Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: If the answer to one is yes, then These things happen is an explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all get better at detecting that. These things do happen, but should not. These things do happen, but we should expect better on the average. Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for our credibility when a very respected journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, features an op-ed that outlines, in very convincing detail, what happens when a subject-matter expert attempts to play the rules and is still slapped down. If I thought this author's experience is rare, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But as someone who frequently fielded complaints from folks who were not tendentious kooks, my impression is that it is not rare, and that the language of UNDUE -- as it exists today -- ends up being leveraged in a way that hurts Wikipedia both informationally and reputationally. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
I should add a response on this point: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a priori he should automatically have been treated that way before the situation was clarified. Should we declare that Assume Good Faith is now a dead letter? By far the majority of people who come up and buck the system or challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or people with an agenda. To me the interesting thing is that this author did not buck the system. It seems clear he attempted to learn the system and abide by the system's rules. If someone goes to the trouble he went to, getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, then citing it in his editing of the Wikipedia article, what else could he have done, precisely? If we pass over this and classify it as an anomaly, then I think the very best thing that can be said is that this is a missed opportunity to review UNDUE specifically, and, more generally, the problem of policy ambiguity and complexity as a barrier to entry for new, knowledgeable, good-faith editors. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:06 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Any policy - or policy change - we can think of will have unforseen consequences. I agree with you. But we can't let this paralyze us in responding to a problem that is no longer unforeseen, but that in fact has occurred. At minimum, the Haymarket article ought to edited to accommodate a well-documented minority scholarly analysis -- surely we agree about that. Is it possible that you being Mike Godwin is leading to a selection bias, where a large fraction of the actual experts with actual problems with process who did anything about it came to or through you on their way to solving or reporting the problem? It's entirely possible. But it happens with enough frequency for me to be able to articulate a credible hypothesis that this is happening too often. Certainly there's no selection bias problem associated with the sheer fact of the Chronicle of Higher Education article itself -- its existence is something that nobody here disputes, regardless of how we interpret it. And I think there is a second hypothesis that is also credible, which is that the Chronicle article very likely hurts Wikipedia reputationally. It seems that there are a large surplus of the latter, and only a few of the former, statistically. Assuming that's accurate, that should inform the policy discussion. Certainly. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 73
Fred Bauder writes: We're talking past one another. It is obvious to me that the author of the Chronicle article should have been able to add his research without difficulty, at least after it was published. You're right, Fred. We actually were talking past each other, and primary blame for that belongs to me: I read your posting standing alone without fully grasping the context. My apologies for my misreading it, Fred. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise form. The policy was written to enable serious work on hard topics, it as it stands, hinders work, making it hard to edit simple facts. I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. If policies don't encourage good judgment, or discourage bad judgment, then what are policies for? It seems worth discussing whether it would be good to revise the existing policy to restore its original (presumed) functionality. More generally, I've believed for a long time that WP policies have been increased, modified, and subverted in ways that both create a higher barrier to entry for new editors and that discourage both new editors and existing ones. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Fred Bauder writes: I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are other similar situations. This analogy is breathtakingly unpersuasive. Apart from the fact that consensus about scientific theory is not analogous to consensus about the historical records of particular events, climate-change-denial theory is actually discussed quite thoroughly on Wikipedia. Plus, the author of the op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education doesn't seem at all like climate-change deniers. If there is something specific you want to suggest about the author -- that he's agenda-driven, that his work is unreliable, or that the journal in which he published the article is not a reliable source -- then I think equity requires that you declare why you doubt or dismiss his article. I read the article in the Chronicle pretty carefully. The author's experience struck me as an example of a pattern that may account for the flattening of the growth curve in new editors as well as for some other phenomena. As you may rememember, Andrew Lih conducted a presentation on the policy thicket at Wikimania almost five years ago. The wielding of policy by long-term editors, plus the rewriting of the policy so that it is used to undercut NPOV rather than preserve it, strikes me as worth talking about. Dismissing it out of hand, or analogizing it to climate-change denial, undercuts my trust in the Wikipedian process rather than reinforces it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)
JADP, but there's no keyboard-related reason for people to misspell my last name as Goodwin, which is something I've encountered my whole life. My view is that it's normally best to tolerate the misspelling, unless there's some particular reason I want to ensure that my surname is spelled correctly. As someone who frequently must type in French, German, or Spanish, I wish it were a little easier to get access to accents and umlauts than it is on most keyboards I have to use, but I also think there are bigger issues to worry about, most of the time. The anglophone convention of typing, e.g., Kurt Goedel instead of Kurt Gödel, is common enough that English-language versions of search engines will normally produce results for Gödel if you type in Goedel. The general rule of etiquette is, I think, simply to try to get spelling (and pronunciation, and other things) right, and to ask the person in question if you're unsure. For example, although I don't believe I ever addressed Jan-Bart as Jan, I do know that I was uncertain early on whether there is a hyphen in Jan-Bart (obviously, I figured out the answer to that question). --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We are the media, and so are you Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh OpEd in Washington Post
Thomas Morton writes: Politics is a game, a game that politicians are bred to play. I know this because, having spent several years helping fight stupid law making, I've seen all the tricks. And, boy, have we been played. Dude, what am I? Chopped liver? I spent a huge part of my professional life as a Washington. What's more, I actually know Cary Sherman of RIAA. As in, I know him personally. We would recognize each other on the street. My headline should be obvious -- I don't think we we were played. Being effective in public-policy discussions is a learnable skill, it turns out. You learned it. Perhaps you will allow for the possibility I learned it too. Of course the media companies are spinning this. The spin that Google really is evil after all was an obvious if unimaginative choice. But rather than declare this to be Amateur Hour (r), can't you allow for the possibility that mass action got something right? Politicians didn't think internet mass action mattered. Now they think it does, and not just for fundraising or MoveOn or Tea Party campaigns. Copyright and technology policy in Washington has been deeply screwed up for some time. One path to fixing it it may be fine-tuning a phrase or excising it from a bad law. On the other hand, there was this guy named Martin Luther King who did not rule out mass action -- drew inspiration from, amazingly enough, a lawyer from India. Who know that lawyers could change public policy in a fundamental way, without playing an inside game? The inside is as much literal as figurative -- I'm talking about the Beltway, of course.) Right now, best guess among policy experts is that SOPA and PIPA are dead for the rest of the (political) year. That is not nothing. That is something. And while preaching about the importance of Beltway politics is almost always helpful, one occasionally comes across some piece of writing that that has a foot in both worlds. I assume you didn't enjoy the analysis written by this guy -- http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/07/guest-blogger-sunlight-got-it-wrong/ -- but he actually seems to make in that very piece. the point you believe is so revelatory and breathtakingly iconoclastic. Maybe you would find the piece interesting if you gave it another read. --Mike Godwin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
geni writes: What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can? geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington working on public-policy issues for non-profits (including EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Public Knowledge). One of the principal lessons of that experience was that public-interest participation in policymaking debates added a lot of value precisely because opponents couldn't write off a charity as simply being interested in expanding its market or profits. And the synergies between corporate lobbying and public-interest policy initiatives -- on the occasions when their interests do line up -- have a greater political impact than either faction can have working alone. If you've spent time on Capitol Hill, or meeting with bureaucrats at federal agencies, you already know that a standard tactic of your opponents is to marginalize you. So if you're Google, the rap on you is that you're a quasi-monopoly spending Washington dollars to maintain your position as a market leader. And if you're ACLU or EFF, you're dismissed as arguing fringe issues that don't represent the mainstream of American political thought. But when Google (or Microsoft or Intel) come to policymakers and say the same things that the nonprofit groups (EFF or ACLU or -- someday, perhaps -- WMF) are telling them, it gets much, much harder for the opposition to dismiss the message. (The content companies already know this -- that's why they took such pains to sign up a bunch of nonprofits as supporters of SOPA and PIPA, even though many of the latter bailed when they realized MPAA was perhaps not the best guide on these issues.) None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying dollars that Google spends -- even if that were possible (and of course it isn't remotely possible). The money WMF spends on something like this is microscopic compared to that of for-profit corporation, and pretty small even compared to other nonprofits. Nevertheless, a nonprofit showing up and making its voice heard -- especially when its arguments dovetail with those of much larger players like Google -- counts for a lot. It can't be easily dismissed. It makes most policymakers think twice. At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed] here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified as original research. But don't take my word for it -- talk to other NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here. --Mike Godwin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink water to sustain themselves are unlikely to give proper weight to Breatharian points of view! That pesky POV problem keeps rearing its noisy head wherever you look. ;) I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least I'm transparent about my biases. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming from. But you made a conflicting point yourself text omitted But as I saw it, we already made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw some measurable impact in the standing within congress, not to mention the coverage and support in the media. Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that we were heard one day (or even one week) in 2012 is no basis for complacency. It might not be a worthwhile use of the money, considering all the millions floating around on lobbyists between for-profit corporations, this might be more than what we should take on at the time? I believe Kat Walsh deserves credit for pointing out that, while we strive for NPOV in our encyclopedic content, the very existence of an encyclopedia -- and a freely available one at that -- signifies a political position. (Encyclopedists and librarians have known this for some time.) Lobbying generally sounds of closed door dealings, and large amounts of money spent on convincing politicians, in this case, convincing them to do the right thing. That's certainly a common stereotype. In practice, however, and under American law, those meetings get reported and publicized, and nonprofit organizations that meet with policymakers are held strictly accountable for what they do. And, it must be stressed, they can't spend large amounts of money on convincing politicians. We have laws about that here. When a non-profit engages in it publicly, one that prides itself on being small and independent, it affects my perception of it. It might just be me, but I would rather see public statements, and actions like the blackout over lobbying any day. This is not an either/or choice. Small, independent voices can be heard, if you know what you're doing. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.) Ah, then the proper experiment would have been for Wikipedians not to black out enwiki for a day and see how effective that was in changing the debate? Because, as you know, the blackout did entail a significant non-monetary costs. The trick, of course, is that political experimentation of this sort is similar to human experimentation generally -- the risk is that the experiment, for all you learn from it, leads to negative consequences down the line. My own view is that the blackout was unquestionably the right thing to do, and I'm hugely proud to be associated in my own small way with the people who took the risk of making our voices heard this time. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered, professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in private, client are expected to pay expenses and other fees incurred in the process, usually a pretty hefty sum. Yes, you're wrong. Are those discussions and arrangements made in private, facilitated by lobbying firms, what is needed to get our voice heard? No. It can be helpful to have an experienced Washington government-relations specialist to facilitate meetings, and to advise you on how to be effective, but the word private is inappropriate here. (The very fact that Politico was able to publicize WMF's engagement with such a specialist ought to be an indicator of this -- in the USA, especially for the last 40 years, there have been vastly increased requirements for public reporting and accountability, both for nonprofits and for traditional corporate lobbyists.) When I represented the Center for Democracy and Technology or Public Knowledge at the FCC or on Capitol Hill, for example, the first thing I had to do when getting back from a meeting was write up a report of whom I met and what was discussed. The reports became part of the public record, and part of these nonprofits' public disclosures as well. You mentioned the protest, and how proud you were to have been associated with it, so were most of us. That was the right thing to do - open, direct and public. All of which this doesn't seem to be. You'd be wrong about meetings with policymakers not being public. They're required be law to be reported and accounted for. As I have noted, many people have stereotypical notions about what it means to lobby in Washington. Too many movies and TV, I imagine. Again, these might be stereotypes, but the general realities aren't that far off either. Hugely far off, actually. To compare: it's a little bit as if you took your understanding of police work from watching American police action films. It's not wrong to say that sometimes police rough people up, for example, but it would be wrong to say that is the norm. Most police work is dull and routine, and the sheer amount of paperwork an average policeman has to do is so astounding that nobody ever even tries to depict it in film or TV drama. You'd switch channels or walk out of the theater in boredom. If you really think that (for example) the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy (http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp) is having secret meetings with senators and writing big checks, then the American entertainment industry has done a huge disservice in educating people about all the ways public policy can be shaped. Not that this should come as any surprise. (I'd love it, of course, if the American Library Association were capable of writing big checks, but that's another story.) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here was called something else...bribery. I know you know this, but for those who don't, lobbying in the USA is highly regulated. Bribery in the USA is a felony. In US politics, general lobbying in addition to rulings like the Citizens united, put large corporation in a powerful position to buy voices in Washington. If it is indeed going to be about getting voices heard *only* through lobbyists, I think the publishers can scream the loudest. Where did that *only* come from? I hope not from anything I've written. As for the Citizens United case, well, it's one of those cases that's widely talked about but rarely read. The real core case on campaign finance is the one I name below, now more than 30 years old. It is a complicated case dealing with the intersection of corporate regulation and constitutionally protected political speech, and one could teach a whole course about it, just to prepare someone to read Citizens United. Here's the enwiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti. Almost invariably, when I hear people talk about Citizens United in informal discussions, I'm hearing people who haven't invested the time it takes to understand why these issues are entangled. And of course I can't invest the time to give you a semester's worth of coursework either. But one shorthand way to look at this is, do we want to say that corporations don't have freedom of expression or the right to engage in political speech? Because if we flatly decide that, what happens to The New York Times Company (a for-profit corporation)? Should the Times be barred from political speech? Or the American Civil Liberties Union? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Civil_Liberties_Unionaction=submit.) My point here is to underscore that public discussions of Citizens United and other cases rarely, in my experience, rise above sloganeering. The problems involved in corporations' legal status are subtle and complicated ones, not reducible to tweets and chants. I support reform of corporate influence in politics, but not at the price of making it impossible for an incorporated NGO to speak for individuals who otherwise might remain unheard. That was partly based on my reading of the en.wp article on lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), when you have a minute, do re-write the sections of the article where it is wrong. I hope I may be forgiven that this particular task can't be at the top of my to-do list just now. But I invite others to contribute to that article. As is usually the case, a Wikipedia article is a fine place to start research, but not itself an authority, as I think we all agree. My question was who usually spends more? non-profits who run a free encyclopedia or giant publishers whose daily revenues are directly affected by these decisions? Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost. Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia? Actually politico didn't publicize the engagement exclusively, the link kim provided, mentions it as one brief story in a list of 10 others, stating, The foundation has snagged Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, according to a newly filed lobbying disclosure, to focus on “legislation related to online intellectual property infringement, including H.R. 3261, S. 968 and S. 2029.” Those bill numbers coincide with SOPA, PIPA and the OPEN Act. Along with the foundation did not return to comment to MT before press time. Note the words newly filed lobbying disclosure. So much for our big secretive lobbyist arrangement! There are still a lot of powerful institutions and organizations, who get their message through, and make measurable impact without moving a single lobbyist. This is the first time we are engaging one, so just curious about what impact it has on perception of others. I expect the impressions are more positive among those who are more knowledgeable about political processes in the United States. As for whether WMF should have engaged someone in DC to advise in this context, I don't have an atom's worth of doubt that this was the correct and appropriate strategy to keep Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects alive and vital in the face of ill-considered American legislation. It's about ROI and impact of money invested. We have the biggest and direct way to get measurable impact on these issues, Wikipedia and the projects, with 400 million people watching. The blackout proved that, incurring little or no actual external cost in the
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been criticized by President Barak Obama I don't believe I suggested that Citizens United hasn't been criticized by knowledgeable people. (I'm a critic too.) President Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, for example, has surely read both Bellotti and Citizens United. What I said, specifically, was that when I read popular discussions of Citizens United online, more often than not I'm reading commentary from someone who hasn't read the cases. You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism section of the ruling page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Criticisms) My habit is to read the decision directly rather than read the Wikipedia entry. No reflection on Wikipedia, of course -- it's just that as a practicing attorney I am professionally driven to consult primary sources. Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at law. My own habit is to read the cases directly, since I often must discuss them with fellow lawyers who have also read the cases. We are Media too, Mike. Just so. And it's something I never forget. All media must be received skeptically. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still lost. Citation needed. Here's a place to start: http://www.americablog.com/2012/01/story-behind-sopapipa-is-campaign-money.html But my favorite source for citation needed taggers is this: http://lmgtfy.com Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say about Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia? We have more. And who am I to take issue with such an indisputable, uncontroversial statement? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
Cyrano writes: Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion? No, I wouldn't say that. Whenever you have enough human beings assembled to create a political environment, you create the potential for corruption and collusion, and no nation, including the USA, is immune from that. But you also create the potential for idealism, principled activism, collective progressive action, humanitarianism, and the growth and sharing of knowledge. And it was the better side of human nature that we witnessed among our colleagues and allies in working against these bad legal proposals. To be effective politically you have to have a deep understanding of the political environment you're working in. That's why the Foundation drew upon knowledgeable people for advice as we all went forward in expressing our concerns about SOPA and PIPA. In no instance has the Foundation indulged in or supported anything that counts as corruption or collusion. I think the Wikimedia Movement should be proud that the Foundation has lived up to the Movement's highest ideals. The efforts these last weeks have been both admirably transparrent and admirably effective, and I think we all learned a lot from them. -Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?
