On 10/05/11 11:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Speaking as a citizen of a country with a fairly stringently worded
Right of reply law. I don't think it has ever been applied against
an encyclopaedia, or a blog or Usenet thread or anything remotely like
that. I think it is very cogently only
Andreas Kolbe, 06/10/2011 02:11:
Well, that *is* nuts. Moreover, the 48-hour time period and potential €12,000
fine in the
proposed law are nuts (pity the blogger who has gone on a 2-week holiday).
Yet that
€12,000 fine is not mentioned in the it:WP statement. Being forced to include
a
Thomas Morton, 05/10/2011 00:23:
I'm still a little bit confused how this will impact Wikipedia, though.
The law seems to be clear in identifying the website owner as the person to
contact; which is a US not-for-profit.
Which law? And which law speaks of website owner? Anyone can be asked to
Andreas Kolbe, 05/10/2011 12:49:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the
proposed law,
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on
the page (which
actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comescreveu:
This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree
that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other
websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the effects of
Lodewijk, 06/10/2011 14:24:
No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 14:01, Federico Leva (Nemo)
escreveu:
This doesn't mean that we've misinformed users: prominent jurists agree
that the proposed law is absolutely crazy for Wikipedia and other
websites; and the community had discussed and assessed the
I mean Wikipedia (or websites like Wikipedia) specific. Italian text will
have to do - Google translate does miracles :) I think what would be really
great is a set of statements/suggestions, so not just by one expert. For
one, the Rodotà statement was not exactly what I was looking for at some
] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 6:23
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the
proposed law,
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on
the page (which
actually would be possible for Wikipedia
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the
proposed law,
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown,
the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on
the page (which
actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a transcluded and
protected template).
I think not. The transcluded template can be deleted from the article, if
you don't block the article itself
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo jal...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jalo jal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date
Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the first google hit to come up
for a name, it
doesn't actually strike me as *that* ludicrous. What Wikipedia writes about a
person reaches
more readers today than a New York Times article. As someone else mentioned
recently,
there is a
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say?
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received,
and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted
on the
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Page 24.
On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law
say?
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be
posted on the page, *in addition* to the disputed content?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and
translate it into other languages.
--
John Vandenberg
On 4 October 2011 23:12, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40:
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is
received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
If it is, we can put it on Italian Wikisource, annotate it and
translate it
: Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 22:42
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 05/10/2011 00:16:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Is this public domain?
24 matches
Mail list logo
