subject:"\[Wikimedia\-l\] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike"

Anthony writes:

I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
traction in Congress.

I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.
Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
what it can and cannot do politically, and is even more regulated by
virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO). There's no Citizens
United connection with regard to anything being discussed here.

As is generally known, I favored the English Wikipedia blackout with
regard to SOPA/PIPA, and I also supported the Italian Wikimedians'
earlier blackout, driven by fear of (effectively) similar regulation.

At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is
democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of
promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct
is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia
project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that
what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered
legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having
their own top-down way.

To my Russian comrades: I am with you.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Thomas Morton

On 12 July 2012 10:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

  At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is
  democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of
  promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct
  is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia
  project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that
  what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered
  legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having
  their own top-down way.


 The worrying thing is not only that we've done this three times in the
 past year, it's that we've had cause to do it three times in the past
 year.


Oh pish.

Laws like the ones we protested have been created many times over the last
few years (France, UK, etc.) and we've never protested them before.

The change was us, not them.

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Anthony

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Anthony writes:

 I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
 proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
 traction in Congress.

 I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.

The connection is free speech.

 Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
 what it can and cannot do politically

What regulations are you referring to?  Corporations can't *deduct*
certain political expenditures.  But what are the profound regulations
on what it can do politically?

 and is even more regulated by
 virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO).

More specifically, by its being a 501(C)(3).  I'm not aware of any
regulation imposed by simply being a nonprofit corporation.  And even
other 501(C) corporations, such as 501(C)(4) corporations (like
Citizens United) are fairly unrestricted.

Furthermore, 501(C)(3) is a tax status.  The government isn't saying
that WMF can't be political.  It just isn't allowed certain tax
privileges if it does so more than a certain amount.  And in some
cases it is penalized if it takes the tax advantages first and then
does the actions later.

 There's no Citizens
 United connection with regard to anything being discussed here.

WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech.  In the
Citizens United decision, the Court held that the First Amendment
prohibited the government from restricting independent political
expenditures by corporations and unions.

The connection is quite obvious.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.

The connection is free speech.

Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
what role corporate expenditures can play in elections. It does not
address the question of whether corporations can engage in political
activity.

Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
what it can and cannot do politically

What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct*
certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations
on what it can do politically?

See, e.g.,
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf.

WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech. In the
Citizens United decision, the Court held that the First Amendment
prohibited the government from restricting independent political
expenditures by corporations and unions.

The connection is quite obvious.

Not merely obvious but quite obvious, eh? Well, in the United States
cases like Citizens United and its predecessors center precisely on
election campaigns (including the ways money can be spent on issue
campaigning aimed at influencing the outcome of elections of
candidates for public office).

I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an
election. I'm also unaware of any how Citizens United applies even
remotely the subject matter of this thread, which I had understood to
center on Russian legislation, not (for example) on a Russian
election.

But perhaps you're making a one of those obvious (excuse me, I mean
quite obvious) connections that is too subtle for me to follow.
Speaking only for myself, I remain cheered by the Russian-language
Wikimedians' activism.

--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Anthony

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.

The connection is free speech.

Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.

The law in question was with respect to electioneering
communications, which the court held was speech.

It does not
address the question of whether corporations can engage in political
activity.

Political activity is awfully broad. The ruling was primarily
concerned with political speech.

Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
what it can and cannot do politically

What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct*
certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations
on what it can do politically?

See, e.g.,
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf.

First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
corporations in general. I specifically pointed out that there are
regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit misleading to say that a 501(c)(3) is
prohibited from engaging in these activities. IRC 501(c)(3) *defines*
a certain type of organization, which does not engage in certain types
of political activities. Saying that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from
engaging in certain political activities is like saying that a virgin
is prohibited from having sex. If a virgin has sex, they cease to be
a virgin. If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in prohibited
political activities, it ceases to be a 501(c)(3).

I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an
election.

Surely you understand that one need not be directly affected by the
exact law being challenged to have a great interest in free speech
rights being upheld.

If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
legislation?

But perhaps you're making a one of those obvious (excuse me, I mean
quite obvious) connections that is too subtle for me to follow.

I guess so.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
 simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
 what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.

 The law in question was with respect to electioneering
 communications, which the court held was speech.

If you are expressing a disagreement with my characterization of the
issue in Citizens United, I'm unclear what that disagreement is.

 Political activity is awfully broad.  The ruling was primarily
 concerned with political speech.

That's imprecise. The case centered on the scope of Congress's power
to regulate speech aimed at affecting elections.

 First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
 made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
 corporations in general.  I specifically pointed out that there are
 regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.

I hadn't understood you to be talking also about for-profit
corporations such as The New York Times Company, which (if you happen
to read the Times) you may know sometimes tries to affect the outcome
of elections.

As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

 If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
 what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
 legislation?

I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
New York Times Company from political speech.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

I wrote:

'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
New York Times Company from political speech.'

That paragraph got truncated through an editing error.

What I meant to write was this:

'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements). And I wouldn't want to
prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech regarding
legislation or policy.'


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:34:46 -0400, Nathan wrote:
Is there a service provider exemption for entities like Wikimedia 
in

Russia?


Not that I know of.

Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered 
political

activism in Russia?


Legally, no, it is not political activism. From the point of view of 
having good relation with the authorities, this, of course, complicates 
things.


I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian 
authorities
from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia 
community

decides to take steps like this again.



Formally, they can shut down access to Russian Wikipedia on November 1. 
In reality, I doubt very much they are going to do it. I do not see what 
they can gain, and the public opinion, however weak, will not approve 
it.


What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to 
protest laws
in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, 
etc.,
has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks 
involved or

potential repercussions?


I guess in this case nobody asked the Foundation beforehand. And I 
think the fact that nobody from wm.ru cared to show up here to provide 
info and answer questions (Victoria and myself are not members and none 
of us is a Russian resident, though I am a Russian citizen and was 
flying from Russia just last weekend) is in my opinion very illustrative 
in this respect.


But indeed a good question is would it be for instance a good idea to 
blackout Chinese Wikipedia to protest the firewall. My opinion is no. It 
would expose a number of people to immediate danger without any obviousl 
benefits, since the probability that the blackout can change anything is 
increasingly low.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
  On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
  SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,
 
 
  Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.

 Yes, on the basis that Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition
 of an 'Internet search engine'.

 
 http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
 

 The definition was:

 The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via
 the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes
 information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on
 the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms,
 concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a
 means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of
 locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available
 on the Internet relating to such query or selection.

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text

 It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but
 even if it did, what would be the consequences?

 A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically
 feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in
 any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or
 within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the
 foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of
 such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct
 hypertext link.

 Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links
 in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an
 internet site that would be specified under such a court order is:

 [T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or
 pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are
 addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain
 name, a common Internet Protocol address.

 We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy
 searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from
 being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost
 would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.

 Maybe SOPA was a serious threat to freedom of expression on the
 Internet, and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to
 Wikipedia's existence.

 -- Tim Starling



Thank you. Well said.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 You specifically contrasted regulations as a corporation with
 regulations by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation.  I
 responded to both.  You then quoted my response to the first, with
 information with respect to the second.

I'm still not sure what you're taking issue with here.

 As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
 pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

 501(c) *is a tax status*.  501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status.

So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.

 I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
 corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
 (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
 New York Times Company from political speech.

 And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.

That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I
appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting
influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's
possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through
Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted
expenditures constitutionally.  (In short, I slightly disagree with
ACLU's position, but only slightly.)

What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians'
activism is still beyond me, however.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Milos Rancic

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Is there a service provider exemption for entities like Wikimedia in
 Russia? Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
 period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political
 activism in Russia? I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
 Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian authorities
 from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia community
 decides to take steps like this again.

Like in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA cases, objecting to the law is socially too
wide to be considered as political activism in narrow sense. Yandex,
Russian biggest search engine, is among those opposing the law.

 What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to protest laws
 in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, etc.,
 has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks involved or
 potential repercussions?

In one email from this thread similar attitude was applied to the
hypothetical decision Russian Wikipedia for Russians.

In short, the attitude is false excuse for vanguardism.

