Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
May I remind you again that at the time the Vrije Universiteit was testing
in a grid how the performance of a MediaWiki based on peer to peer
technology would cope.. The guy who ran the computing department is known
for MINIX.. it was his development.

Why not run p2p and the central server systems in paralel. It may do some
things for us in places like Turkey
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:00, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> The files made available as 'Wikimedia dumps' are not intended to be a full
> backup. And indeed that is not their purpose. People do set up mirrors
> using these dumps from time to time, though I have not done so recently.
>
> Actual honest-to-goodness backups (database snapshots) are another thing
> altogether and one of the Wikimedia DBAs may want to talk about that.
>
> Ariel
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:52 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > Without in any way suggesting that David's and Fae's question is
> > inappropriateI suspect that the people most likely to have
> used/tested
> > the backups are not people who follow this list; they're much more likely
> > to participate on technical lists.
> >
> > It's actually a pretty good question, and Ariel Glenn of the WMF may be
> the
> > best person to ask since they seem to be managing the process of making
> the
> > files available.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 06:44, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
> > > /non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
> > > planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
> > > matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
> > > are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
> > > reasons, Peru.
> > >
> > > What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
> > > dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
> > > blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
> > > that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
> > > host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
> > > whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
> > > due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
> > > off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
> > > "emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
> > > globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
> > > should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
> > > any professional business actuary would advise.
> > >
> > > As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
> > > my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
> > > last test putting up a copy of the sites from
> > > the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
> > > it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
> > > WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Fae,
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is
> it
> > > > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National?
> Perhaps
> > > > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent
> right-wing
> > > > resurgence?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd
> > worry
> > > > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > > > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the
> > other
> > > > side of the Great Firewall.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> > > what
> > > > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe
> from
> > > the
> > > > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> > > >
> > > > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each
> > case, I
> > > > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other
> alternative.
> > > > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them
> by
> > > > glaringly public flaws.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia
> is
> > > > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > > > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Nathan
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder
> the
> > > > > following,
> > > > >
> > > > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely
> > alarming
> > > > > to see highly respected US government 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[RonnieV]

Hi All,

Location might be a tangent, if we should go for just two locations. The 
change of unwanted things happening in one location is a too high risk 
for an organisation of our importance. The change of unwanted things 
happening in two, quit remote, locations happening at the same time, 
might be acceptable. But what if we go for three? San Fra (well, we are 
there), Amsterdam has great internet connectivity (Amsterdam Internet 
Exchange), and Switzerland (or Sweden or Australia) as a third location? 
The distribution of the data could be a burden, but if San Fra (for the 
time being) is used as main point and information is distributed to the 
other two locations with a reasonable delay, we should, in case of a 
real disaster, only loose a couple of minutes of saved work if San Fra 
would be shut down.


Tests with switching between (the) two locations have been done in the 
last year, it was an inconvenience that editing was not possible for 
less than an hour, but I found it acceptable. The loss of all our work 
is of a really other scale, and definitely not anywhere on the scale of 
acceptability.


Greetings,
RonnieV


Fæ schreef op 2019-01-09 12:44:

Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
/non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
reasons, Peru.

What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
"emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
any professional business actuary would advise.

As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
last test putting up a copy of the sites from
the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:


Hi Fae,

I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
resurgence?

Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd 
worry

about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the 
other

side of the Great Firewall.

Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand 
what
island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe 
from the

vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.

The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each 
case, I

believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
glaringly public flaws.

To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia 
is

maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of 
Wikipedia.


Nathan

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> following,
>
> For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
>
> The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Vi to]

>
> I would suggest Iceland. But there are several other possibilities, Ireland
> and New Zealand for starters.
>

An alternative to be solid should be technically and economically feasible.
Ireland may be ok though I suspect is less cheap than Netherlands or
Germany, I suspect Iceland is even more expensive, while New Zeland is
"far" from most of our audience.

I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> about Beppe and criminal libel statutes,


Their allies from lega nord are even worse.

Vito
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[WereSpielChequers]

I would suggest Iceland. But there are several other possibilities, Ireland
and New Zealand for starters.