Dan Collins writes: Hey guys, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a while, so while we should continue to think about what we will do when the time comes to protest this, that time is not right now. The bill can be reconsidered just as it was left off any time before the end of this congressional session, and the Senate still has a live bill, but the fact that HR 3261 is not being considered at the moment means that even if the Senate passes their bill, the House may refuse to consider that one too. Dan, you're misreading the implications of what the story you link to says. What's actually happening is that the House sponsors hope to defuse opposition by delaying and slightly modifying SOPA. My experience as a DC lawyer for much of my career strongly suggests that there's no reason to suspend expressions of opposition to SOPA or PIPA or the general effort by content companies to change the internet as we know it. In my view, it is wholly incorrect to say that time is not right now. Anything that the legislators can interpret as a lack of resolve from the internet communities will encourage them to resubmit SOPA or its equivalent in another form. The time for protesting this is, in fact, right now. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Milos writes: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. I believe this is precisely in agreement with what I posted. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. That was my point. If this were on a Facebook page, we'd have to include in the relationships info that It's complicated. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Theo writes: Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements. So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome Tilman Bayer to the Wikimedia Foundation
Good news for both Tilman and WMF! --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 78
Sue Gardner writes: Would inviting Matt to join create perception problems? Probably not among external stakeholders because donors serving on boards is fairly normal in non-profit land, but yes among community members, because the community is (appropriately) a fierce defender of the independence of the projects. Should the board do what it thinks is best for the organization and the movement, even if its decisions/actions are unpopular? The board decided yes. Should the board try to separate the grant announcement from the Matt announcement to mitigate community anger? No, because that would be disingenuous. And, it might actually increase anger rather than mitigating it. In my view, Sue has expressed the reasoning of the Board in a nutshell here. Remember that the Board recognized the risks of appointing Matt, and nevertheless appointed him anyway. The community plays a large role in selecting Board members, and it is appropriate to keep this in mind when voting on Board seats. Nevertheless, I think the Board made a hugely intelligent and attentive decision in appointing Matt, and I think it is best if the community acknowledges and honors that decision, which comes in part from Board members the community supports. --Mike Godwin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF Bitcoins)
Michael Snow writes: And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it look better. I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment -- specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the grant. --Mike Godwin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain
Kat Walsh writes: I'm really happy to see us start getting involved in this kind of work; I think it too is part of fulfilling our mission. Thanks for your work on this, Geoff. Chiming in here -- I'm very happy to see Geoff's announcement too. As Geoff and a few others here know, I've favored WMF involvement in this case at least since it was confirmed that the Supreme Court is going to hear it (and of course I conferred with my EFF colleagues in the runup to the Supreme Court's granting certiorari in Golan v. Holder). The case is centrally important to the Wikimedia Foundation's continuing ability to offer free knowledge and to preserve and provide access to important cultural and artistic creative works. I'm also pleased that another former employer of mine, the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, is filing an amicus brief as well. Here's the text of the Yale announcement (and a link to a PDF of the brief) for those who are interested: Today, professors and fellows associated with the Information Society Project at Yale Law School filed an amicus brief in *Golan v. Holder*, a case that will be heard before the United States Supreme Court this fall. In this brief, we argue that the Court should apply strict First Amendment scrutiny to Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a law that allows works to be taken out of the public domain and placed back under copyright protection. Although the plaintiffs in this case had stipulated that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review under the First Amendment, we argue that when Congress abrogates a central constitutional privilege—as it has done here, by stripping away a traditional speech-protective contour of copyright law—Congress must satisfy a more rigorous standard of review. The brief is available for download here: http://yaleisp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Golan-Amicus-Brief-filed.pdf Many thanks are due to everyone at the ISP who helped in writing, researching, and thinking about this brief over the past two months! --Mike Godwin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Identity of Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Not Protected by First Amendment
SlimVirgin writes: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 19:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Identity of Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Not Protected by First Amendment http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2011/05/identity-of-anonymous-wikipedia-editors-not-protected-by-first-amendment.html Nothing unexpected. Related story about Twitter handing over personal details of someone accused of posting libel: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8544350/Twitter-reveals-secrets-Details-of-British-users-handed-over-in-landmark-case-that-could-help-Ryan-Giggs.html The way I typically explain the status of anonymity under U.S. constitutional law is to point first to Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), the U.S. Supreme Court case that, among other things, underscores the First Amendment's relationship to anonymous speech. It's still the leading case in this area. The Lovell case basically says you have the right to attempt to engage in anonymous public speech, and you don't have an obligation yourself to disclose who you are simply in order to speak. At the same time, Lovell does *not* say you have a constitutional guarantee to *succeed* in being anonymous. In effect, that means that telcos and ISPs can be compelled to provide whatever information they have on you, the anonymous speaker, and the government may be able to use other investigatory techniques to figure out who the anonymous speaker is anyway. Typically, a service that values user privacy highly minimizes the amount of private information it keeps about users, so that even if compelled to comply with a lawful government order to disclose identifying information, the service may not have much to disclose. As you may imagine, commercial services tend to keep more identifying information about users than noncommercial ones, typically because of billing considerations. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
David Gerard writes: Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have been a strong consideration in WMF carefully maintaining *no* local business presence in the UK. The legal environment here is toxic for anyone who doesn't have to put up with it. I've discussed this precise issue (informally) with Twitter's general counsel, and we agree that the exposure for Twitter in the UK is significantly different than it would be for the Wikimedia Foundation. I mean, of course you can libel someone in 140 characters -- we've all seen it happen. But the role of Twitter in relation to tweets is much more like (say) a phone company's role than it is like WMF's or even Google's. Twitter is an excellent company to put this analysis to the test -- it has the legal resources to challenge a libel lawsuit (or a hundred, or a thousand), and the role it plays as a communications medium is, if not unique, then certainly pretty unusual. I'd look at legal precedents involving SMS/texting in the UK -- that may tell you what Twitter is thinking. The risks for WMF in the UK (and, indeed, throughout the EU as a function of UK membership in the European Union) remain pretty significant, largely for all the reasons that Wikipedia is something different from Twitter. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
Andrew Garrett writes: We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, and should still be considered so even if/when the Foundation meets the goals set in the strategic plan. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew Garrett writes: We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, Don't forget we have many thousands of volunteers. We are not like those other websites at all and don't think those are good comparisons. I don't think anyone's forgotten the volunteers. But Andrew's remark referred specifically to the shoestring budget. In that sense, the Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, compared to organizations running the other top ten websites. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Sam Klein writes: I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. Just to be clear about this, I read Sam here as saying something like there is a potential risk that we will be unable to acculturate new staff as we grow. This of course is true -- and it's even true when growth is slow! But in practice the Foundation takes this risk very seriously, and takes pains to promote the acculturation of new staff, not just to Foundation culture but to the larger community. One way we do this is by sending new staff to Wikimania, if it makes sense to do so, and/or promoting new staff's interaction with the community in other ways. Attendees at Wikimania this year will see a number of staff who haven't been there before -- everyone is urged to engage staff members in conversations about our work together, or other topics of common interest. (I'll be there too -- first Wikimania since Taiwan!) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Dear Gerard, I've never known a VIP environment that would accept me as a member. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