The first case has been based on the fact that Wikipedians from Russia
would like to articulate Wikipedia block for Russia and that they have
no means to do that, except to block Russian Wikipedia for the whole
world (which should be done by WMF).

Anyway, I don't think that anything of the written would happen:
* Every big Wikipedian community has enough collective responsibility
not to act ethnocentrically. Thus, it's false premise that something
like that would pass on Russian Wikipedia.
* Wikipedia is far from being important in China. Thus, going on
strike there wouldn't be productive. And Chinese Wikipedians know
that.
* Arabic Wikipedians come from many [Arabic] countries and there
should be something *really* heavy to see them united in desire to
strike.

Quite opposite, the threats of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, Italian and Russian
laws are by far more visible than anything mentioned above.

The logic is similar to building bulwarks in a desert because sea
level will raise in few hundreds of years. If you live there, you need
water now.

More realistically, *if* something like that happens, please think and
act if necessary. The fact that the distance between Washington DC and
Rome is smaller than distance between Washington DC and Moscow doesn't
mean that Wikipedia strikes will finish in Pyongyang.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-12 Thread Anthony

 As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
 pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

 501(c) *is a tax status*.  501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status.

 So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.

Well, no, you didn't.  But I know where the regulations for 501(c)(3),
(c)(4), etc. are, since dealing with treasury regulations is what I do
for a living.

I also explained to you that IRC 501(c)(3) does not prohibit certain
corporations from performing certain actions, rather it *defines*
certain corporations which do not perform certain actions.  I figured
you would confirm this by reading the code.  However, I'll quote it
for you.  First, I'll quote 501(a):

An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) orsection 401 (a)
shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such
exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.

Now, the beginning of 501(c):

The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

And now, 501(c)(3)

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized
and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to
foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only
if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic
facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children
or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the
activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in
subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for public office.

The code doesn't say that 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from
intervening in political campaigns, rather it says that organizations
which intervene in political campaigns *are not 501(c)(3)
organizations*.

As you will know if you've read the recent court cases, there is a
difference between prohibiting an action, and subjecting it to certain
taxes.

 I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
 corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
 (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
 New York Times Company from political speech.

 And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.

 That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I
 appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting
 influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's
 possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through
 Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted
 expenditures constitutionally.  (In short, I slightly disagree with
 ACLU's position, but only slightly.)

 What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians'
 activism is still beyond me, however.

Nothing.  My comment was about a proposed constitutional amendment to
overturn Citizen United, and I gave that as an example of something
that is even more important than PIPA for Wikipedians to protest.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.

 Well, no, you didn't.

I think most people will agree that I did give you pointers to the
regs. I agree that I did not give you direct links to the regs.
Perhaps you understood pointers to mean direct links.

 I also explained to you that IRC 501(c)(3) does not prohibit certain
 corporations from performing certain actions, rather it *defines*
 certain corporations which do not perform certain actions.

This is all lovely, but I am still unclear as to what you believe you
are disagreeing with me about.

 I figured
 you would confirm this by reading the code.

I didn't see much point in rereading those provisions, because I
didn't understand what exactly you were taking issue with me on. I'm
not sure anyone else does either. Perhaps someone else could explain
your disagreement with me, because I'm drawing a blank here in what
I'm reading from you.

 What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians'
 activism is still beyond me, however.

 Nothing.  My comment was about a proposed constitutional amendment to
 overturn Citizen United, and I gave that as an example of something
 that is even more important than PIPA for Wikipedians to protest.

Why Wikipedians in particular? Citizens United (not Citizen United)
has to do with campaign expenditures. So far as I know, neither WMF
nor Wikimedians have any interest, one way or the other, in attempts
to regulate campaign expenditures, or constitutional amendments
regarding same.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 Okay.  Is there something in those regs which regulates what WMF can
 and cannot do politically?  All I see is regulations stating that WMF
 may be taxed based on what is does.

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're making.

 When you said Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly
 regulated in what it can and cannot do politically, I thought you
 were referring to some regulation(s) outside of the internal revenue
 code.  Were you?

No.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike


On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:07:48 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language 
Wikipedias

that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects 
should be
blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced 
global

legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.


Do you think that educational mission is not political?



