Mailing List Archive

There is a dedicated website too.
http://www.wikipediablackout.com/

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Wade Mollison <info@demandprogress.org>
> Date: 2012/1/13
> Subject: Wikipedia
> To: "\"emijrp\"" <emijrp@gmail.com>
>
> Emily,
>
> Quick request:  Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and
> PIPA, the Internet censorship bills.
> *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of complacency,
> and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
>
> *Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark?  Just
> click here.*
>
> And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
>
>
> If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends.
> If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign:
> Tweet
>
>  Thanks!
>
> Demand Progress
>
>
>  Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org<http://demandprogress.org/>)
> and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions
> are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax
> purposes.
>
> *One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff
> relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our
> work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand
> Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
>
>
> You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--
--
Paolo Massa
Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org
Blog: http://gnuband.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's
response (if anything) is going to be?
Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are
different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located
blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout,
etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get
community consensus for any action?

FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an
all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other
major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the
community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear
away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?

-Liam

Peace, love & metadata


On 13 January 2012 09:07, Paolo Massa <paolo@gnuband.org> wrote:

> There is a dedicated website too.
> http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Wade Mollison <info@demandprogress.org>
> > Date: 2012/1/13
> > Subject: Wikipedia
> > To: "\"emijrp\"" <emijrp@gmail.com>
> >
> > Emily,
> >
> > Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and
> > PIPA, the Internet censorship bills.
> > *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of complacency,
> > and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
> >
> > *Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark? Just
> > click here.*
> >
> > And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
> >
> >
> > If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends.
> > If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign:
> > Tweet
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Demand Progress
> >
> >
> > Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org<
> http://demandprogress.org/>)
> > and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
> Contributions
> > are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax
> > purposes.
> >
> > *One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff
> > relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our
> > work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a
> Demand
> > Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
> >
> >
> > You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Paolo Massa
> Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org
> Blog: http://gnuband.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Just a quick note that it was the subject of yesterday's office hours,
which includes several links to on-Wiki discussions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12

Maggie

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's
> response (if anything) is going to be?
> Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are
> different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located
> blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout,
> etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get
> community consensus for any action?
>
> FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an
> all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other
> major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the
> community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear
> away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?
>
> -Liam
>
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
> On 13 January 2012 09:07, Paolo Massa <paolo@gnuband.org> wrote:
>
> > There is a dedicated website too.
> > http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Wade Mollison <info@demandprogress.org>
> > > Date: 2012/1/13
> > > Subject: Wikipedia
> > > To: "\"emijrp\"" <emijrp@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Emily,
> > >
> > > Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and
> > > PIPA, the Internet censorship bills.
> > > *It'd be huge news, jar rank-and-file Internet users out of
> complacency,
> > > and serve as a turning point in the effort to beat these bills.*
> > >
> > > *Will you encourage Wikipedia to protest censorship by going dark?
> Just
> > > click here.*
> > >
> > > And you can use these links to ask your friends to join the cause:
> > >
> > >
> > > If you're already on *Facebook*, click here to share with your friends.
> > > If you're already on *Twitter*, click here to tweet about the campaign:
> > > Tweet
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Demand Progress
> > >
> > >
> > > Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org<
> > http://demandprogress.org/>)
> > > and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
> > Contributions
> > > are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > *One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff
> > > relies exclusively on the generosity of members like you to support our
> > > work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a
> > Demand
> > > Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!*
> > >
> > >
> > > You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Paolo Massa
> > Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org
> > Blog: http://gnuband.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Maggie Dennis
Community Liaison
WikimediaFoundation.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."

I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.

Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case
for GLAMs.

--
Bastien

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 13 January 2012 13:27, Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
> institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
> service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
>
> I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
> can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
>
> Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case
> for GLAMs.
>
> --
> Bastien
>

We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for GLAMs. We
have always said they should have their own catalogue and share copies of
their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a free license. That
gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a replacement for publicly
funded cultural organisations investing in their own infrastructure.

Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my
contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to what
SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be
equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any other
place where they might choose to upload/share their content...


-Liam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>> I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
>> can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
>>
>> Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case
>> for GLAMs.
>>
>> --
>> Bastien
>>
>
...
> Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my
> contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to
what
> SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be
> equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any
other
> place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
>
>

And running an advance warning - a central banner saying Wikipedia or
Commons go black for a day - would certainly not harm our credibility.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> writes:

> We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for
> GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and
> share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a
> free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a
> replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in
> their own infrastructure.

Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are
just providing copies? Just wondering.

> Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking
> my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition
> to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it
> would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or
> YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share
> their content...

I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think
twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just
me being pessimistic.

--
Bastien

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for
> > GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and
> > share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a
> > free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a
> > replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in
> > their own infrastructure.
>
> Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are
> just providing copies? Just wondering.
>

Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope that
they're not giving us the only copy of the file! That would be a terrible
use of their role as guardians of their country/region/city heritage to
outsource their hosting costs to us and not have an in-house database!

>
> > Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking
> > my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition
> > to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it
> > would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or
> > YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share
> > their content...
>
> I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think
> twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just
> me being pessimistic.
>

Any cultural organisation that is proactively donating multimedia to
Wikimedia knows that we're not "merely" a host like Flickr Commons or
YouTube etc. They know that there is a statement of principles, of cultural
free-access, that comes with working with us. Whilst Wikipedia might have
an editorial policy of Neutrality, GLAM organisations especially understand
that fighting for cultural access is a non-neutral activity and requires
people to take a stand. So I am not pessimistic about this potentially
negatively affecting our reputation with GLAMs.

In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals
in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us
making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such
statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not. Many individuals
from cultural organisations have privately told me that they appreciate how
we take a stand on the non-copyrightability-of-scans (a.k.a. Bridgeman v.
Corel) even though they can't say that in their official capacity. I
suspect that fighting SOPA might be similar.

-Liam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> writes:

> Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope
> that they're not giving us the only copy of the file!

Not the only copy... but perhaps the "only freely licensed one".

> That would be a terrible use of their role as guardians of their
> country/region/city heritage to outsource their hosting costs to us
> and not have an in-house database!

Compare these two pictures:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toulouse._Caf%C3%A9_Albrighi._Juillet_1905_(1905)_-_51Fi1_-_Fonds_Trutat.jpg

http://basededonnees.archives.toulouse.fr/4DCGI/Web_DFPict/034/51Fi1/ILUMP17664

Same pictures. The first one is free. The second one is advertized as
"Tous droits réservés DIRECTION DES ARCHIVES MUNICIPALES DE TOULOUSE".

> Any cultural organisation that is proactively donating multimedia to
> Wikimedia knows that we're not "merely" a host like Flickr Commons or
> YouTube etc. They know that there is a statement of principles, of
> cultural free-access, that comes with working with us. Whilst
> Wikipedia might have an editorial policy of Neutrality, GLAM
> organisations especially understand that fighting for cultural access
> is a non-neutral activity and requires people to take a stand. So I
> am not pessimistic about this potentially negatively affecting our
> reputation with GLAMs.

I agree with you here. And I was only half ironic in my previous post:
I hope that GLAMs will understand the strong need to host their content
on their website under a free license. And a copy on Wikipedia if they
want to reach the free encyclopedia.

--
Bastien

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 13 January 2012 09:45, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think
> > twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just
> > me being pessimistic.
> >
>
> ...
>
> In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals
> in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us
> making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such
> statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not.
>
>
Indeed, there isn't much of a question where most people who work for
cultural institutions stand on the issue. Let's not forget that cultural
institutions, and especially libraries, are major holders of copyrighted
material, and they are put in the position of trying to make it available
for research and use while staying within the bounds of the law. Back in
November, the American Library Association, the Association of Research
Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries, which
collectively essentially represent the profession as a whole within the
United States, issued a joint statement against SOPA, which you can read
here: <http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf>.
They highlight the fact that libraries could be subject to felony criminal
prosecution for unintended infringement for non-commercial purposes.

Dominic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
copyright issues. For example, the American Library Association
enthusiastically joined us in our amicus brief on Golan v. Holder last
year. While there are a few art galleries that disagree with our PD-Art
policy, I think that disagreement is an exception rather than the rule
when it comes to copyright issues.

Ryan Kaldari


On 1/13/12 8:24 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 09:45, Liam Wyatt<liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry<bzg@altern.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think
>>> twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just
>>> me being pessimistic.
>>>
>> ...
>>
>> In fact, quite the contrary, I would not be surprised if many individuals
>> in GLAM (and other) organisations would privately be very supportive of us
>> making such a principled stand because we are at liberty to make such
>> statements in a way publicly funded organisations are not.
>>
>>
> Indeed, there isn't much of a question where most people who work for
> cultural institutions stand on the issue. Let's not forget that cultural
> institutions, and especially libraries, are major holders of copyrighted
> material, and they are put in the position of trying to make it available
> for research and use while staying within the bounds of the law. Back in
> November, the American Library Association, the Association of Research
> Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries, which
> collectively essentially represent the profession as a whole within the
> United States, issued a joint statement against SOPA, which you can read
> here:<http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf>.
> They highlight the fact that libraries could be subject to felony criminal
> prosecution for unintended infringement for non-commercial purposes.
>
> Dominic
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's
> response (if anything) is going to be?
> Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are
> different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located
> blackout, single-project blackout, protest-banner but not a full blackout,
> etc. etc.) where is the central/official discussion taking place to get
> community consensus for any action?
>
> FWIW, I'm in favour of some form of protest response, probably an
> all-project blackout timed to coencide with the probable blackout of other
> major sites. But, if that actually happened, would it be possible for the
> community to still log in and use that day as a "housekeeping" day to clear
> away lots of behind-the-scenes backlogs?
>
> -Liam

Hey Liam and all,

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action for
an RFC page on what (if any) community action to take, and when.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Bastien Guerry wrote:
> A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
> institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
> service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."

I think this would make a much better CentralNotice banner...

Apparently there's now a vote at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action>.

Not sure why there's a vote. Or why, if you're going to have a vote, you'd
use MediaWiki...

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> writes:

> I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
> institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
> copyright issues.

I have no doubt on this.

But see my concrete real-world example, where the Archives of Toulouse
uses © for pictures while commons uses free licenses. The black-out
will leave only © versions in the wild. The Archives of Toulouse should
fix this. I'm just being curious whether this "mistake" is a rare
occurrence or something more common -- in the latter case, GLAM should
rethink their strategy, and the GLAM movement should be very clear on
advocating the importance of free license on top of the importance of
contributing to the projets. Just a matter of priority.

--
Bastien

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 14 January 2012 10:15, Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> writes:
>
>> I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
>> institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
>> copyright issues.
>
> I have no doubt on this.
>
> But see my concrete real-world example, where the Archives of Toulouse
> uses © for pictures while commons uses free licenses.  The black-out
> will leave only © versions in the wild.  The Archives of Toulouse should
> fix this.  I'm just being curious whether this "mistake" is a rare
> occurrence or something more common -- in the latter case, GLAM should
> rethink their strategy, and the GLAM movement should be very clear on
> advocating the importance of free license on top of the importance of
> contributing to the projets.  Just a matter of priority.
>

I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
enwiki).

I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
English sister projects.

As a contributor and admin on English Wikinews, I'd be opposed to
English Wikipedia consensus being used to impose anti-SOPA action on
Wikinews. Of course, if Wikinews and other English projects choose to
participate in the anti-SOPA actions, that's fine. If the Foundation
implement enwiki consensus we get all the downsides of project
independence (having to grit our teeth and welcome banned
sockpuppetting trolls who enwiki have had the wisdom to ban) but
without the independence to be able to decide whether to participate
or not in things like the SOPA thing.

Given the popularity (or lack thereof) of sister projects like
Wikinews, the possible cost of overriding project independence isn't
worth the benefit in having some minor sites taken offline in
solidarity. (Plus, Wikinews might want to cover the reactions to the
Wikipedia shut-down. :P )

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:

> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
> English sister projects.


AIUI this is the case - it's a per-wiki, community-driven initiative.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
> enwiki).
>
> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
> English sister projects.
>

Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw
poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I
personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to
Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the
blackout - not something which add us much credibility).

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
>> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
>> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
>> enwiki).
>>
>> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
>> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
>> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
>> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
>> English sister projects.
>>
>
> Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw
> poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I
> personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to
> Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the
> blackout - not something which add us much credibility).

Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't
think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described.
'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal.
Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual
(Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a
quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is
not binding on Commons.
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe@wikimedia.org

To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to
respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy



On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Svip <svippy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
> >> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
> >> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
> >> enwiki).
> >>
> >> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> >> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> >> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> >> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
> >> English sister projects.
> >>
> >
> > Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw
> > poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I
> > personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to
> > Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the
> > blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
>
> Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't
> think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described.
> 'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal.
> Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual
> (Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a
> quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Le 14/01/2012 08:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
>> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
>> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
>> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
>> enwiki).
>>
>> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
>> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
>> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
>> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
>> English sister projects.
>>
> Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw
> poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I
> personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to
> Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the
> blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
>

What about serving only one image, always the same: "this is what
happens when internet is censored", on a black background? Much more
impact than shutting down Commons.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

A short note on an individual basis of my own (not community's behalf):

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is
> not binding on Commons.

Fine but it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider if each other
community, specially English language ones, joins the action the
English Wikipedia community is now discussing and developing, or for
the English Wikipedia community to ask the other projects to call for
participation of her action.

Slightly OT but I wish someone leaves a neat comment during the
discussion on SOPA, copyright, US legislative in general or anything
worth to quote so that we at Wikiquote would love to cite later,$B!!(Band
oh belated happy birthday big sister Wikipedia.

Cheers,

> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe@wikimedia.org
>
> To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to
> respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Svip <svippy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +0000, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
>> >> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
>> >> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
>> >> enwiki).
>> >>
>> >> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
>> >> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
>> >> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
>> >> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts including Commons and the
>> >> English sister projects.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Commons most likely will only run a banner. There is currently a straw
>> > poll abut it. The blackout has not even been seriously discussed. (And I
>> > personally think it will not be a good idea because many hotlinks to
>> > Commons files would just disappear without any explanation in case of the
>> > blackout - not something which add us much credibility).
>>
>> Is there talk about blackout on the files or just the pages? I don't
>> think a blackout on Commons would have the effect you described.
>> 'Hotlinked images' from Commons would continue to work as normal.
>> Including images in a blackout is usually a bit more work than usual
>> (Apache rewrite rules, etc.), while pages can simply be caught with a
>> quick and dirty MW-extension (or even just JavaScript).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--
KIZU Naoko / $BLZDE>0;R(B
member of Wikimedians in Kansai / $B4X@>%&%#%-%a%G%#%"%f!<%62q(B http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l