I hope you mean Vox rather than Fox. I don't think Fox currently has any connection to Deus. --Mike On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi Mike, You are a VIP who does not need to hide in any environment. I will be happy to hear your Fox Dei among the Fox Populi. Thanks, Gerard On 30 June 2010 16:49, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Dear Gerard, I've never known a VIP environment that would accept me as a member. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ray Saintonge writes: An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of interest The issue is only partly conflict of interest, and it often isn't that. It's primarily that WMF is not insured to give legal advice to community members. We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people who called in for help.) It really feels good to be able to say Make my day. More of us should try it. You'll be pleased, I know, to know that I do get to say something similar quite frequently. There are plenty of bogus legal threats directed to WMF. John Vandenberg writes: In cases like this, I think it would help if the WMF lawyers would tell the community, bluntly, that they can't assist the community in the matter, with a quick overview of why they cant assist. See above. It's also no secret that we have referred community members to lawyers in the past because we could not represent or counsel those members. This is what we did with regard to NPG. Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing defense strategies.) Peter Gervai writes: Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_ risk to file a counter-notice. What happens if they follow the legal advice from WMF and then face liability anyway? (This sometimes happens even when the best advice is given.) WMF is not insured against the malpractice lawsuit that community members might bring in that case. John Vandenberg writes: .. find generic legal advice ... or ... .. find a lawyer among the community who can help. There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense strategy at all, which basically is the situation now. I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy. But why not support the community in issuing counter-claims, by telling them that the possibility is there, and what the consequences are (both the positive one that the WMF is then likely to re-instate the material, and the negative one that the one doing the claim will be the one liable to get sued if the other party decides to do so). If I were you, I would not assume that this is something WMF would never do. As has been made clear before now, we consulted with French lawyers before complying with the takedown notice in this instance, to assess how seriously to take the copyright claims. The situation now is that a single take down notice will have the WMF take down the material, basically saying to the community we have to do this. I disagree with this characterization of the situation. How do you expect people to issue counter-claims if they don't even know about the possibility of doing so? Are you saying that the possibility of responding to a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice has been a secret until now? My experience has been the converse -- that any copyright advocate who knows enough to track copyright dates and to post dozens or hundreds of texts to Wikisource is likely to know the basics of takedown notices and counter-claims, or is able quickly to determine on his own what can be done in response. I'm sorry, but I am getting more and more the feeling that for the board and the executive the foundation is more important than the projects. This seems disingenuous to me. You seem to be saying that all collaborative projects must provide you with legal representation and advice. I'm pretty sure the Free Software Foundation does not do this, and that Creative Commons doesn't do it either. There are organizations that do provide such services, like EFF (my former employer). It seems to me to be a mistake to try to turn the Wikimedia Foundation into another EFF, or to say that the Foundation is more important than the projects because it does not try to be EFF. To me, this answer is an example to that. Surely, it is easy enough to put an answer in such wordings that the likelihood of losing such a suit (in the already unlikely circumstance that such a suit would actually be brought forward) are negligible. The issue is not the losing of such a suit. We'd likely win it. The issue is the cost of winning it. There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you. So that's the foundation's reaction? I'm avoiding giving you legal advice while dropping broad hints about where you can find good legal advice for free. Of course, I can't compel you to take the hint. If you don't like us taking down material, just find out yourself what can be done about that - and then find out how that something is done that can be done about that? Other Wikimedians don't seem to find this as tricky as you do. You seem to be more tightly bedded with not only valid but also invalid copyright claimers than I ever had thought possible. This seems to be an inference that is insupportable on the basis of the facts you have. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
Nathan writes: When the WMF makes a decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor. I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns -- 1) Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action 2) Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands 3) Enlisting community members to implement the takedowns 4) Including (though not required to do so) contact and identifying information for Gallimard 5) Providing a complete list of what Gallimard demanded to be taken down -- you see both a high degree of deliberation on our part (we didn't simply jump to comply) and an effort to make clear to the community what we were doing and why, and to involve the community, even at the same point in time at which we followed through on the takedown demands. You may remember than Yann originally asserted some kind of double standard (maybe that we're more afraid of French publishers than of British museums?), and Andre suggested that we simply (and fearfully) comply with facially invalid takedown requests. Neither notion is true. Somehow those notions didn't exactly feel cooperative. I think it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor that one first give some attention to the full facts of how we responded, rather than jumping to (negative) conclusions about our motivations and interests. My view is that, to the extent possible, I want to minimize the exposure of community members to legal risk even as I'm doing the same for the Foundation. Partly this means adhering to the framework of the applicable laws, including copyright laws -- so, yes, we will normally comply with a formally correct takedown notice, just as we will comply with a formally correct put up demand. We'll also help targeted community members find independent legal counsel when we can, and we'll support chapters that seek to provide professional legal advice to the community as well. We do generally have to obey the rules, however, and we didn't create them. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that the folks most interested in the specific content are no longer paying close attention, or will be discouraged enough to just give up. Is posting a link to a useful description of put-up procedures really a liability for the WMF? I see nothing preventing the community from adopting a template including information about put-up procedures. If the community were to do this, it would not create liability for WMF. I believe David Gerard has suggested something similar. The idea here is that some communication is not necessarily ideal communication, and we can acknowledge that an effort was made while still asking for just a little bit more. I'm pleased, of course, that a few people do acknowledge that the effort was made. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Yann Forget writes: In addition, I receive a personal letter, as the main editor of these texts, according to Gallimard. We didn't receive any information from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I know the details only because I have been personally involved. Yann seems to be suggesting here that the Wikimedia Foundation did not notify him about the Gallimard takedown, but at the same time Yann acknowledges that he knew about the Gallimard takedown. It is precisely because we knew Yann knew about Gallimard's takedown demand (it wasn't a request) that we did not send him additional correspondence to inform him about something he already knew about. I still have in my email storage correspondence with Yann regarding this event from March of this year -- it seems odd to have Yann complaining that he didn't know enough about it. Furthermore, when we noted in the takedown who was demanding the takedown (Editions Gallimard) *and we further listed their contact information* so that francophone Wikimedians who disagreed with the takedown demand could make their feelings known to Gallimard. We did this at the very beginning of the takedown process, which we are obligated by international law to obey. Now three months later, we didn't receive any information from the Foundation about this, and the texts are still deleted. Yann seems here to say that some unnamed group did not know about the takedown. We posted the takedown information publicly. Yann in fact knew about it from the beginning. What's more, we listened to Yann's feedback, including claims that some of the material Gallimard demanded taken down was material they had no right to make such demands about. We narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand accordingly. Yann knows this. Many contributors are obviously not very happy, and feel that the Foundation submitted to the pressure of a commercial publisher. Comparing with the National Portrait Gallery affair on Commons, it looks like a double standard was applied. I strongly suspect that any contributors who feel as Yann says they feel are relying on mistaken information and assumptions. We absolutely did resist the demands of Gallimard within the full extent that French law allows. We retained French counsel who represented us in discussions with Gallimard, and we forced Gallimard to make their demands both more specific and narrower. The pressure of a commercial publisher played no role. (A noncommercial entity making the same legal demand would be entitled to the same takedown, assuming that the formalities were met.) Comparing the National Portrait Gallery affair suggests lack of knowledge about the underlying copyright issues involved. The NPG dispute involved art works that unquestionably were no longer protected by copyright according to the law of most signatories of international copyright treaties. The NPG actually knows this, and did not press any legal challenge, likely because of uncertainty whether their anomalous theory of copyright protection for digitized centuries-old artworks would be upheld even by British courts. The Gallimard case is fundamentally different, since most of the works they demanded taken down were asserted to be modern works that are clearly within the period of French copyright protection. Just a few days before these texts were deleted, I asked Cary what was the official opinion of Wikimedia Foundation about texts which are in the public domain in USA, but not in France. I was told that the community is entitled to decide by itself. Cary is correct that the Wikimedia Foundation is not purporting to give you legal advice about copyright and the public domain. We're not your lawyers. For that, you are best served by consulting French legal counsel. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote I didn't know you narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand. AFAIK you never informed me nor Wikisource about this. We cannot inform you about all the details communicated in an ongoing negotiation with parties threatening us with litigation. Apart from whether doing so would be consistent with legal ethics, it would also provide a disincentive for complaining parties to negotiate with us at all. In fact, you didn't inform Wikisource about the details of Gallimard's demand. I received Gallimard's letter only one month _after_ the works were deleted on Wikisource. In fact, the note for every takedown specified that the takedown occurred because of a Gallimard demand, and it listed Gallimard's contact information. This was done at the time of the takedown, not one month later. Happy to hear that. It would have been much better if you would have informed the Wikisource community about it. It would be a delightful world if all legal negotiations could be shared with everyone instantly. We do not live in that world, however. What we did do, at my direction, was make clear at the time of the takedown who was responsible for the takedown demand and how to contact the entity responsible. At some point, it seems fair to expect concerned individuals -- especially those who already know about the complaint -- to be aware of public notices about what was taken down and why. You seem to be complaining here because you knew about the Gallimard takedown demands, but didn't bother to track the followup to those demands on Wikisource. This is a shame, because we did try to make it easy for you to know what had happened. Partly false, misleading at the minimum. Not false at all. Some of the deleted works are in the public domain in France. You're still missing the point. NPG did not send a formal takedown notice. At least half of them are in the public domain world wide, except in France. These are published on many web sites, including the National French Library. Please understand that if you have problems with French copyright law, there's nothing I can do about that from here in California. Well, I am now in India, so I am not sure how much French law in relevant. Whether Gallimard would prevail in an infringement lawsuit based on these works is irrelevant to the question of how to respond to a takedown notice. What I ask is that you inform _the Wikisource project hosted by Wikimedia Foundation_ about _WMF official legal policy_, whatever is that policy. Official legal policy is to comply with properly crafted takedown notices. This has been our policy since long before I arrived at WMF. I'm surprised that you didn't know this before now. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Office action
Klaus Graf writes: For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. I certainly don't require that you believe I'm a good lawyer. I'd be a very poor lawyer indeed, however, if I invited publishers to embroil us in expensive copyright lawsuits that we might not win when both U.S. and international law provide a mechanism for sidestepping such lawsuits. I realize that some people think it would be very thrilling if the Wikimedia Foundation were to take on such lawsuits to vindicate the views of contributing editors who themselves are not willing to engage directly in litigation with overreaching publishers. And it would be thrilling, I suppose, but not in a very responsible way. If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will take OFFICE ACTION. Yes, it is correct that I will comply with a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice. In this respect, I'm like just about every lawyer everywhere who represents a service provider. Perhaps they are all bad lawyers, but at least I'm in good company if they are. It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. I'm unaware of any takedown notice regarding the TU Munich logo. Perhaps you are referring to some action taken by my predecessor. It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding office actions. The right of the community to get all information cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret things. In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency, not disproof. If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no way to appeal. I invite informed criticism. In fact, I love it -- it's exceedingly helpful to receive thoughtful, informed criticism. I'm sure you share my belief in this, Klaus, and I look to you as a model of how to respond to thoughtful criticism. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an extension of If you believe this is public domain material then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: It sounds like you are suggesting that there is ongoing dialog between WMF and Gallimard.. ? There is not. And what is the process _after_ the takedown? The takedown is normally the end of the process. Unless you are asking something else. Please be aware that I cannot offer you legal advice about how to respond to a takedown. There are a number of resources online, including I believe on Wikipedia (or linked from there), that may give you pointers. One of the few put-up notices I have received was perfectly executed by a non-lawyer Wikipedian. Did the National Portrait Gallery not provide a properly crafted take down notice? That's correct. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel. It helps to actually read the stories and understand the cases. The Google execs were found guilty even though they quickly responded to a complaints and removed the offending video. In other words, they didn't make the nobody is home argument. Limewire is a contributory-infringement case that has nothing to do with publisher liability. (Limewire distributed software.) And the blog owner actually hasn't been found liable for user-submitted libel in the Register story published. As the story is reported, the blog owner has merely been told that moderation of content runs the risk of *creating* liability by removing the exemptions for mere hosts. The decision is regarding a pre-trial motion. In other words, the case has precisely the opposite meaning of what wiki-list writes here, since it focuses on the risks of moderation, not the risks of non-moderation. But don't take my word for it -- read the links yourself! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling I wouldn't endorse wiki-list's unusual interpretation of the cases, as summed up here: the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them, by disabling access to the site. With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case, moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory exemption. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
Stillwater Rising writes: Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion, is a * no-win* situation for everyone involved. This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A(g), which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC 2257(h)(2)(B)). I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts about the interaction and interpretation of these related statutes (as well as of the interaction between 18 USC 2257(h) generally and 47 USC 230 and 231, referenced within section 2257. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Tim Starling writes: It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of the spectrum. That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noise about censorship, allowing us to focus on images that are actually used, won't please organizations like Fox News or people like Larry Sanger who are determined to censor or destroy Wikipedia. But my suggestion wasn't derived from ideology so much as practicality. (I'm not an ideological libertarian.) So to return to Mike's proposal: it's only the libertarians who value educational value above moral hazard, and they're not the ones you've got to compromise with. To a conservative, a claim of educational value does not negate a risk of moral turpitude. By optionally hiding images which have a claim of educational value, however dubious the claim, you please nobody. That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that pleases some factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it? My point is that is nice to be able to say, with regard to a disputed image, that it is used in an article, or 10 articles, or 100 articles across projects. Being able to say such a thing is a useful answer to a precise subset of criticisms, but it does not purport to be an answer to all criticisms. So while I appreciate your general taxonomy of political views, I think it is grounded in a mistaken assumption about the purpose of what I posted. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
Yann Forget writes: 2010/5/10 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that Fox News was correct? This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than an actual outcome. --Mike Reading this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge I think that you are wrong, and that David and others are right. I will stipulate that if you consider the Register or blogs a major media entity, I'm wrong. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the BBC article asserted that Fox News was correct. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
David Goodman writes: I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship, just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I would suggest an option to initially display the lead paragraph only, of articles in certain categories. I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: And what about choosing Would you like to see uncategorized images? And the same for cultural censorship: Is your culture brave enough to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not? I'm not sure I understand either question. The proposal I suggest would allow you to see uncategorized images if you want to. It would also allow you to see a penis or Muhammed if you want to (or in encyclopedic articles about penises or Muhammed images). --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at commons at all! By definition any image in use in a Wikipedia is available outside of commons. :) Right. The difference is that instead of simply telling people not to go to Commons, you could say go to Commons, but if you only want to see images that have been deemed to be worth including in an article, click here. Back in the old days, we used to call this user empowerment (I actually coined the term in mid-1990s for EFF). Don't forget that a major reason that people look at commons is because Wikipedia articles will usually only have a few illustrations, for editorial/flow reasons. If you're mostly interested in visual details about the subject of your interest you'll follow the commons link from the Wikipedia article. ... but in that case your suggested image hiding wouldn't be helpful. It might be helpful for people who are worried about seeing images that have merely been dumped in Commons. Presumably those who want to see all the images could click the appropriate option and see all unlinked images as well. Remember that the goal here (not my personal goal, but the goal of some) is less for a perfect solution than for a way of avoiding superfluous dumped images that don't have educational value. My suggestion is inelegant (there are no elegant solutions), but also content-neutral (the umpteenth unlinked image of Lincoln or Gandhi would be blocked too). That way, the only offensive images we'd have to defend would be the ones that the community deemed appropriate to include in an article (a category of images that I personally am generally willing to defend, regardless of the type of content). --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
David Levy writes: Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any graphic images remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious problem and have made only a token effort to address it. Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt. It was an enormous mistake to respond to this news organization as though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity. The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had not intervened as he did, there would be no such story from Fox News. My response is, if you think this, then you don't know Fox News. Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling epistemic closure -- all results will be interpreted as validation of cherished theories. It is perfectly appropriate, it seems to me, for the community to second-guess Jimmy (or me, or anyone else working to protect the projects). But I don't think we should implicitly or explicitly embrace the theory that, had Jimmy not intervened, there would be no story, or a better story. My personal view is that the story Fox News wanted to tell would have been worse, but even if you disagree about that, let's not pretend there would have been no story at all. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News was correct. And until we purge our servers of every graphic image, we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency. Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that Fox News was correct? This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than an actual outcome. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that Fox News was correct? I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading Fox's subsequent reports on the matter. Did you draw that conclusion? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Did you draw that conclusion? Your equivocation on this point is wearisome. I don't know what you mean by equivocation here. I'm not equivocating, so far as I know. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by this point. Jimbo's actions were ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*. I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by damage and on what you mean by no gain. The thesis has been advanced here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of the whole world. I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether the whole world would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run -- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I don't find that proposition particularly credible. --m ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia
Greg Maxwell writes: At the same time, and I think we'll hear a similar message from the EFF and the ALA, I am opposed to these organized content labelling systems. These systems are primary censorship systems and are overwhelmingly used to subject third parties, often adults, to restrictions against their will. I'm sure these groups will gladly confirm this for us, regardless of the sales patter used to sell these systems to content providers and politicians. I just want to chime in, in support of Greg's assessment here. I worked for EFF for nine years, and I have done extensive work with ALA as well, and I am absolutely certain that these organizations (and others, including civil-liberties groups) will be extremely critical if any project adopts ICRA labeling schemes. Moreover, Greg's characterization of the existing systems as primary censorship systems ... overwhelmingly used to subject third parties, often adults, to restrictions against their will is entirely accurate. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Geoffrey Plourde writes: Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question? Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230 problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A guideline or policy urged by the Wikimedia Foundation and adopted/implemented by the volunteer-editor community would not create such a problem either. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is the idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better implemented. First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and to good projects. I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular decisions.) It is not the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes in projects these days -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from intervening, which is as it should be, and which I think speaks well of his restraint. It should be kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was aimed at protecting our projects from external threat and coercion, precisely to give breathing space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes that we all value and believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I hope that rather than venting and raging about what was done in the face of an imminent and vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking discussion of how things can be made better. This discussion is best focused on policy, and not on Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent efforts to protect the Wikimedia projects and movement. That's where our efforts should be focused too. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.comwrote: On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in having you expand on this. It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet. But when I did see your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in response. I've been dealing with media strategy, both as a reporter and as someone who has to respond to media, for nearly three decades now. The issue isn't whether you can persuade Fox of anything -- Fox is not the kind of organization you can have a discussion with. Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter. If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord. I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an opportunity to do something constructive. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy was the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he does. I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate precisely this result. To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. Huh. I never thought I'd see the day that Mike Godwin would be supporting an attack on free speech and free ideas through censorship. You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words not individually were chosen for a reason. Let me put it this way -- sometimes a police officer has to use physical force to stop further violence from having. If you inferred from this statement that that I favor police intervention as a first resort, or that I favor physical force, you would properly be criticized as misrepresenting my views. Similarly, I don't favor attacks on free speech -- but like Nat Hentoff and other free-speech theorists, I recognize that free speech depends on active intervention and rule-making sometimes. I know you are trying to be provocative, but what you write here suggests that you don't actually understand much of the nuance of free-speech principles. I don't say censorship, lightly: Jimmy deliberately deleted historical pieces of art and illustrations in his rampage. And you think this is a good thing? No. Mike, it looks like you've compromised your ideals in favor of toeing the party line, and for that, I'm pretty disappointed. It is inconceivable to me that you have ever not been disappointed in me. I'm familiar with your other writings, after all. It is your nature to be disappointed. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:Most of the debate has been about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. So fix it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just sit up like a good dog? No one is acting like a good dog. Bad metaphor. When your village is attacked and subject to future attacks, you build defenses. (Better metaphor.) All defenses compromise your ability to do something besides defend yourself -- that's the economics of biology. But we can't change the way the world works by denying it. We dn't just say they're wrong, we join in to congratulate them. I don't see anyone congratulating Fox except Fox and the usual folks aimed at destroying us anway. I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter. Not towards Fox, but how about other news avenues? I actually addressed this in my original posting. but to me, our own ideas and values ... should not be sacrificed to our popularity with a part of our audience. I agree and posted nothing to the contrary. Even less should they be sacrificed in a way that is likely to be uneffective (you yourself said that Fox will present whatever we do as a proof of them being right and us being wrong). See, you even recognize that I already said we won't win over Fox. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating. Wow. Even worse metaphor! All the riches that are demanded! Not implicitly, no. But you were defending actions that in my eyes did just that, namely by deleting material apparently using the criterium what might Fox object to? rather than using the criterium what does not in any way add to our mission of spreading knowledge? I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on what he was thinking, but I'll note again that, to the extent you focus on retrospectively criticizing Jimmy and not on what can be done positively to improve Commons policy or its implementation, you are missing an opportunity. Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned aspects of it in oft-quoted essays (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]]. If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at Wikimania? This might reduce wikidrama all around. ; I think this is a great idea. I fully support it. Oh well. If all you've got is lemons, it's time to make lemonade ;-) This is a good attitude to have, and I support it too. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: Wow. Even worse metaphor! All the riches that are demanded! Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just want revenge for something. FOX don't want anything we have and they don't really dislike us (sure, they would rather people went to them for knowledge than us, but that isn't really what this is about). They are attacking us simply because it makes exciting news and makes them more money. That is a completely different motive to an attack on a village so a defence based on a metaphor of an attack on a village is bound to fail. All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are deeply misleading. But I'll do my best to avoid bad metaphors in the future if Andre will join me in doing so. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Marc Riddell writes: Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. Marc, I've been listening all along. Neither expression of disagreement nor an effort to focus on constructive solutions entails the conclusion that someone isn't listening. Now, did you hear and learn from what I just said? Best regards, --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear to be completely at odds with your past positions in this area. When you are referring to my past positions in this area, could you say which works of mine you have read, and which passages you believe stand in opposition to Jimmy's deleting content he believes are triggering attacks on the projects? I hope you'll understand my skepticism as to whether you have read CYBER RIGHTS. I hardly know anyone who's read it. ;) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley: The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder. Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create disorder nor to preserve disorder. It's not the nature of disorder to need creating or preserving. Creating and preserving order is a much harder challenge. Obviously, creativity needs freedom and diversity, but it also needs rules. Striking the right balance between freedom and rules is especially hard, but if the recent debate leads people to reflecting on what a better balance is, that's a good result, even if people remain (understandably) unhappy with certain particular actions that gave rise to the debate. I know a lot of people suppose that the attack from Fox is the trigger for discussion of review of Commons policy, but in fact Commons policy has been subject to ongoing review and discussion for some time now, as FloNight has mentioned. Fox's maliciousness, and Jimmy's unilateral response to it, may have added some urgency to the discussion, but I think the discussion needs to happen. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, Sit down and work out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and then revisit social constructs. Work first, then have a cup of coffee and talk. You're not wrong. You've restated my views better than I stated them. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content
Tomek writes: So... are we now going to start writting USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm) ? There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars, articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of things to be deleted in order to make our projects more family friendy. For what it's worth, I personally don't see the issue as one of making Commons (or Wikipedia or any other project) family-friendly. There will always be content that some substantial fraction of the reading population will find offensive. This would be true even if the projects were limited to text. There's also no urgent legal issue driving any changes to Commons -- we don't have reason to believe any category of content we knowingly carry on Commons is definitionally illegal under U.S. law. (Obviously, when if people upload content that is illegal, and we're informed about its presence, we'll remove it -- most likely, volunteers will remove it even before it gets the attention of the Foundation staff.) If we judge Commons content simply on the basis of Does this content serves the mission of the projects? there is no doubt that some content will removed, some offensive content will not be removed, and Commons will no longer be a kind of dumping ground for anything and everything regardless of whether content lacks encyclopedic usefulness. As a side-effect of this, you probably get both (a) a resource that is somewhat more family friendly (because the sheer frequency of merely offensive images is reduced) and (b) a resource that remains essentially uncensored, consistent with its encyclopedic mission. (I use uncensored here to mean not edited merely to avoid offense.) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Florence writes: Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many speakers on this list, Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note, and I'll rephrase accordingly. I would argue that one of the implications of the abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having lost touch with base. I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help restore trust. Just to be clear about this: Jimmy didn't ask me to speak for him, and I haven't represented here that I'm speaking for him. I'm only offering my personal (convoluted!) point of view, trying to be helpful. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
Dear folks, I was attending a meeting of the Northern California Copyright Society today, and I mentioned to a colleague the discussions we have had on this list and elsewhere regarding whether the Wikimedia logos, which are trademarked, should be freely licensed as copyrighted works. My colleague immediately said this: Do they realize that if you freely license the trademarked logo, that may be interpreted by a court in trademark litigation as abandonment of the trademark? Me: Well, I've tried to suggest this, but perhaps I haven't said it clearly enough. There's a tendency for some non-lawyers to assume that trademark issues are wholly and necessarily separate from copyright issues. Colleague: Well, you'd better tell them that freely licensing the logos might undermine your ability to defend your trademarks in them. And so, here I am, telling you just that. Best regards, --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
David Castor writes: The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused, without any further permission. Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) All material from Swedish Wikipedia may be freely reused, without further permission, with the exception of the Wikimedia trademarks and copyrighted logos, for which separate, specific permission for reuse must be sought? Yes, that is a longer sentence. But in my experience the kinds of people who agonize over copyright permissions are uniformly capable of parsing longer sentences. Note that my suggestion handily dodges the need to instruct anyone about whether the Wikipedia image in the corner of the page is freely licensed for reuse. It also avoids the need to explain to someone what constitutes part of the user interface and what doesn't. It also doesn't require a non-law-trained user to parse issues of trademark versus copyright. So in fact it is a simpler, user-friendlier solution that seems consistent with David's statement of what Swedish Wikipedians want to be able to do. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote: This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. But how about with trademark and without copyright restrictions? Why do you think trademark restrictions are okay but copyright restrictions aren't? If you are against copyright restrictions, why don't you favor releasing all Wikimedia content into the public domain rather than using CC-BY-SA and GFDL? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 63
John Vandenberg writes: By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license? Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
(Resent with correct subject header) John Vandenberg writes: By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license? Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the declaration that the logo is not protected by copyright. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the right to reuse it as a public-domain image. Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from articles? I wouldn't say quite possible, no. I suspect Volvo's IP attorneys have a different opinion about whether the Volvo logo is public-domain than perhaps you do. As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of free content.[http://freedomdefined.org/] I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right. The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable. The issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the images in question.* I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable. Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance . The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content. And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well. This is perhaps too broad a use of the word understandable than I am used to. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Logo Copyright
Klaus Graf writes: Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least in the US. Of course they can. Plenty of letterform-based designs are copyrighted in the United States. If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright protection Wikimedia counsel should not imitate them. I'm not imitating anyone, but thanks. Would you PLEASE read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality I hope you will understand why I choose not to ignore my understanding of copyright law and defer instead to a Wikipedia article, no matter how well-intentioned it is, and no matter how highly I respect Wikipedia as a general-knowledge resource. Wikipedia is not an authority on what copyright is, or on what is copyrightable. Thank you. Oh, no, thank *you*. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of defining free is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either. I also can't see any scenarios that lead to a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. This seems to be a phantom hazard. I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of free. I'm pleased that you recognize that the problem is one with how you use words like compatible and free. The problem is that you are applying imprecise notions of compatible and free that, in your mind, hint at something awful (dogs and cats living together?) without actually posing the risk of something awful. I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways. Of course it's not copyright. But the word free is not defined solely by copyright law, is it? The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright. They're protected by other areas of law too. I realize that a non-practitioner may suppose that different areas of intellectual-property law can and must be considered in analytical isolation from one another, but in the real world, as you may imagine, different areas of law intersect and interact all the time. The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues. Well, by all means, then, if some foreign language projects have adopted overly simplistic positions, we will increase the world's source of free knowledge by following their example, right? Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy. So what? We don't require that the WMF logos be used in some future Debian package, nor is it likely we will, absent a formal partnership of some sort (which seems unlikely). Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF) doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements (copyright trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork, etc. I wasn't reiterating a relationship. I was reiterating the fact that the uses in question are clearly and completely and nonrestrictively allowed by the copyright holder. I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark. That seems like an eminently rational approach -- far more understandable as I use that word. However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it. I have seen it for a quarter century. I don't think we serve freedom by reducing our understanding of free culture to the lowest-common-denominator, most simplistic, most un-nuanced, most legally unsophisticated notions of freedom. That is fanaticism for its own sake, and not at all a service to free culture. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
WJhonson writes: I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license to do so? Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential and actual rights embedded in content, and that the right of publicity (as it's called in the United States) is one of them. If we insisted on a simplistic notion of freedom with regard to free content, we'd have to take this legal encumbrance into account. By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to use their true names per our terms. Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use true names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA? How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a hodge-podge. Now you're beginning to see the complexity of the issues. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
masti writes: It's crazy. sv.wiki still has unfree logo on every page :) It is unfree to protect wiki identity. This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is free, and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating. My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Robert Rohde writes: Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future. I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers. And now I really, really feel it was wasted! Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible. Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Thanks, MZ! On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Mike Godwin wrote: Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there! MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted logo) does not? This is explained in the policy document I posted a link for. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
The Cunctator writes: No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free license is a copyright license. The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content. By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is Wiktionary copyright?
We've trademarked the word mark Wiktionary in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States. I think most trademark lawyers would view wikitionary as confusingly similar -- I will probably follow up with our outside trademark counsel. --Mike On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.comwrote: I assume you are referring to the term trademarked rather than copyrighted. I suggest you contact Mike Godwin directly with this kind of questions, he is handling those. With kind regards, Lodewijk 2010/3/29 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com Is the term Wiktionary copyrighted? I only ask because the OpenDemocracy website has recently started a Dictionary of Ethical Politics wikitionary http://resurgence.opendemocracy.net/index.php/Main_Page If it is copyrighted, you may want to say something to them, or else it will end up like the hoover - a generic term usable by anyone. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 21
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen writes: It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears that none of them appears to have been entered by the WMF - with the caveat that perhaps the one involving German Wikipedia may have had some chapter involvement, though likely not. I would be interested to hear from some knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility within the Foundation (perhaps Mike Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth. Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I began work at WMF in 2007). There was no chapter involvement in my decision to forward the two notices in question to ChillingEffects.org. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen writes: It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears that none of them appears to have been entered by the WMF - with the caveat that perhaps the one involving German Wikipedia may have had some chapter involvement, though likely not. I would be interested to hear from some knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility within the Foundation (perhaps Mike Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth. Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I began work at WMF in 2007). There was no chapter involvement in my decision to forward the two notices in question to ChillingEffects.org. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] At school
Some folks at Wikipedia criticize the heck out of schools and don't trust schools because schools let anyone in, including people who don't want to learn. If schools tolerate people who don't learn, why do they exist? There could be a billion disruptive students. And when the old ones graduate, there are always new ones. Kids at my school are criticizing the heck out of your Foundation and will not trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it. If anyone can edit, then why do you exist? There could be a billion vandals. When the old ones get banned, there could be new ones. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Nathan writes: With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative. With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) I do not believe it is a good idea to expand duties of OTRS beyond those required by law. I do not believe OTRS is currently required by law to manage assertions of model age and release. I do not believe OTRS could scale to assume such duties. I do believe that attempting to get the Foundation to impose top-down intervention in this case when you can't persuade the community itself of your concerns about explicit media is a bad thing. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It's not article count, it's editors
My own personal view is that, in an ideal world, we'd post two or more metrics for every project (article numbers, number of editors, and perhaps other metrics like, perhaps, external links). That would create a design problem given our current home page, but probably not an unsolvable one. The idea here is that, with multiple metrics, we can hypothesize more clearly about trends -- e.g., when the article number rate of increase declines, but numbers of editors and external links increases, we may be able to make some more reasonable guesses about what's happening on that project. Obviously, Erik Zachte's work in this are is extremely (I'm inclined to say uniquely) valuable -- I'm wondering how we can better integrate his research into how the projects initially represent themselves to users upon entry. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued
Frieda writes: As far as I remember we asked WMF help just once, few months ago. There were nothing in the news at that moment. I'm sorry the original request didn't get through to me, for whatever reason. (I suspect a spam filter blocked the earlier message because it contained two long URLs.) I first heard about it when you reposted it on a mailing list, and I responded immediately to that message when saw it. The doc is already in your mailbox. CouLd you please assure me that you received it? thanks. Yes, I've received it. Unfortunately, the text isn't scannable by OCR -- if some enterprising Italian Wikimedia feels like retyping the document into a text format, I'd be personally grateful. In the meantime, I'll do what I can with the scan you sent me. And.. Why didn't you ask for it in our private discussion rather than using foundation-l? Well, I generally respond to public mailing lists with public responses, and, as you will recall, I was responding to other public queries about this case on this and other public forums. In general, there's nothing particularly private about legal process, and it generally serves transparency and knowledge sharing to publicize whatever we can. This is already a public matter, and there's general interest in our larger community about the details. I generally share what I can, within the bounds of legal privilege. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Frieda Brioschi ubifri...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/16 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating in Italy. How many originating from Wikimedia Italia? Not many, and perhaps not any -- in general the spurious threat is against WMF itself, so far as I can recall. I'll forward to you a copy of the document in few minutes. It's in italian. Is it ok for you? Yes. Some kind of machine-readable text is best (so we can run it through translation software if possible), but if you're limited to an scanned PDF or other scanned image format that can't be OCR'd, we'll still want to take a look at what you've received. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued
Nathan writes: Interesting. Although the Italian media also reported that I (and Jimbo and various others) was being sued for 50 million euros, and I haven't seen that lawsuit yet. We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating in Italy. In the majority of those cases, Wikimedia Foundation itself never receives service of process -- in effect, the cases only really exist in Italian media. I'm not saying that's the case here, but we haven't heard anything yet from Italian process servers yet. I'd like to see any official complaints that have been filed in Italian courts (or elsewhere) against Wikimedia Italia. The chapter's defense (the chapter doesn't produce Wikipedia content) should be straightforward under any European legal regime, but obviously we will take an interest in any case that seems to be going the wrong way. If the edits in question were made during a time when Frieda was on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (and even if not), I wonder if the WMF will contribute to her legal expenses. WMF routinely provides director-and-officer liability protection regarding actions taken by WMF directors and officers in the conduct of their duties. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Head of Communications position open? (copy editing fix)
My error: The sentence should read ... yet must *comply* with all relevant US employment laws This is one of those instances in which the author knew a word was missing from the draft and intended to add it, but somehow managed to post the unedited version anyway. Sorry. --Mike On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: sfmammamia writes: A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8, there's an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position. This ad does not appear online, at least I could not find a companion posting, either on the foundation site or on Yahoo (the Chronicle's online ad partner). Perhaps once the staff is back from the Labor Day holiday there will be clarification? Or did I just miss something? Hi, sfmammamia. Here's the nutshell answer to your question: because the Wikimedia Foundation is an international organization that hires staff from around the world and yet must with all relevant US employment law, we sometimes need to adhere to specific legal and administrative requirements. In other words, sometimes we must run employment ads, such as the posting of this position, in a newspaper like the SF Chronicle or elsewhere. This shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of any shakeup. Jay, for example, is not leaving the Wikimedia Foundation -- he's doing a great job, and we expect and hope he will stay with us, doing the same great work, for a long time. --Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Head of Communications position open?
sfmammamia writes: A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8, there's an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position. This ad does not appear online, at least I could not find a companion posting, either on the foundation site or on Yahoo (the Chronicle's online ad partner). Perhaps once the staff is back from the Labor Day holiday there will be clarification? Or did I just miss something? Hi, sfmammamia. Here's the nutshell answer to your question: because the Wikimedia Foundation is an international organization that hires staff from around the world and yet must with all relevant US employment law, we sometimes need to adhere to specific legal and administrative requirements. In other words, sometimes we must run employment ads, such as the posting of this position, in a newspaper like the SF Chronicle or elsewhere. This shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of any shakeup. Jay, for example, is not leaving the Wikimedia Foundation -- he's doing a great job, and we expect and hope he will stay with us, doing the same great work, for a long time. --Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