The arbitration committee case has already been filed.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread David Gerard

On 11 July 2012 08:07, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language Wikipedias
 that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
 considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects should be
 blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced global
 legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.

 Do you think that educational mission is not political?


No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
*your* politics are weird and radical.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Milos Rancic

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
 *your* politics are weird and radical.

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Nikola Smolenski


On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest, 
see f.e. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike


On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:47:25 +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin
protest, see f.e.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


Which is a sheer bullshit.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Fred Bauder

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.

Fred

 On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
 Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
 Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

 [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html

 By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
 see f.e.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Yann Forget

2012/7/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
 On 11 July 2012 08:57, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

 It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
 purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


 Censoring porn is *always* a stalking horse for political and
 historical censorship.

And copyright is used more and more for the same.

Yann

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Milos Rancic

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
 Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is correct? Just
 a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading basically
 unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is also
 expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full support of
 the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are your
 statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any action
 after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course happy to
 issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?

As written above:

Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning.
[1]

-- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike


On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:21:26 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is 
correct? Just
a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading 
basically
unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is 
also
expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full 
support of
the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are 
your
statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any 
action
after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course 
happy to

issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?


As written above:

Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday 
morning.

[1]

-- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html


The third reading will be TODAY 17:00 Moscow time (in two and a half 
hours). It was just a figure of speach.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Виктория

Milos,

BTW, 292:22 doesn't look like a lack of participation nor as a lack of
consensus. And the actions which affect the real world have their
right time, unlike building the knowledge.

Did you count how many of thsee 292 votes, especially among the last couple
of hundred, have a right for RFA vote and how many among 22 (mainly
opinions, not votes) are admins? The poll was formulated in such a way
(against censorhip), that it begged for Support and the short time didn't
allow a lot of people to express their opinion - an opinion  have to be
formulated, written down, even edited, unlike vote.

What we have is a flasmob, which is very dangerous thing to approve. This
time we were lucky that the poll was in general vein of the WM movement
strategy, but knowing the situation in Russia we can (very soon) have, for
example, a


Russian Wikipedia for Russians


banner  on the main page  after 300 editors voted for it.


Regards

Russian-speaking British/Belarusian citizen


Victoria
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Nikola Smolenski


On 11/07/12 09:57, Fred Bauder wrote:

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


Yes, but this has nothing to do with Putin. First, it doesn't seem that 
this law is pushed personally by Putin. Second, Russian Wikipedians 
would be against the law regardless of whether it is pushed by Putin or 
not. Third, a anti-Putin pro-Western government could be expected to be 
even worse in this regard.



On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
see f.e.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:02 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 July 2012 09:22, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
 against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).

 Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
 much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
 Russian Wikipedia.


 You're missing something key: the way it's written, even articles on
 chemistry would be blocked.

So if the law passes, WMF is going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?

If the law passes, will WMF also shut down English Wikipedia?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike


On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:23:22 +0200, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:


Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.

1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug
trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every
website (whatever it means) where information violating the law has
been discovered will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if
it fails to do so, the access to the whole website will be blocked by
all providers legally operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this
law threats Wikipedia and sister projects.



The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be 
now signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on 
November 1, 2012.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Anthony

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
 The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be now
 signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on November
 1, 2012.

So is this going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?  I still don't see
what the language has to do with anything.  The Russians don't have a
monopoly over the use of the Russian language (especially given that
there are countries other than Russia where Russian is widely spoken).

Maybe a better solution would be send all accesses from IPs in Russia
to a page describing how to use TOR.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike


On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:14:48 -0400, Anthony wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to 
be now
signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on 
November

1, 2012.


So is this going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?  I still don't see
what the language has to do with anything.  The Russians don't have a
monopoly over the use of the Russian language (especially given that
there are countries other than Russia where Russian is widely 
spoken).




No, it does not, at least immediately. There is nothing in the law 
which is directly dangerous for Wikipedia. The fear is that due to the 
absence of intependent courts, some official may want to shut down the 
whole Wikipedia because they do not like an article about them or 
because they consider it a conductor of American style of life or 
whatever, it becomes indeed easy, and it would be very difficult if not 
impossible to reverse the decision. Btw the law does not specify the 
language, so that Russian Wikipedia is certainly not the only WMF 
project affected (though the most obvious one).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
 States and what our government represents.

Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.

 We have freedoms and we have liberties.  Freedoms are guaranteed in our
 Bill of Rights and they are fundamental to our existence.  Liberties are
 granted by law.  Politics being the interaction of people deciding what is
 best for the people.

I really don't care about your Bill of Rights.

 Laws and legislation libertize our freedoms.  We have freedom of speech,
 but it's regulated to an extent.  We have freedom of assembly, but there
 are laws requiring permits.  We have a right to bare arms, but there are
 gun control laws.  We take these freedoms and move them to the political
 realm, where we control each other with them.  These things are not really
 freedoms, they are not truly philosophical ideas of things that can be free
 because they deal with just humans.

I really don't care about your laws and legislation.

 Knowledge is not political.  Knowledge is free.  Other animals learn.
  Plants learn.  They share knowledge among each other.  Learning and
 education is something that no matter how much humans may try to
 politically restrict or influence, it is impossible. Even the dystopian
 classics like *1984* and *Fahrenheit 451* maintain this virtue.

It depends of your definition of political. If biological evolution
is a part of knowledge, it's political for significant specter of US
population.

 When we black-out one of our projects, we remove our ideal and the
 fundamental principle that we support the freedom of knowledge.  What we do
 it move the idea into the human realm, where we care about things like
 regulations and how it relates to what is ours.  None of it is ours.  We
 release it under free license.

That's too much for my state produce by rakija.

 To claim that we have a responsibility for what we write is contrary to the
 notion of fully submitting it for reuse and/or modification, unless what
 was written was inappropriate by community standards.  When we take the *Atlas
 Shrugged* stance of taking our ball and going home to fight politics and
 regulation, we have done a disservice to both mankind and the idea of
 knowledge.  We may have copyright, but we don't own a thing that we have
 done.  It is not ours to take away.

As a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist, I agree with you. In the
same sense as I don't see anything wrong in activating atomic bomb
below your or my city.

However, if we agree that there is a common interest between you and
me, then we are both responsible for the consequences of what we are
doing. Knowledge liberates people. In oppressive regimes (which is
equal to the whole Earth; maybe except Iceland), liberated people
cause troubles. And we are responsible for those troubles.

 When we black-out one of our projects in protest of politics, we are
 protesting business and money.  Those are what drive our global political
 systems, and these are things that we eschew.  SOPA and other such laws
 have to do with national attempts to regulate copyright on the internet.
  I'm still not clear, despite all the arguments that I have read, that this
 applies to websites that release content under free license and take due
 diligence to remove copyright violations, because we do not believe in
 issuing copyright for our intellectual property.

I don't care about your business and money.

 When we use our websites for political protest, we are a level below our
 idea.  Our idea is above politics.  To put our idea into politics
 diminishes its power.  We provide information for knowledge and education.
  A black-out causes awareness, not education.  While politicians may be
 influenced by the media buzz about the black-outs, it is not because of
 people that the legislation gets put away.  It's about the money. The
 legislation will return in a different form in the future.  Shall we just
 continue to black-out?  We lose our teeth and some dignity each time we do
 so.  Only our ability to educate will change the future in the politics of
 knowledge.

As mentioned above, our idea *is* politics.

 Keep knowledge free.  All the time.

As well as people are.

BTW, sorry for seemingly short answers. However, your moral prejudices
don't give me anything else as an option.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:

 Neither Anonymous,
 neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.


I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
 keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:

 Neither Anonymous,
 neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.

 I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
 connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
 the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.

No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution. Encyclopedia.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:



 Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.


CAUTION: HUMOR!

Nice marmot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2qP-xQ_7o


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.

 CAUTION: HUMOR!

 Nice marmot.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2qP-xQ_7o

Yes, it's a part of humor. But I *am* non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist :)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
 keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
 
  Neither Anonymous,
  neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
 
  I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
  connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
  the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.

 No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution.
 Encyclopedia.