But Iceland is a nice green location for server farms. Cheap cooling, green
electricity a small enough economy that they wouldn't want to upset the WMF
if it located there, and a government that doesn't hesitate to defend its
economic interests even if technically they don't have armed forces.

As others have pointed out there are worse choices we could make than the
US, but there are also much better choices.

WSC


>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 09:52:41 -0500
> From: Risker 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a
> choice to make
> Message-ID:
>  n6p1y9xs...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Without in any way suggesting that David's and Fae's question is
> inappropriateI suspect that the people most likely to have used/tested
> the backups are not people who follow this list; they're much more likely
> to participate on technical lists.
>
> It's actually a pretty good question, and Ariel Glenn of the WMF may be the
> best person to ask since they seem to be managing the process of making the
> files available.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 06:44, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
> > /non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
> > planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
> > matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
> > are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
> > reasons, Peru.
> >
> > What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
> > dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
> > blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
> > that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
> > host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
> > whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
> > due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
> > off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
> > "emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
> > globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
> > should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
> > any professional business actuary would advise.
> >
> > As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
> > my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
> > last test putting up a copy of the sites from
> > the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
> > it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
> > WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Fae,
> > >
> > > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> > > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> > > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> > > resurgence?
> > >
> > > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd
> worry
> > > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the
> other
> > > side of the Great Firewall.
> > >
> > > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> > what
> > > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from
> > the
> > > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> > >
> > > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each
> case, I
> > > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> > > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> > > glaringly public flaws.
> > >
> > > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Nathan
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > > > following,
> > > >
> > > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely
> alarming
> > > > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > > > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > > > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > > > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

The files made available as 'Wikimedia dumps' are not intended to be a full
backup. And indeed that is not their purpose. People do set up mirrors
using these dumps from time to time, though I have not done so recently.

Actual honest-to-goodness backups (database snapshots) are another thing
altogether and one of the Wikimedia DBAs may want to talk about that.

Ariel

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:52 PM Risker  wrote:

> Without in any way suggesting that David's and Fae's question is
> inappropriateI suspect that the people most likely to have used/tested
> the backups are not people who follow this list; they're much more likely
> to participate on technical lists.
>
> It's actually a pretty good question, and Ariel Glenn of the WMF may be the
> best person to ask since they seem to be managing the process of making the
> files available.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 06:44, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
> > /non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
> > planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
> > matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
> > are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
> > reasons, Peru.
> >
> > What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
> > dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
> > blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
> > that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
> > host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
> > whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
> > due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
> > off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
> > "emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
> > globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
> > should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
> > any professional business actuary would advise.
> >
> > As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
> > my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
> > last test putting up a copy of the sites from
> > the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
> > it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
> > WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Fae,
> > >
> > > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> > > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> > > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> > > resurgence?
> > >
> > > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd
> worry
> > > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the
> other
> > > side of the Great Firewall.
> > >
> > > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> > what
> > > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from
> > the
> > > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> > >
> > > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each
> case, I
> > > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> > > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> > > glaringly public flaws.
> > >
> > > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Nathan
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > > > following,
> > > >
> > > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely
> alarming
> > > > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > > > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > > > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > > > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > > > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > > > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is
> not
> > > > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > > > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > > > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> > > >
> > > > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Risker]

Without in any way suggesting that David's and Fae's question is
inappropriateI suspect that the people most likely to have used/tested
the backups are not people who follow this list; they're much more likely
to participate on technical lists.

It's actually a pretty good question, and Ariel Glenn of the WMF may be the
best person to ask since they seem to be managing the process of making the
files available.

Risker/Anne

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 06:44, Fæ  wrote:

> Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
> /non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
> planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
> matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
> are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
> reasons, Peru.
>
> What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
> dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
> blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
> that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
> host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
> whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
> due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
> off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
> "emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
> globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
> should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
> any professional business actuary would advise.
>
> As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
> my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
> last test putting up a copy of the sites from
> the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
> it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
> WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Fae,
> >
> > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> > resurgence?
> >
> > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
> > side of the Great Firewall.
> >
> > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> what
> > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from
> the
> > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> >
> > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
> > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> > glaringly public flaws.
> >
> > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> Wikipedia.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > > following,
> > >
> > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> > >
> > > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> > >
> > > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Fæ]

Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
/non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
reasons, Peru.

