and we usually think me
managed.

> (Does "charity" mean a 501(c)(3) thing?)

Yes, although there is some confusion if I remember correctly (browse
the archives, we're off topic here :-p).

Nemo

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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 6, 2011, 6:33 AM

Post #115 of 126 (1286 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31:
> On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml
>> Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
>>
>> Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to
>> do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is
>> okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only
>> minor effects for the reader.
>>
>
> A quote:
>
> The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that
> usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the
> issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences.
>
> The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest
> the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view...

I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring.
I'd like to add that despite the "us vs. them" feeling (WMF against the
community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference
between a "foreign" organization part of your own movement (and which
runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to
effective actions required.
We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott
Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long
story short).

Nemo

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


saintonge at telus

Oct 8, 2011, 2:11 AM

Post #116 of 126 (1230 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 10/06/11 6:33 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 12:31:
>> On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml
>>> Are you seriously comparing that italien law to the proposed image filter?
>>>
>>> Are you aware of the principle of proportionality? What might be okay to
>>> do against a law that would kill Wikipedia is different from what is
>>> okay to do against piece of software that would most likely have only
>>> minor effects for the reader.
>> A quote:
>>
>> The problem, of course, with the principle of proportionality is that
>> usually it is invoked by one of the stakeholders, who blithely misses the
>> issue - which is that they are disagreeing over the consequences.
>>
>> The point being; for these hypothetical Wikipedians running such a protest
>> the consequence of an image filter may not match your own view...
> I agree with Tobias that this is a red herring.
> I'd like to add that despite the "us vs. them" feeling (WMF against the
> community and so on), I don't think anoyone can miss the difference
> between a "foreign" organization part of your own movement (and which
> runs your website) and the government of your country, with regard to
> effective actions required.
> We also have a small precedent, ace.wiki asking readers to boycott
> Wikipedia, an obvious absurd reverted by the global community (long
> story short).
>
I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I
hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than
suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on
languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation
between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no
readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora.
Other major languages are official in several important countries, and
it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed
law in only one country.

Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the
chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most
familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the
least harm to those around them.

Ray

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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 8, 2011, 2:44 AM

Post #117 of 126 (1235 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11:
> I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I
> hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than
> suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on
> languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation
> between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no
> readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora.
> Other major languages are official in several important countries, and
> it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed
> law in only one country.

I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are
many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction,
but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say
that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability
to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite
get the discussion about the alleged "right to strike vs. right to be
informed" thing.

The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors
living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this?

> Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the
> chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most
> familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the
> least harm to those around them.

This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one
may arise (as in this case).

Nemo

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


cimonavaro at gmail

Oct 8, 2011, 4:21 AM

Post #118 of 126 (1222 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge, 08/10/2011 11:11:
>> I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I
>> hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than
>> suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on
>> languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation
>> between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no
>> readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora.
>> Other major languages are official in several important countries, and
>> it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed
>> law in only one country.
>
> I'm quite surprised that you reiterate this argument, Ray. There are
> many reasons why the blackout can be considered an excessive reaction,
> but I don't understand this. Following the same argument, you could say
> that Lybia workers can't go on strike if this affects foreigners ability
> to have oil or gas. But perhaps I didn't understand you; I don't quite
> get the discussion about the alleged "right to strike vs. right to be
> informed" thing.
>
> The Italian language Wikipedia couldn't work without its contributors
> living in Italy. Period. Are you challenging this?
>
>> Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the
>> chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most
>> familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the
>> least harm to those around them.
>
> This is the normal scenario, but doesn't prove than an exceptional one
> may arise (as in this case).
>

If I may so crass as to rephrase both arguments without adding any of
of my own... Preventing people from producing content in their own
language is still preventing them from producing content.

We need to find a modality of affecting an effect directed at forces that
mean to diminish our manners of producing content in the ways we are
accustomed... To better enable us to keep producing the content.

This previous action may have been a wake up call.. But long term, we
need something more tenable as a tool for change. Trying to find a thing
I really need to add to this, and coming up short...


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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


valdelli at gmail

Oct 8, 2011, 5:00 AM

Post #119 of 126 (1222 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On 08.10.2011 11:11, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I
> hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than
> suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on
> languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation
> between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no
> readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora.
> Other major languages are official in several important countries, and
> it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed
> law in only one country.
>
> Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the
> chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most
> familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the
> least harm to those around them.
>
> Ray
Honestly I don't appreciate this kind of analysis.

It's like to say that the strikes are disruptive because the strikes are
bad for business.

If the strikes would not be disruptive, probably no one will defend
their rights with strikes.

In that way I would say that the strike of it.wikipedia has demonstrated
that it.wikipedia needs to have some rights to be alive.

We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
available to the person living in totalitarism.

The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live
in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure
that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike.

I agree that Wikipedia must not close for any kind of problems, for
example to solve economic problems or to solve the problem of
desertification, but there were in discussion some principles that would
have put Wikipedia to operate "without freedom" (I would underline this
point "without freedom").

Here there were in discussions some principles that would have broken
some pillars of Wikipedia: it means *a free and neutral information*.

Italian Wikipedia has defended these pillars and not a "general" problem.

I have not understood the points of some persons saying that Italian
community has broken the settlement with the users.

There is no sense to food a body if this body is risking his health. I
need to heal the body and after to food it. If I can heal and food it,
it would be better.

In my opinion some persons here think that the pillars of Wikipedia are
like the Tables of the Law of the Holy Bible, they EMANATE freedom and
neutrality with their presence. Probably we need to be sure that we
apply them in Wikipedia but also that the local government give us the
ability to *apply* them.

Please be kind that the whole world is not like US or Canada.

Please don't "globalize" the world with the idea that the pillars of
Wikipedia can be applied in any countries as you apply them in North
America.

In some places the pillars of Wikipedia can generate conflicts.

Ilario

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


mnemonic at gmail

Oct 8, 2011, 7:03 PM

Post #120 of 126 (1223 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Ilario writes:

> We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
> passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
> done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
> available to the person living in totalitarism.
>
> The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live
> in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure
> that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike.

I have great respect for Ray and others who worry that a strike
somehow undercuts the mission of the Wikimedia movement. But (and I'm
speaking only for myself here) I think Ilario's point here is valid --
sometimes the movement has to take active steps to draw attention to
the consequences of bad laws and bad government action. And a strike
is sometimes the best, most effective way to do that.

Ray's point about language groups not being limited to particular
countries (e.g., the Swiss who speak Italian, and the many nations
that speak English or Spanish) is an important one, but there is more
than one way to implement a strike. Properly implemented (by IP
ranges, for example) a strike could be limited, more or less, to a
single country.

One of the things I did some preliminary investigation about when I
was a staff member for Wikimedia Foundation was whether a strike of
the sort we've just seen would be workable. I came to the conclusion
that it would be, provided it was done with approval of the
Wikimedians in the nation or geographical territory where the bad law
or bad government action was taking place.

Again, speaking only for myself, I believe the Italian Wikimedians
made the right choice, and I believe that, so long as this tactic is
not overused, a strike may be the best and most effective response to
other anti-free-speech events in the future.


--Mike

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


jamesmikedupont at googlemail

Oct 8, 2011, 9:41 PM

Post #121 of 126 (1224 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic [at] gmail> wrote:

> Again, speaking only for myself, I believe the Italian Wikimedians
> made the right choice, and I believe that, so long as this tactic is
> not overused, a strike may be the best and most effective response to
> other anti-free-speech events in the future.
>

I agree.


--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nickanc.wiki at gmail

Oct 10, 2011, 1:59 PM

Post #122 of 126 (1204 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

> Ilario writes:
>
> > We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
> > passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
> > done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
> > available to the person living in totalitarism.
> >
> > The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live
> > in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure
> > that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike.
>

I live in Italy and I was among those one who worked on
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en .
I think it was the right choice because it was the most effective
action realistically able to save both Wikipedia integrity and
Wikipedia accessibility from Italy (in case law gets approved, if
wikipedia denies to amend the article in the requested way, police may
obscure it). Now, after this experience, I think that, to avoid these
strikes to happen, we, WMF and language wikipedias shall provide more
informations about IP privacy policy and about proxies. For example,
why dont translate http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tor and/or
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:No_open_proxies in more and more
languages to make people aware on how to edit freely wikipedia when it
isnt allowed by laws? Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?
Nickanc

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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 10, 2011, 4:11 PM

Post #123 of 126 (1206 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59:
> Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
> wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?

This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and
is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK.
Everybody happily editing on clandestinity is not really a solution.

Nemo

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


nickanc.wiki at gmail

Oct 12, 2011, 5:21 AM

Post #124 of 126 (1195 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Yes, there are these groups, but in most wikipedias they have few
persons inside it and they have almost no policy; moreover if you look
for global ipblock exempt you may found that they are still vulnerable
to IP and IP range blocks made locally on individual wikis
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_bans#Global_IP_block_exemption
). so, for example, how could a chinese write on it.wiki? or, if
Berlusconi's law will get approved, how could italians write freely on
all wikis, if in fact there is no global ipblock exempt?

2011/10/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail>:
> Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59:
>> Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
>> wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?
>
> This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and
> is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK.
> Everybody happily editing on clandestinity is not really a solution.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


nemowiki at gmail

Oct 12, 2011, 10:09 PM

Post #125 of 126 (1194 views)
Permalink
Re: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia [In reply to]

Nickanc Wikipedia, 12/10/2011 14:21:
> Yes, there are these groups, but in most wikipedias they have few
> persons inside it and they have almost no policy;

That's because few people need it.
In it wiki basta una riga in [[WP:RA]], secondo me.

> moreover if you look
> for global ipblock exempt you may found that they are still vulnerable
> to IP and IP range blocks made locally on individual wikis
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_bans#Global_IP_block_exemption
> ). so, for example, how could a chinese write on it.wiki? or, if
> Berlusconi's law will get approved, how could italians write freely on
> all wikis, if in fact there is no global ipblock exempt?

Only very few users seriously edit on multiple wikis and for interwikis
or such very minor edits they could use a sockpuppet, in your
hypothetical example. The global-ipblock-exempt includes global
torunblocked permission, anyway.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
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.