Mailing List Archive

How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens Wikipedia.

The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
found here:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/

We encourage everyone to broadly share this information among our volunteer
community, throughout your networks, and wherever an audience passionate
about protecting the free and open web can be found.

Thanks,

--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
blog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
> Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
> threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens Wikipedia.
>
> The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
> found here:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
>

"Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new
version exempts U.S. based companies – including the Wikimedia
Foundation – from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights
owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to
theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could
have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment
processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours."

I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Hi all;

Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.

What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
against Internet censorship? No.

WMF did nothing. Well, Wikipedia community wrote this disclaimer "WikiLeaks
is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation"[1] on the
top, and turned a blind eye.

Now it is your turn. Enjoy.

Regards,
emijrp

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

2011/12/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
> > Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
> > threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens
> Wikipedia.
> >
> > The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
> > found here:
> >
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
> >
>
> "Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new
> version exempts U.S. based companies – including the Wikimedia
> Foundation – from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights
> owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to
> theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could
> have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment
> processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours."
>
> I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On 14/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.

From a lawmaker's point of view, this is clear enough: US-based
websites are reachable through the usual legal means and thus can be
shut down with local intervention instead of having to disappear them
through the infrastructure. You can simply sue them to death without
having a pesky foreign government refusing to accept the decisions of
the media giants.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:08, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
> cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
>
> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
> against Internet censorship? No.
>
> WMF did nothing. Well, Wikipedia community wrote this disclaimer "WikiLeaks
> is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation"[1] on the
> top, and turned a blind eye.
>
> Now it is your turn. Enjoy.

That's because Wikileaks "endangers lives" of those who endanger lives
of others and that's against the position of US nationalists. And WMF
is dominantly US organization. But, it's good to see that WMF went
into the position when it has to do things more actively.

BTW, we should organize at least email protest, by sending emails to
US ambassadors in our countries. I'll send it today. If necessary, we
should demonstrate in front of US embassies, as well.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 14/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
>
>  From a lawmaker's point of view, this is clear enough: US-based
> websites are reachable through the usual legal means and thus can be
> shut down with local intervention instead of having to disappear them
> through the infrastructure.  You can simply sue them to death without
> having a pesky foreign government refusing to accept the decisions of
> the media giants.
>

You can call me an idealist -- if there are still some taking passengers at
this late hour. I was in fact referring to the problem of our legal counsel
expressing a view that it is to WMF favor to have laws that make it more
difficult to fork. The legalities are not at issue, the attitude towards the
international nature of our endeavour are very much at play.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On 14 December 2011 16:46, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can call me an idealist -- if there are still some taking passengers at
> this late hour. I was in fact referring to the problem of our legal counsel
> expressing a view that it is to WMF favor to have laws that make it more
> difficult to fork. The legalities are not at issue, the attitude towards the
> international nature of our endeavour are very much at play.


I'd be amazed if that were even slightly a consideration in this post.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:08 AM, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
> cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
>
> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
> against Internet censorship? No.
>
> WMF did nothing. Well, Wikipedia community wrote this disclaimer "WikiLeaks
> is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation"[1] on the
> top, and turned a blind eye.
>
> Now it is your turn. Enjoy.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks


I think what happened to WikiLeaks is atrocious. But this protest is
to try and prevent a similar thing from happening again to *any* site,
ever. This legislation would make such attacks legally permissible,
and we oppose it, and not just because it could affect Wikimedia too.

best,
-- Phoebe
WMF Board of Trustees

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea?
Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was
any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as
this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably
there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
least figured out what form that process will take?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
> against Internet censorship? No.

Wikimedia defends itself, not the ''justice in America and worldwide''. Remember we are not a political party. But we have to defend ourselves.
It's not against internet censorship. It's pretty clear, It's about defending us.

_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865


> From: emijrp@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:08:38 +0100
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>
> Hi all;
>
> Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
> cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
>
> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
> against Internet censorship? No.
>
> WMF did nothing. Well, Wikipedia community wrote this disclaimer "WikiLeaks
> is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation"[1] on the
> top, and turned a blind eye.
>
> Now it is your turn. Enjoy.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
>
> 2011/12/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
> > > Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
> > > threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens
> > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
> > > found here:
> > >
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
> > >
> >
> > "Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new
> > version exempts U.S. based companies – including the Wikimedia
> > Foundation – from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights
> > owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to
> > theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could
> > have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment
> > processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours."
> >
> > I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 19:23, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
>> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
>> against Internet censorship? No.
>
> Wikimedia defends itself, not the ''justice in America and worldwide''. Remember we are not a political party. But we have to defend ourselves.
> It's not against internet censorship. It's pretty clear, It's about defending us.

Defending just your own bunker is tactics for losers.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
It's complex, Milos.

We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves activists.

It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option to share the free knowledge, not about political issues.

I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real life, I agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and citizens; But Wikimedia Foundation can't, cause we can't force the volunteers to agree that visions.

We're not a political party (yet?)



_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865


> From: millosh@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:33:41 +0100
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 19:23, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> >> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
> >> against Internet censorship? No.
> >
> > Wikimedia defends itself, not the ''justice in America and worldwide''. Remember we are not a political party. But we have to defend ourselves.
> > It's not against internet censorship. It's pretty clear, It's about defending us.
>
> Defending just your own bunker is tactics for losers.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:
> It's complex, Milos.
>
> We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves activists.
>
> It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option to share the free knowledge, not about political issues.
>
> I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real life, I agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and citizens; But Wikimedia Foundation can't, cause we can't force the volunteers to agree that visions.

I know that it's complex, of course. And I know that it was necessary
to see that our bunker is on the front line to realize that it's
better to help others before.

> We're not a political party (yet?)

At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.
There is relatively clear set of values behind our movement and there
are clear benefits which all humans are getting thanks to our work.
Pretending that we are apolitical makes our position worse and
inevitably leads to the crisis, like this one is.

Leadership inside of one network, no matter how loose the connections
are inside of that network, has responsibility to raise and articulate
relevant political issues, as well. And I am glad to see that Jimmy
has taken at least the articulation role in this case.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
>
> *At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.*
>

If we decide to be honest with ourselves we must remember that we crossed
that line when it.wiki got off-line for a very similar reason.

And WMF also participated in Internet Censorship Day. not only participated
- organized it - look at the bottom of this page:
http://americancensorship.org/

So is not a question of IF we will be political or apolitical, is a
question of if this is a case for it (and at least WMF seems to think it
is.)
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 14 December 2011 21:05, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > It's complex, Milos.
> >
> > We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn
> ourselves activists.
> >
> > It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a
> option to share the free knowledge, not about political issues.
> >
> > I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real
> life, I agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and
> citizens; But Wikimedia Foundation can't, cause we can't force the
> volunteers to agree that visions.
>
> I know that it's complex, of course. And I know that it was necessary
> to see that our bunker is on the front line to realize that it's
> better to help others before.
>
> > We're not a political party (yet?)
>
> At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.
> There is relatively clear set of values behind our movement and there
> are clear benefits which all humans are getting thanks to our work.
> Pretending that we are apolitical makes our position worse and
> inevitably leads to the crisis, like this one is.
>
> Leadership inside of one network, no matter how loose the connections
> are inside of that network, has responsibility to raise and articulate
> relevant political issues, as well. And I am glad to see that Jimmy
> has taken at least the articulation role in this case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
> At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.

When that day comes call me, I'll join the party asap.

Wikimedia Foundation makes me create new values, about copyright, about knowledge and about freedom. I think (talking about that list) everyone see it at the same way, we're connected with these values. It's like a political party, really.

But the day Wikimedia Foundation would say:
''Dear Wikimedians, from now Wikimedia Foundation will fight publicily against all kinds of censorships, all kinds of dictatorships. We ask you to go to streets, do manifestations in our name.''
we will simple quick away the NPOV pillar.

And with no-NPOV, it'll open to criticize the articles about China, for example. The articles about SOPA, even!
Can you imagine?

As a serious encylopedia, and a serious foundation, WMF can't defend political visions. But as serious WIKIPEDIANS, and serious WIKIMEDIANS, we will do it.

_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865


> From: millosh@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:05:04 +0100
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > It's complex, Milos.
> >
> > We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves activists.
> >
> > It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option to share the free knowledge, not about political issues.
> >
> > I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real life, I agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and citizens; But Wikimedia Foundation can't, cause we can't force the volunteers to agree that visions.
>
> I know that it's complex, of course. And I know that it was necessary
> to see that our bunker is on the front line to realize that it's
> better to help others before.
>
> > We're not a political party (yet?)
>
> At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.
> There is relatively clear set of values behind our movement and there
> are clear benefits which all humans are getting thanks to our work.
> Pretending that we are apolitical makes our position worse and
> inevitably leads to the crisis, like this one is.
>
> Leadership inside of one network, no matter how loose the connections
> are inside of that network, has responsibility to raise and articulate
> relevant political issues, as well. And I am glad to see that Jimmy
> has taken at least the articulation role in this case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Presumably
> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
> least figured out what form that process will take?

Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
up true blockers.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:

>> I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real life, I agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and citizens; But Wikimedia Foundation can't, cause we can't force the volunteers to agree that visions.
>
> I know that it's complex, of course. And I know that it was necessary
> to see that our bunker is on the front line to realize that it's
> better to help others before.
>
>> We're not a political party (yet?)
>
> At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.
> There is relatively clear set of values behind our movement and there
> are clear benefits which all humans are getting thanks to our work.
> Pretending that we are apolitical makes our position worse and
> inevitably leads to the crisis, like this one is.
>
> Leadership inside of one network, no matter how loose the connections
> are inside of that network, has responsibility to raise and articulate
> relevant political issues, as well. And I am glad to see that Jimmy
> has taken at least the articulation role in this case.

I think our very existence is not politically neutral. The articles,
yes, as close to that ideal of neutrality as possible. But the project
itself? We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for
us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also
allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information
and expression.

For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing
and collecting the world's knowledge. We're putting it in context, and
showing people how to make to sense of it. But that knowledge has to
be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be
censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and
Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources
to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by
someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will
continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

I've started thinking of our public voice and the goodwill we have in
the public's mind as being a resource that we need to be responsible
stewards of--just as much so as the money we're given. Both as the
legal entity of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as the broader
community-based entity of the movement around our set of goals.

Not using that voice when we obviously have it is also a political
decision. We already take many political stances just by what we're
doing: we support the right to freedom of thought and expression. We
support the idea of letting authors and creators choose different
terms than the default copyright term. We think that simple facts
about the world should not be copyrightable. We think everyone should
have access to educational material on any subject, even if they
cannot pay for it or their government doesn't want them to have it.
They're assumptions that we don't usually make a lot of noise about,
but they are basic to our mission; we cannot do what we set out to do
in our mission statement if the laws we're operating under make it
impossible.

I think it was good for us that we've focused on creating things
rather than talking about things--we have built something that has
brought tremendous value to the world, and have built up a lot of
credibility. When a law is proposed that challenges our ability to
continue doing that, we should use that voice and that goodwill we
have to stand up for the mission.

There is more stress and concern on Wikimedia lists over allocating
money properly than almost any other topic. It's important--using the
resources we've been given by the public to their best end is a huge
and difficult responsibility. But that's only (!) a few tens of
millions of dollars. Our voice is worth much more than that, and we've
mostly been letting it sit in the bank. We should spend it to make
things better.

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat@wikimedia.org, kat@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:59:13PM +0000, Fae wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
> > up true blockers.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
>
> I contributed to the straw poll on the understanding given at the top
> of the straw poll:
> "This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this
> poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this
> poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer
> process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and
> timing."
>
> I would strongly object and encourage others to strike their opinions
> if the straw poll were retrospectively and arbitrarily misused as a
> statement of consensus for something else.

It can be currently and non-arbitrarily used to infer that most people
are in favor of some sort of contra-SOPA action. The exact form of the
action is (according to this) yet to be determined.

Seeing the current state of the poll, working on such details is
probably a good idea right now. We should also check to see if
there are blockers or ancillary points listed that need to be addressed.

If this is not what you intended, then
* reread [[WP:POLL]], [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:NOT#Community]]
* strike your position, if it's still not what you intended.
* alternately, restate your position to include relevant/adequate
provisions.

OTOH, I think that it is pretty close to your intent that we indeed
proceed, is it not?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

[.
Strictly, politically, given only current information:

if one were to BOLDly set the main page to a big black
anti-SOPA-message; one would probably get away with it and get a
barnstar-or-two besides. This due to getting -perhaps not 80%- but
definitely a majority of statements in ones favor at the inevitable
RFC.

Good Old Ed Poor survived to tell a similar tale with much less
upfront support. He would definitely have been able to *fully*
pull off his move -and possibly ensure editor retention- had he had an
80%-in-favor-poll upfront.oO(tempting thought)
]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
> Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
> up true blockers.
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning

I contributed to the straw poll on the understanding given at the top
of the straw poll:
"This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this
poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this
poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer
process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and
timing."

I would strongly object and encourage others to strike their opinions
if the straw poll were retrospectively and arbitrarily misused as a
statement of consensus for something else.

Fae

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> Presumably
>> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
>> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
>> least figured out what form that process will take?

> Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
> up true blockers.


The poll is at 87% or so (taking a straight count of support vs.
oppose from the page). Should it be considered sufficient to
demonstrate overwhelming consensus, the precise course of action has
not AFAIK been determined.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
87% is more than sufficient.

En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's like a whole country.

It's simple impossible to reach a consensus in a place where have 500 people voting.
Sometimes polls are the only way. I'm not saying the best. It's the only.

_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865


> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:00:38 +0000
> From: dgerard@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>
> On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >> Presumably
> >> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
> >> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
> >> least figured out what form that process will take?
>
> > Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
> > up true blockers.
>
>
> The poll is at 87% or so (taking a straight count of support vs.
> oppose from the page). Should it be considered sufficient to
> demonstrate overwhelming consensus, the precise course of action has
> not AFAIK been determined.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
The poll hit a community of many tens of thousands. So...

Tom Morton

On 14 Dec 2011, at 23:10, Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre@live.co.uk> wrote:

>
> 87% is more than sufficient.
>
> En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's like a whole country.
>
> It's simple impossible to reach a consensus in a place where have 500 people voting.
> Sometimes polls are the only way. I'm not saying the best. It's the only.
>
> _____________________
> MateusNobre
> MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
> (+55) 85 88393509
> 30440865
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:00:38 +0000
>> From: dgerard@gmail.com
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>>
>> On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>>> Presumably
>>>> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
>>>> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
>>>> least figured out what form that process will take?
>>
>>> Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
>>> up true blockers.
>>
>>
>> The poll is at 87% or so (taking a straight count of support vs.
>> oppose from the page). Should it be considered sufficient to
>> demonstrate overwhelming consensus, the precise course of action has
>> not AFAIK been determined.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Ask for a ''consensus way'' in decisions like that one tends to humor.

I can compare asking a consensus for presidential elections.

_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865


> From: mateus.nobre@live.co.uk
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:10:32 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
>
>
> 87% is more than sufficient.
>
> En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's like a whole country.
>
> It's simple impossible to reach a consensus in a place where have 500 people voting.
> Sometimes polls are the only way. I'm not saying the best. It's the only.
>
> _____________________
> MateusNobre
> MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
> (+55) 85 88393509
> 30440865
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:00:38 +0000
> > From: dgerard@gmail.com
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
> >
> > On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> > >> Presumably
> > >> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
> > >> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
> > >> least figured out what form that process will take?
> >
> > > Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
> > > up true blockers.
> >
> >
> > The poll is at 87% or so (taking a straight count of support vs.
> > oppose from the page). Should it be considered sufficient to
> > demonstrate overwhelming consensus, the precise course of action has
> > not AFAIK been determined.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On 14 December 2011 22:42, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
...
> OTOH, I think that it is pretty close to your intent that we indeed
> proceed, is it not?
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning

No. My opinion was on the straw man as stated, not for some later
re-interpretation.

None of the !votes were for a carte blanche to proceed with action. A
consensus would have to be gained for any particular proposal.

Fae

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:57:51PM +0000, Fae wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 22:42, Kim Bruning <kim@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> No. My opinion was on the straw man as stated, not for some later
> re-interpretation.

Um, You opposed the straw man as stated. If you strike your position,
then I'd interpret that as not wanting to stop it. ;-)

( Hmm, only american topic articles? That'd be tricky )

For the record, I have my reservations too.

> None of the !votes were for a carte blanche to proceed with action. A
> consensus would have to be gained for any particular proposal.

The positions in general seem to be in favor of action, albeit not
carte blanche.

But like I said, TECHNICALLY, if someone were to (unwisely) proceed to
take an action right right now, they'd probably survive running the
proverbial gauntlet (RFC) by the skin of their teeth. My
interpretation (a subtly different thing from 'opinion' ;-) is that there
is sufficient consensus to move as it stands. I agree that that is not
quite what this poll says, but it is something one can infer.

You might disagree perhaps, but in the end only the post-action RFC would show
which of us was actually right in such a case. Let's hope it doesn't
quite happen that way.

At any rate, it seems wise to discuss the constraints within which
en.wikipedia should act. As the discussion progresses, the odds of
successful action increase.


sincerely,
Kim bruning

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

1 2  View All