Right, that was ink and paper.  That was words that were not taken away but
given as education as to the wrongdoings of the French Empire.  Providing
knowledge, not taking it away.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Przykuta


  Neither Anonymous,
  neither Arab Spring would happen without Wikipedia.
 
  I think you meant without the technology and concept that we can be
  connected as humans all the time.  We can trace these happenings back to
  the telegraph and radio, or even the bold idea of the ink and paper.
 
 No. The knowledge. The same one which produced French Revolution. 
 Encyclopedia.
 
+1 :)

Przykuta

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Nikola Smolenski


On 10/07/12 08:16, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Keegan Peterzellkeegan.w...@gmail.com  wrote:

Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
States and what our government represents.


Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.


I thought you're an egoist.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Thomas Morton

On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
 against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).


Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
Russian Wikipedia.

Comparatively; when some ISPs in the UK blacklisted The Pirate Bay at the
behest of the government we didn't black Wikipedia out over it.

Party is on #wikipedia-ru@freenode


Even in lieu of it being a valid action (and we know I am skeptical of us
being too political anyway) this is disgusting to see.

Cutting off access to free knowledge should be a sombre and severe affair;
those doing so should appreciate, deeply, the impact of their actions. They
should not be partying like school children who got access to
dad's liquor cabinet.

As with the pictures of the WMF celebrations around English Wikipedia
blackout, I am sorely disappointed.

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread David Gerard

On 10 July 2012 09:22, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
 against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).

 Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
 much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
 Russian Wikipedia.


You're missing something key: the way it's written, even articles on
chemistry would be blocked.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter


On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:22:12 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:

On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day 
strike

against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).



Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is 
not
much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence 
of

Russian Wikipedia.

Comparatively; when some ISPs in the UK blacklisted The Pirate Bay at 
the

behest of the government we didn't black Wikipedia out over it.



Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.

1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug 
trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every website 
(whatever it means) where information violating the law has been 
discovered will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if it fails 
to do so, the access to the whole website will be blocked by all 
providers legally operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this law 
threats Wikipedia and sister projects.


2) There is no political freedom in Russia, and courts are not 
independent. Therefore many people are afraid that once the law is in 
force (tomorrow it must be voted in the second hearing, and the third 
hearing in  September is typically automatic) that it may become an 
instrument for central and local authorities to shut down access to 
internet sites at will claiming they advertise something listed in the 
law. Russian Wikipedia is not the only organization which raised such 
objections; another is for instance the Presidential Council on Hyman 
Rights (the suggestions of this council are typically get ignored 
despite its affiliation with the president), or the National 
Broadcasters Associations.


3) It is widely expected that the protest is going to be completely 
ignored. Indeed, the blackout has been reported in media, with both the 
minister of telecommunications and the vice-speaker of parliament 
explaining that the law has no threat for Wikipedia, and will not be 
amended.


4) The discussion on Russian Wikipedia was initiated yesterday morning 
by Stanislav Kozlovsky, the executive director of wm.ru. (He never wrote 
anything in his wm.ru role, and I believe the chapter was not involved 
in any way). First nothing happened, but in the late evening there was 
the blackout suggestion coming. Eventually, around 10pm it was 
transferred into a RFC, which was closed at 11pm since the number of 
votes for the blackout was clearly exceeding the votes against the 
blackout. No attempt was made top analyze the arguments, it was just a 
hasty majority decision. From what I know, no consultations with 
external parties were held. In contrast to the en.wp blackout, the 
mobile version of ru.wp is available now.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:


 I have to say, your comment reads like empty philosophizing. You are like
 a person who doesn't have children because he is worried about
 overpopulation - when it is exactly the people who are intelligent and
 responsible enough to realize the dangers of overpopulation who should have
 more children. If taking away freedoms for one day is necessary in order to
 prevent them from being taken for one year, it should be done.



No.  It is those willing to toss out the baby with the bathwater that do
that by blacking out our projects in the name of philosophy and political
action.  That is the empty philosophy.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.   ~ Benjamin Franklin

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Nikola Smolenski


On 10/07/12 15:45, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.   ~ Benjamin Franklin


The blackout was exactly the opposite. A little temporary (one day) 
safety (all the content was still available at countless mirrors) was 
given up in order to obtain an essential liberty.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread David Gerard

On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,


Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike