till does. When WMF was
understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made
a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor
community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were
straightforward. But WMF directly intervened
ilar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is
> a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now
> trying to address.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>>
>> Andreas Kolbe writes:
>&
what the law expects from hosting
> companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of project
> governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being recognized one
> day as a publisher and having to assume the responsibilities that come with
> it. Kind regards,
>
> Lione
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Mike,
>
> The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front
> page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been
> invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning
> to the
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:09 AM Chris Keating
wrote:
> And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or
>> serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage
>> persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your
>> convictions, that you
Wikipedia, it follows that WMF
institutionally decided, as a matter of policy, not to do what you wish
they might have done. You do not have "the facts of the matter" that
demonstrate such an institutional decision took place.
Once again, you default to moral condemnation, and it seem
Someone with the entirely authoritative email address "
hillbillyholi...@gmail.com" writes (apparently under the impression that I
don't know who Andreas is) the following:
'I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.'
This is an unusual misreading of a fairly straightforward, even t
available for evidence focused rational
> consideration?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemo...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 30 August 2021 02:30
> *To:* Andreas Kolbe
> *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia
es/?fbclid=IwAR1qozU-R5KlhH7By4pSijOqB24wVJtPVqjSQKjuzno3vLPALzPSJUrtGHA
Best regards!
Mike Godwin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New m
Great news! Even if the court's decision isn't implemented by the current
Turkish government, it is important to have established that the block was
a violation of constitutional principles.
Mike
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:40 PM Katherine Maher
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have some good news to share
I'd have been surprised if they had been unblocked, but, as I said, the
constitutional win is still important.
Mike
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:32 AM John Erling Blad wrote:
> Both en.wikipedia.org and tr.wikipedia.org are still blocked.
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:44 PM Mike
ent is meant to be a humane, outward-looking,
courageous movement that acknowledges self-doubt but also remains
committed to enabling us all to raise our individual and collective
voices in defense of values grounded in generosity, love, and
tolerance.
T
Yair Rand writes:
> I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
> that section, the policy was yet again violated.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence,
but, then, I'm
of self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
network neutrality withou
Tim Landscheidt writes:
> I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
> why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
> solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
> or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
I'm not following your reasoning h
27;s comments
haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? O
MZMcBride wrote:
> I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
> And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
> hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
If you have an alternative funding plan for NPR, you should pu
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...
Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an
argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards
of analysis.* It is, ins
Jens writes:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for
> a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia
> zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like
> e.g. the video-li
Jens writes:
> (I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery,
> Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net
> neutrality repeatedly "absolutist". This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't
> fit you.)
I suppose at this point I could declare that its "rhetorical
tri
+1
I agree entirely with every word of Erik's response here.
--Mike
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:28:37 -0800
> From: Erik Moeller
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship
> with net neutrality
> Message-ID:
>
der to make eventual victory
possible. Wikipedia Zero is one strategy that gets us to the end
result we all want to see.
Best regards,
--Mike Godwin
WMF General Counsel 1007-2010
Director of Innovation Policy and General Counsel, The R Street Institute
_
egically aligned, sure, but
> nil for impact. Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag
> along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be would
> down.
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> GerardM w
reform, copyright and patent reform,
and updating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That
stuff is going to be my major work obligation in April and May. I
guess I'm lucky that the prominence of those organizations has not led
them to being so casually dismissive of me as you hav
n from continuing to
work with me on issues like NSA reform, copyright and patent reform,
and updating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That
stuff is going to be my major work obligation in April and May. I
guess I'm lucky that the prominence of those organizations has not led
Rupert Thurner writes:
> while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this
> email a little harsh, not to call it unfair.
I'm strangely untroubled by "harsh," but I'm glad you don't call it
"unfair." I don't think I was unfair. Besides, when someone is as
insignificant as
;> > follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views
>> on
>> > the topics they were editing.
>>
>> somewhat tangentially, and to bring back this to topic to a more
>> scientific setting I would like to point out that there has already
>
the Great
Charter for Cambodian Internet Freedom.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-charter-cambodian-internet-freedom-mike-godwin.
--Mike
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:35 AM, geni wrote:
>
>
> On 9 April 2015 at 00:51, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> http://reason.com/arch
y knew I
wouldn't.)
--Mike
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:35 AM, geni wrote:
>
>
> On 9 April 2015 at 00:51, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/08/nothing-but-net
>>
>>
>> --Mike
>
>
>
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/08/nothing-but-net
--Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf
Congratulations to Katherine, who I know will love her work for WMF,
and to the Foundation for finding such an able Chief Communications
Officer in Katherine, with whom it has been my pleasure to work in DC.
This is good news for everybody.
--Mike
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Sue Gardner
oing
engagement with the movement and the community is one of general
respect and regard, even when I disagree with their consensus, as I
frequently do.
I hope this note is taken in the spirit in which it is written.
Thanks for your attention.
--Mike Godw
Chris writes:
> As I understand it, the "right to be forgotten" will only affect the
> discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
>
> So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years ago,
> and X succeeds in invoking their "right to be forgotten", then the sou
d.
Plus, it must be said, Wikimedia Foundation is not well-positioned to
litigate these issues again and again in Europe.
--Mike
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Chris writes:
>
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
> than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
> "superinjunctions"?
First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
counsel, just a
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
>>
>> > I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
>> > personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when
>> > you
>> > set out to avoid acquiring it.
>>
>> On this point I must disagree.
WMF is
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific users
> (presumably only those users directly involved in creating or curating the
> content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past (e.g. with
> the DCRI and frw
??? writes:
>On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
>> a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
>> accurate public data that happens to be old.
>>
>
>
Chris writes:
> I think there's a philosophical issue about "privacy" here. As far as I can
> see the ECJ interprets "privacy" as "the right to enjoy a private life", and
> sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private
> individual without good reason as a potential infringem
works out well.
--Mike Godwin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto
Sue writes:
"Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
>
> "Seems to m
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 regulat
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony 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 c
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony 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 "ele
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 ed
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony 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
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Anthony 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 "poi
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Anthony 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.
>
Michael Snow writes:
> Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did
> take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in
> the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow
> the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist y
49 matches
Mail list logo