What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
"emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
any professional business actuary would advise.

As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
last test putting up a copy of the sites from
the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
>
> Hi Fae,
>
> I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> resurgence?
>
> Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
> side of the Great Firewall.
>
> Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
> island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
> vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
>
> The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
> believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> glaringly public flaws.
>
> To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > following,
> >
> > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> >
> > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> >
> > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> > plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> > simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> > content.
> >
> > If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> > would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> > of us should be asking about it, politely, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Vi to]

AFAIR CODFW can serve as a complete (tested) backup for EQIAD. If the same
would be implemented (though it's not a 5 minutes task) to ESAMS that would
be a first step towards a more distributed infrastructure.

Vito

Il giorno mar 8 gen 2019 alle ore 18:17 Fæ  ha scritto:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> following,
>
> For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
>
> The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
>
> However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> content.
>
> If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
>
> Links:
> 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> 3.
> https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> disasters and security emergencies."
> 4.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
> pro-Trump content as the top results."
> 5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Philippe Beaudette]

Perhaps that's the answer, James. But maybe there are others as well,
especially since, by their own admission, that tech is not ready for prime
time (meaning fully editable encyclopedia) yet.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 5:17 PM James Salsman  wrote:

> Why not just officially support Wikipedia on IPFS, which has been
> hosting the Turkish Wikipedia in Turkey, unlike the Foundation, for
> almost two years now?
>
> https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
>
> https://github.com/ipfs/distributed-wikipedia-mirror
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:10 PM Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
> >
> > Nathan, when you write "the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> Wikipedia",
> > it's very easy for me to fully and totally agree -- as I would have,
> three
> > years ago.  But in those three years, I've seen things in the US that I
> had
> > never thought I would see.  I've seen the rights that I considered
> > inviolable... violated.  I've seen the resurgence of a brand of
> > conservatism that I find alarming.
> >
> > I find myself, reluctantly, agreeing with Fae that there should be a
> backup
> > plan.  However I choose to believe this is also an opportunity.  What
> > about a fully distributed version that's hosted everywhere, and nowhere?
> > What other options, besides the traditional, can the WMF's bright staff
> and
> > creative volunteers come up with? Surely there's something 
> >
> > Failing that, there's always Iceland. :-)
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Fae,
> > >
> > > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> > > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> > > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> > > resurgence?
> > >
> > > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd
> worry
> > > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the
> other
> > > side of the Great Firewall.
> > >
> > > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> what
> > > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe
> from the
> > > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> > >
> > > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each
> case, I
> > > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> > > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> > > glaringly public flaws.
> > >
> > > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Nathan
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > > > following,
> > > >
> > > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely
> alarming
> > > > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > > > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > > > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > > > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > > > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > > > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is
> not
> > > > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > > > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > > > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> > > >
> > > > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > > > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > > > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > > > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > > > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > > > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> > > >
> > > > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a
> Plan
> > > > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > > > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > > > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > > > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > > > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > > > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that
> published
> > > > plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> > > > simply power off our servers in the USA, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[James Salsman]

Why not just officially support Wikipedia on IPFS, which has been
hosting the Turkish Wikipedia in Turkey, unlike the Foundation, for
almost two years now?

https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/

https://github.com/ipfs/distributed-wikipedia-mirror


On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:10 PM Philippe Beaudette  wrote:
>
> Nathan, when you write "the very nature of Wikipedia is
> maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia",
> it's very easy for me to fully and totally agree -- as I would have, three
> years ago.  But in those three years, I've seen things in the US that I had
> never thought I would see.  I've seen the rights that I considered
> inviolable... violated.  I've seen the resurgence of a brand of
> conservatism that I find alarming.
>
> I find myself, reluctantly, agreeing with Fae that there should be a backup
> plan.  However I choose to believe this is also an opportunity.  What
> about a fully distributed version that's hosted everywhere, and nowhere?
> What other options, besides the traditional, can the WMF's bright staff and
> creative volunteers come up with? Surely there's something 
>
> Failing that, there's always Iceland. :-)
>
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
> > Hi Fae,
> >
> > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> > resurgence?
> >
> > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
> > side of the Great Firewall.
> >
> > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
> > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
> > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> >
> > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
> > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> > glaringly public flaws.
> >
> > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > > following,
> > >
> > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> > >
> > > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> > >
> > > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> > > plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> > > simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> > > content.
> > >
> > > If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> > > would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> > > of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> > > less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
> > >
> > > Links:
> > > 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> > > 2. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Philippe Beaudette]

Nathan, when you write "the very nature of Wikipedia is
maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia",
it's very easy for me to fully and totally agree -- as I would have, three
years ago.  But in those three years, I've seen things in the US that I had
never thought I would see.  I've seen the rights that I considered
inviolable... violated.  I've seen the resurgence of a brand of
conservatism that I find alarming.

I find myself, reluctantly, agreeing with Fae that there should be a backup
plan.  However I choose to believe this is also an opportunity.  What
about a fully distributed version that's hosted everywhere, and nowhere?
What other options, besides the traditional, can the WMF's bright staff and
creative volunteers come up with? Surely there's something 

Failing that, there's always Iceland. :-)

Philippe

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Nathan  wrote:

> Hi Fae,
>
> I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> resurgence?
>
> Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
> side of the Great Firewall.
>
> Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
> island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
> vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
>
> The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
> believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> glaringly public flaws.
>
> To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > following,
> >
> > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> >
> > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> >
> > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> > plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> > simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> > content.
> >
> > If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> > would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> > of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> > less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
> >
> > Links:
> > 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> > 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> > 3.
> >
> https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> > "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> > with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> > disasters and security emergencies."
> > 4.
> >
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> > "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> > access to certain websites and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Nathan]

Hi Fae,

I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
resurgence?

Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
side of the Great Firewall.

Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.

The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
glaringly public flaws.

To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.

Nathan

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> following,
>
> For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
>
> The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
>
> However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> content.
>
> If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
>
> Links:
> 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> 3.
> https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> disasters and security emergencies."
> 4.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
> pro-Trump content as the top results."
> 5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[David Gerard]

So ... when did someone last test putting up a copy of the sites from
the backups?

(just a complete copy with history, not even at publicly-accessible scale)



On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 19:31, Steven Walling  wrote:
>
> Great question to think about for our long term sustainability. I think we
> already have a universal "plan B" however? It's providing all content under
> free licenses and regularly distributing complete dumps of our content.
>
> Many larger and more well-funded technology organizations (Google,
> Facebook, etc.) regularly do disaster recovery scenarios that account for
> not just governmental disruption or civil unrest but events such as a major
> earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. The movement doesn't really have
> the resources to do this effectively in the same manner.
>
> It seems like decentralizing our ability to recover from a disruption is
> the most effective defense we have, *especially *in the scenario involving
> government intervention because the Foundation's infrastructural and legal
> presence in the United States is actually one of the more brittle pieces
> within our movement.
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:18 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > following,
> >
> > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> >
> > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> >
> > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> > plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> > simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> > content.
> >
> > If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> > would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> > of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> > less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
> >
> > Links:
> > 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> > 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> > 3.
> > https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> > "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> > with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> > disasters and security emergencies."
> > 4.
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> > "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> > access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
> > pro-Trump content as the top results."
> > 5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

[Steven Walling]

Great question to think about for our long term sustainability. I think we
already have a universal "plan B" however? It's providing all content under
free licenses and regularly distributing complete dumps of our content.

Many larger and more well-funded technology organizations (Google,
Facebook, etc.) regularly do disaster recovery scenarios that account for
not just governmental disruption or civil unrest but events such as a major
earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. The movement doesn't really have
the resources to do this effectively in the same manner.

It seems like decentralizing our ability to recover from a disruption is
the most effective defense we have, *especially *in the scenario involving
government intervention because the Foundation's infrastructural and legal
presence in the United States is actually one of the more brittle pieces
within our movement.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:18 AM Fæ  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> following,
>
> For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
>
> The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
>
> However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> content.
>
> If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
>
> Links:
> 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> 3.
> https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> disasters and security emergencies."
> 4.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
> pro-Trump content as the top results."
> 5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,