Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-22 Thread David Goodman
It was intended not just to challenge the US government, but to be an
example for elsewhere,and it has been that.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

  Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri y...@rawbw.com a écrit :
 
   On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
 
  Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn't (shouldn't) depend
  in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed
 differently
  from a culture to another but that's a cultural question not related to
  censorship.
 
 
 snip


 
  I understand your intention with this system, but I find it's not a good
  response to the problem; I find a better response is to encourage and
 help
  the free speech associations, like what was done during SOPA/PIPA.


 I absolutely agree with your sentiment, as I'm sure most do, but I'm
 willing to challenge the English Wikipedia SOPA/PIPA blackout as a good
 example. The community took its content hostage (IMO :) ) in order to prove
 a point to the US Congress, despite the English Wikipedia serving the
 world. We've had two years to learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities.
 I spoke about it at Wikimania 2012  in a panel discussion and I still don't
 think that reaction was appropriate.

 Knowledge is, as you said, not dependent on government. I don't think the
 WMF (spoken as a volunteer) or Wikimedians should support community
 responses to censorship with censorship ourselves. We've had two years to
 learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities. Sorry, Yuri, I understand
 it's best intentions, but education is the magic bullet.

 --
 ~Keegan

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-14 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri y...@rawbw.com a écrit :

  On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:

 Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn't (shouldn't) depend
 in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently
 from a culture to another but that's a cultural question not related to
 censorship.


snip



 I understand your intention with this system, but I find it's not a good
 response to the problem; I find a better response is to encourage and help
 the free speech associations, like what was done during SOPA/PIPA.


I absolutely agree with your sentiment, as I'm sure most do, but I'm
willing to challenge the English Wikipedia SOPA/PIPA blackout as a good
example. The community took its content hostage (IMO :) ) in order to prove
a point to the US Congress, despite the English Wikipedia serving the
world. We've had two years to learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities.
I spoke about it at Wikimania 2012  in a panel discussion and I still don't
think that reaction was appropriate.

Knowledge is, as you said, not dependent on government. I don't think the
WMF (spoken as a volunteer) or Wikimedians should support community
responses to censorship with censorship ourselves. We've had two years to
learn since SOPA/PIPA with other communities. Sorry, Yuri, I understand
it's best intentions, but education is the magic bullet.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-13 Thread Seb35

Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri y...@rawbw.com a écrit :

On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend  
in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed  
differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question  
not related to censorship.


Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Ministry of  
Truth in 1984 where the newspapers are re-printed afterwards to modify  
the past History.


This is exactly the point: when local governments attempt to twist the  
truth, they are currently able to do this for all readers, regardless of  
the location. This feature would allow to explicitly twist the truth in  
specific areas where this twisting is legally required, while preserving  
the real version for everyone else. In a way, it will also keep the  
registry of altered information, while now there is no such way and  
alterations are just swallowed.


I’m not convinced by this method (quite difficult technically as said on  
the bug) because of the abuse ti could lead: if a government doesn’t like  
a version of an article (example given by Austin Hair), it would be too  
easy to find a random volunteer in the country to hide the unwanted parts.  
As a real example in the DCRI affair last year, if such a feature would  
have existed I guess the affair would have received a smaller attention  
from the international movement and the censorship would have worked  
better.


I understand your intention with this system, but I find it’s not a good  
response to the problem; I find a better response is to encourage and help  
the free speech associations, like what was done during SOPA/PIPA.


~ Seb35

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-10 Thread Seb35
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend in  
any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently  
from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question not related to  
censorship.


Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Ministry of Truth  
in 1984 where the newspapers are re-printed afterwards to modify the past  
History.


~ Seb35

Le mercredi 5 mars 2014 05:37:25 (CET), Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com
a écrit :

Exactly this.

If the government of any given country wants to redirect certain  
articles,
or all of Wikipedia, to a page saying This content blocked by the  
Ministry

of Knowledge, people will know they're being censored. If instead they
reach a sanitized version of the article reflecting the government's
preferred spin, we're putting that government's spin in our voice. That's
not at all acceptable.

Let them censor, let them make it obvious, and let them deal with the
fallout. But we should absolutely not help them in any way whatsoever.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:


I think that if you stop to think about it another way, you'll find
that this would do the opposite of what you intend, to wit: allowing
various courts to impose editorial control.

Imagine Circletine, once a popular childhood beverage but now the
issue of some controversy regarding its tendency to cause tooth loss.
Although banned from sale in Europe and the United States, an
aggressive marketing campaign has made it the best-selling soft drink
in the nation of Elbonia. Equally aggressive lobbying in the Elbonian
parliament has resulted it in being a crime to disparage Circletine in
any way, or even to mention the controversy in print.

And so we have our article:

'''Circletine''' is a bannedin
country=elboniacontroversial/bannedin milk flavoring product made
from malt extract, curds, and whey, bannedin
country=elboniaonce/bannedin extremely popular worldwide

bannedin country=elboniaAlthough it enjoyed several decades of
success as an inexpensive beverage marketed mostly for children,
concerns over an increased risk of tooth loss led to its withdrawal
from sale in most western countries./bannedin

(I think you can see where this is going.)

Censorship is awful, but partial censorship is worse than simply
saying I'm not allowed to talk about it. Ask your government why.

Austin


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote:
 I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the
 articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those
parts
 illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
 But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.

 The problem is that there are countries that lack the freedom of  
speech

 (most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about
banning
 materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find objectionable. The
very
 recent example, provided in the bug report above, is banning of any
 references of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf in Russia. While this  
case

 may seem not as important, but I don't see why users outside Russia
should
 be affected by such decision, when they may not even support any
decisions
 or values of the said government. Yet, everybody's version of  
wikipedia

page
 is affected, and materials are hidden.

 My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of  
the

 articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding
 court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original
 version.

 If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this
will
 effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of  
various

 courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia.

 Yuri

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,  
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-10 Thread Yuri

On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend 
in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed 
differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question 
not related to censorship.


Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Ministry of 
Truth in 1984 where the newspapers are re-printed afterwards to modify 
the past History.


This is exactly the point: when local governments attempt to twist the 
truth, they are currently able to do this for all readers, regardless of 
the location. This feature would allow to explicitly twist the truth in 
specific areas where this twisting is legally required, while preserving 
the real version for everyone else. In a way, it will also keep the 
registry of altered information, while now there is no such way and 
alterations are just swallowed.


Yuri

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-04 Thread Yuri
I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the 
articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those 
parts illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231

But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.

The problem is that there are countries that lack the freedom of speech 
(most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about 
banning materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find 
objectionable. The very recent example, provided in the bug report 
above, is banning of any references of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf 
in Russia. While this case may seem not as important, but I don't see 
why users outside Russia should be affected by such decision, when they 
may not even support any decisions or values of the said government. 
Yet, everybody's version of wikipedia page is affected, and materials 
are hidden.


My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of the 
articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding 
court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original 
version.


If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this 
will effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of 
various courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia.


Yuri

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-04 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 03/04/2014 10:50 PM, Yuri wrote:
 But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.

I haven't opined on the specific bug, but I would also have rejected it.
 The reason why is simple:  it goes exactly opposite everything the
projects stand for.

Our mission isn't collect all of the knowledge but only show some of it
to some people, depending on the whims of random governments (or some
people's interpretations of those whims).

We might not be able to prevent some entities from censoring us; but we
certainly should not do it for them.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-04 Thread Austin Hair
I think that if you stop to think about it another way, you'll find
that this would do the opposite of what you intend, to wit: allowing
various courts to impose editorial control.

Imagine Circletine, once a popular childhood beverage but now the
issue of some controversy regarding its tendency to cause tooth loss.
Although banned from sale in Europe and the United States, an
aggressive marketing campaign has made it the best-selling soft drink
in the nation of Elbonia. Equally aggressive lobbying in the Elbonian
parliament has resulted it in being a crime to disparage Circletine in
any way, or even to mention the controversy in print.

And so we have our article:

'''Circletine''' is a bannedin
country=elboniacontroversial/bannedin milk flavoring product made
from malt extract, curds, and whey, bannedin
country=elboniaonce/bannedin extremely popular worldwide

bannedin country=elboniaAlthough it enjoyed several decades of
success as an inexpensive beverage marketed mostly for children,
concerns over an increased risk of tooth loss led to its withdrawal
from sale in most western countries./bannedin

(I think you can see where this is going.)

Censorship is awful, but partial censorship is worse than simply
saying I'm not allowed to talk about it. Ask your government why.

Austin


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote:
 I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the
 articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those parts
 illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
 But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.

 The problem is that there are countries that lack the freedom of speech
 (most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about banning
 materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find objectionable. The very
 recent example, provided in the bug report above, is banning of any
 references of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf in Russia. While this case
 may seem not as important, but I don't see why users outside Russia should
 be affected by such decision, when they may not even support any decisions
 or values of the said government. Yet, everybody's version of wikipedia page
 is affected, and materials are hidden.

 My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of the
 articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding
 court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original
 version.

 If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this will
 effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of various
 courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia.

 Yuri

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

2014-03-04 Thread Todd Allen
Exactly this.

If the government of any given country wants to redirect certain articles,
or all of Wikipedia, to a page saying This content blocked by the Ministry
of Knowledge, people will know they're being censored. If instead they
reach a sanitized version of the article reflecting the government's
preferred spin, we're putting that government's spin in our voice. That's
not at all acceptable.

Let them censor, let them make it obvious, and let them deal with the
fallout. But we should absolutely not help them in any way whatsoever.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think that if you stop to think about it another way, you'll find
 that this would do the opposite of what you intend, to wit: allowing
 various courts to impose editorial control.

 Imagine Circletine, once a popular childhood beverage but now the
 issue of some controversy regarding its tendency to cause tooth loss.
 Although banned from sale in Europe and the United States, an
 aggressive marketing campaign has made it the best-selling soft drink
 in the nation of Elbonia. Equally aggressive lobbying in the Elbonian
 parliament has resulted it in being a crime to disparage Circletine in
 any way, or even to mention the controversy in print.

 And so we have our article:

 '''Circletine''' is a bannedin
 country=elboniacontroversial/bannedin milk flavoring product made
 from malt extract, curds, and whey, bannedin
 country=elboniaonce/bannedin extremely popular worldwide

 bannedin country=elboniaAlthough it enjoyed several decades of
 success as an inexpensive beverage marketed mostly for children,
 concerns over an increased risk of tooth loss led to its withdrawal
 from sale in most western countries./bannedin

 (I think you can see where this is going.)

 Censorship is awful, but partial censorship is worse than simply
 saying I'm not allowed to talk about it. Ask your government why.

 Austin


 On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote:
  I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the
  articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those
 parts
  illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
  But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.
 
  The problem is that there are countries that lack the freedom of speech
  (most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about
 banning
  materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find objectionable. The
 very
  recent example, provided in the bug report above, is banning of any
  references of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf in Russia. While this case
  may seem not as important, but I don't see why users outside Russia
 should
  be affected by such decision, when they may not even support any
 decisions
  or values of the said government. Yet, everybody's version of wikipedia
 page
  is affected, and materials are hidden.
 
  My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of the
  articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding
  court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original
  version.
 
  If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this
 will
  effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of various
  courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia.
 
  Yuri
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe