|
|
|
SOPA and a strike, Jimbo requests comments |
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:02pm) Wikipedia has long relied on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and copyright practice generally, and SOPA eradicates those almost entirely.
How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement. QUOTE “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates†copyright infringement. http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/sopa-new-r...+%28Copyhype%29
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sun 11th December 2011, 12:24am) QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:29pm) QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:27pm) He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually... No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how. Haven't you noticed his disregard for governments in general? In his manner, comments and language he shows an oddly-casual kind of contept that goes beyond any particular cause or policy, or his own need for popularity. It always strikes me because it doesn't seem to be based on the kind of real anger that most people who express similar feelings clearly have as a basis for it. It's mainly to do with his oddball nature and strange ego I think. No, I haven't noticed that, but I'm easily distracted so may have missed it. Mostly I notice the character flaws, like when he used to call people trolls for asking important questions.
|
|
|
|
Malik Shabazz |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined:
From: God bless Chocolate City and its vanilla suburbs
Member No.: 25,765
|
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:42pm) QUOTE I'd be strongly in favor of a strike. They shouldn't be wimpy about it though. Either they're serious or they're just playing. Make the strike a permanent one! Bravo!
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:34pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:05pm) I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson. Ah, but that was soooo 3 years ago. Why isn't anyone calling for a strike against Jimmy Wales??Occupy Wikipedia? I'm in.
|
|
|
|
mydog |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 13
Joined:
Member No.: 58,134
|
(Temporarily) See the RFC on his talk page. I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 11th December 2011, 2:49am) (Temporarily) See the RFC on his talk page. I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting. I must say, I quote enjoyed that - but yeah, it's a "beat head against a wall" kind of endeavor. The wall don't listen.
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 11th December 2011, 3:49am) (Temporarily) See the RFC on his talk page. I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting. QUOTE(Jimbo Wales) A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia. So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll. To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465086832Jimbo is really stretching it by saying that the Italian Wikipedia's strike had any effect on the Italian law being struck down. I thought that pressure from journalists and free press groups was the main reason for its downfall? Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!? What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?
What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA? If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win. This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 3:42am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?
What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA? If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win. To look at the silver lining, the "win" for others here is that this kind of thing really does separate the wheat from the ... idiots and brown nosers. So it makes for a handy list if any of these folks try to run for ArbCom or something. I'm quite disappointed in a couple (Hans Adler). And impressed with one or two. Wehwalt ran for arbcom before didn't he? I can't remember if he dropped out or didn't make it. Anyway, he's one of the few people making sense over there. I made a list of the dummies, but here are the good comments: User:Eraserhead1 - "If you feel really strongly about this go and protest in your own time." User:Townlake - "The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious." User talk:Fox - "What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid." User:TCO - too god damn sensible for wikipedia User:Wehwalt User:Russavia - holy fucking christ, Russavia is very right and actually insightful about something
|
|
|
|
powercorrupts |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 11th December 2011, 6:05am) QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:27pm) He's showing his contempt for government again.
I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson. Not sure if they show the opposite (the Blair one at least). Blair was out of British government and an international playboy by then (hence the company) and had contempt for government himself anyway (he ignored it - or attempted to - all the way through his career). One of my favourite Blair stories is that when he became PM people were astounded how little he actually new about the job. A lawyer by trade, he'd barely bothered to brush up on the basics, despite a lifetime coveting the job with his one-time flatmate Gordon Brown. I never said Jimbo deoesn't covet power, or wouldn't kiss any politician's arse if it got him his way. He'd also kick it when he's got what he wanted, and generally seems to see himself as above and beyond such inherently-censorious mortals. This post has been edited by powercorrupts:
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 4:42am) QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?
What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA? If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win. I also wonder if he isn't also revving up the drama for "domestic consumption" (nothing sells like drama on WP). He got far less wikiluv in that little exchange with Cla than he would have gotten a year or two ago, and he's already pissed off most of the non en.wp communities, so he can't let his god status decline on his last remaining front.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE This is my personal request for comment in order to guide my thinking and talking with politicians over the next few days. I am also speaking to the Foundation, Foundation attorneys, our paid lobbyists, fellow traveller organizations, etc. Because the Foundation has requested, reasonably due to negotiations under way and the impact that I might have on that by accidentally creating a public furore, I'm not able to say a lot at this time. Part of my job here is to represent the wishes of the community to all these parties, hence the straw poll. As I said before, nothing here is binding - if and when we would do something like this, there would be a much more formal proposal. Right now, what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators. Do not underestimate our power - in my opinion, they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that. Back room politics over cigars and promises, or a vigorous public debate? I know what I want, and I know what the other side wants, and they aren't the same thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) IOW: QUOTE I'm very important! I mean, uh, we're very important, but I really need to create the impression that I have the support of the serfs before I try to show those regulators how important I am. Uh, I mean how important we are. Yeah, that's it.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th December 2011, 2:12pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:00am) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:27pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:20pm) How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid. How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons. It might come down to how the agencies involved define "governance" of a website. If they decide it's actually the "community", there's certainly a large and influential contingent who take a radical view of "knowledge wanting to be free". I suspect that the law won't be looking into their souls, but at what they do, and how the WMF reacts to it.
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on. QUOTE Why is this here? What relevance does it have? Can I start a RfC on *my* user talk page over shutting down Wikipedia for a few days over some pet cause of mine and if there's a couple of "support" votes, we gonna shut down? This is not the venue for this kind of discussion and even less of a venue for what has turned into a voting poll (to put it charitably). So stop freakin' voting. I know you really want to show Jimbo how much you love him but this whole endeavor goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and no matter how many people write an empty "support" on it, there's not going to be a strike.
At the end of the day, we've been told over and over again that policies such as NPOV are fundamental - and this proposal goes right against that. Also, Jimbo has always made a pretense of being "just another editor" (and for the most part has stuck to that, until now). This means that Jimbo has no more right to start this kind of a "poll" on his user talk page than I do. Now, giving Jimbo a charitable interpretation of the events it looks like he posted a comment on his talk page, which he hoped would get taken to another venue (this is AGFing the fuck out of the "Please help me publicize this widely" comment). But a whole bunch of people who think that agreeing with Jimbo is a way to earn brownie points on Wikipedia turned this into a "Poll". That's not how Wikipedia works. You want a 'strike', propose it in an appropriate venue (village pump, ANI, separate RfC page etc.). Stop wasting time here. Go write an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 07:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It was posted on AN and RfC, and you're welcome to post about it anywhere else you think it should be publicized. As for me personally, I've disagreed (in some cases strenuously) with Jimbo on more than one occasion. I couldn't care less about earning "brownie points" with him. I agree with him in this case because I believe he is correct. I believe that is true of most, if not all, of those who have agreed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe but people are "voting" here. And yes, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the support votes are due to the simple fact that Jimbo is the one who proposed it. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow. People who disagree with your particular position are out to earn brownie points with Jimbo? Argumentum ad Hominem much? Maybe you need to read WP:NPA. Ëœdanjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow yourself. What do you think is happening? Are you being daft or naive? There's absolutely no reason or justification in Wikipedia policies for this kind of proposal ... strike that, Wikipedia policies explicitly prohibit this kind of thing, if it was anyone else but Jimbo trying to pull this kind of a stunt they'd be banned for disruption. Assuming that these aren't naive <1000 edits newbies voting above... yeah, motives do come into question. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Wanna start an RfC on your talkpage? Go ahead. ChoyoołʼįįhÃ:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
At best this is a blatant grab for power, naively supported by folks who can't think beyond "Jimbo said it, it must be true" or "SOPA bad, so support" (SOPA might be bad, but two wrong don't make a right). At worst it's a perfect illustration of everything that can be wrong with Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If it bothers you so much go away and ignore it. ChoyoołʼįįhÃ:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
How about you go away and ignore it. What kind of bullying bullshit is that? Obviously this is something that would have very widespread implications across Wikipedia, and affect lots of editors myself included. So, no, I don't think I'm going to ignore it. That's a very nasty thing to say to somebody. Typical though I guess. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Typical? You're the one attacking people and ranting when all this is is a poll because Jimbo wants to know what people think. You told him what you think and he'll read it. Other than that, it will not have implications. ChoyoołʼįįhÃ:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Go away Seb, you're not welcome here and you're embarrassing yourself. More seriously, I just got to ask. If "it will not have implications" what is the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Obviously the reason people are voting here is because they believe - rightly or apparently wrongly - that it WILL have implications. Right? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No. At least I didn't. If they do believe that, they got it wrong. ChoyoołʼįįhÃ:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
So apparently there's just an excessive amount of internet ether out there and you're just doing your part in preventing it from reaching some kind of critical mass and blowing up the internets as we know it by wasting bandwith with "comments that have no implications". Kudos. For me, as disagreeable as some of my comments might seem to some, I *do* post them with the hope that they do carry some implications. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:49pm) QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:36pm)
that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.
Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised. IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 11th December 2011, 6:09pm) Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.
Particularly when it's the "politics" of a flaky megalomaniac.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th December 2011, 11:28pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:49pm) QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:36pm)
that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.
Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised. IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) I asked for more information.
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on.
Eh, if anything, him hatting these comments probably brought more attention to them. He's probably using the term "lobbyist" in the "some guy that I can get to call their congressman" sense. I got some of these "lobbyists" myself. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question! Dow Lohnes is not registered with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. Neither is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House. Sounds to me like Jimbo remembered the name of the firm that Godwin told them they should work with, but that the WMF hasn't actually hired them yet, but Jimbo wanted to sound like the Big Man on Capitol Hill, so he started dropping phrases like "our paid lobbyists" when he really meant to say "that lobbying firm that Godwin mentioned we ought to consider working with", because "our paid lobbyists" sounds so much more mature. No Wikipedia article about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Ponyta and Rapidash, and they never successfully lobbied a single case for their clients! Or, it's possible that the WMF only hired Dow Lohnes in the past 44 days: QUOTE (1) General rule No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact, whichever is earlier, or on the first business day after such 45th day if the 45th day is not a business day, such lobbyist (or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
No comment... QUOTE SOPA and Wales roleSue, Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans? TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) QUOTE ...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
Here is the lobbyist database. Jim Burger does not appear. However, Dow Lohnes does. I could not find anything "Wiki" related. I do like that Dow Lohnes represents DeVry, though. It appears that this "lobbyist" merely gives some advice but nothing really. I work with lobbyists and political campaigners all the time, and it appears that Wikimedia doesn't even have an amateurish involvement in the field. That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question! Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him. The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) No comment... QUOTE SOPA and Wales roleSue, Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans? TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) QUOTE ...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Deliciously classic.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
One of the first rules of lobbying is that you don't announce your groups position or that you are lobbying. Otherwise, you make it easier for opponents to know how you are moving and to spend funds to counter it. Even if Jimbo wanted to get something moving on this issue, he basically shot himself in the foot right at the beginning.
I have a feeling that most of Jimbo's supporters are under aged or not US citizens, so it doesn't really matter what their opinion is. Do you see the ACLU pandering on message boards? Instead, they have a strategic media blitz, have set lobby meals/events, have been involved consistently, etc. I disagree with the ACLU quite often but they are at least a model of how people are involved in the system. Even their write-in campaigns are very small, strategic, and deal with a specific issue or small aspect of a bill.
|
|
|
|
cookiehead |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined:
Member No.: 23,420
|
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.
Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465265847
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) No comment... QUOTE SOPA and Wales roleSue, Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans? TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) QUOTE ...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Deliciously classic. Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious.
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:04pm) That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this.
I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place. As with the Italian law, that could be enough to scupper it. Lobbying in this case probably means getting Jimbo invited to speak before some panel of politicians. I imagine a phone call to the EFF could probably have accomplished the same thing, but what do I know?
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:29pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) No comment... QUOTE SOPA and Wales roleSue, Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans? TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) QUOTE ...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Deliciously classic. Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious. Indeed, as well as " our" lawyer, maybe... is the lawyer in question still in any real sense his lawyer? Is Jimmy becoming the nerd-hanging-on? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
|
|
|
|
cookiehead |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined:
Member No.: 23,420
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 1:52pm) QUOTE(cookiehead @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:05pm) Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465265847That ain't his first visit to that article to spray paint it. He seems to have a known history of intolerance of the notion that certain natural foods can have antibiotic properties. Maybe an ex of his is selling the Manuka honey out of her home, so he's just doing his part to make her means of income more difficult. not his 1st visit, his other was to likewise tag but not improve the article, to complain about a friend using it for cancer treatment for their kid or something. So all that gnashing of teeth to passive aggressively try to get other editors to fix his gripe. It's a small non-controversial article (at least it is now). Of all the articles with promotional campaigns going on within them, this rates a 2 on a 1 to 10 scale. It's not Mzoli's Meats, for sure. Maybe he wants Cla68 to kiss his ring and get busy editing it for him. Jimmy does carry grudges from years ago, this much is clear. Also that he doesn't seem very intelligent. Anyone know his IQ?
|
|
|
|
nableezy |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined:
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:59pm) Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.
Yes of course, because it is well established that sincerity trumps money and connections in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) No Wikipedia article about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. Come off it Greg! You of all people know that there are loads of notable firms with no WP article, or at least they wouldn't if you hadn't created the articles! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Dow Lohnes seems to be a long-established (founded 1918) and substantial firm, at least as lawyers. Maybe they're not significant as lobbyists, though. Say, while I'm writing this - why don't you explain to them they need a WP article to improve their credibility, especially if they intend to act for WMF. I'm sure they'll want you to write it. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
Michaeldsuarez |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:45pm) Interesting: CODE (del/undel) 10:52, 10 December 2008 Secret (renamed) (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dow Lohnes" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: spam, the external links just kill it for me,) (view/restore) 22 edits, created May 2007 by a throwaway account. With Jimbo's bashing of Bell Pottinger still fresh in our memories, this is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 12th December 2011, 3:59pm) Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.
It doesn't work that way. Scheduling alone and knowing where and when to get to is quite a lot to learn. Then you have to learn the key people who can get different language changed, the staff members to get items to someone's attention, etc. A good equivalent is saying that if you are in a court that you can pick up how to defend yourself. Sure, you could. But you wont know about various precedence, have the research, etc. These are professionals that assist you in getting all of the stuff you need because there are a lot of people and a lot of agencies. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:20pm) QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question! Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him. The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better. Better to ask a question like that in a direct manner. I didn't use a hostile tone, Jimbo responded the way he did because I have been giving him a hard time lately. Anyway, I just asked Ms Gardner for more information.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) QUOTE SOPA and Wales role Sue, Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans? TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo's acting as CEO of Wikipedia (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) QUOTE Officials were absolutely stunned when a bloke showed up at a UK airport claiming to be the CEO of Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:12am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm) I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.
You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales.
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
Jimmy is still unhapy about Cla QUOTE :As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record. What track record jimmy has in mind, this one? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(radek @ Tue 13th December 2011, 6:52am) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:12am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm) I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.
You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales. Just to illustrate the average quality of the "support votes": *'''Strongest Possible Support''' The threat that SOPA presents can not be understated.which even allowing for hyperbole is not what I think the user meant. Unless, again, someone's being sarcastic - I make these kinds of comments when I'm trying to be funny - but I think I have lost the ability to distinguish. And Cla, judging by the comments, their intelligence might indeed be low enough. This post has been edited by radek:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th December 2011, 9:51pm) Jimmy is still unhapy about Cla QUOTE :As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record. What track record jimmy has in mind, this one? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Ms Gardner has been more patient and forthcoming with her answers to my inquiries, but I'm waiting for her to answer my latest follow-up questions. I think she can probably come up with an adequate answer as to how and why the WMF retained a paid lobbyist without any of us knowing about it until now, but I suspect that she might struggle to answer the question of why it's ok for Jimbo to pretend to be nothing more than a WP community member while at the same time acting on behalf of the WMF as self-elected spokesman and a member of the executive board.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(cookiehead @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:18pm) Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.
Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?
Because Chuck is in the right.
I like your Wikipedia User page, Cookie: QUOTE I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me. [citation needed]
I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned.
I'm also now "on record" by some social climbing whack job who goes around looking for anti-semites where they aren't, instead of improving wikipedia articles.
Learned today that there's a hidden "site I like" qualifier in WP:RS.
I'm very popular in Canada, where block evading ninjas consider me a sexist.
This user thinks User:Cla68 is a benefit to Wikipedia They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?! They're going to start thinking you're me! This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:06pm) QUOTE(cookiehead @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:18pm) Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.
Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?
Because Chuck is in the right.
I like your Wikipedia User page, Cookie: QUOTE I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me. [citation needed]
I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned.
I'm also now "on record" by some social climbing whack job who goes around looking for anti-semites where they aren't, instead of improving wikipedia articles.
Learned today that there's a hidden "site I like" qualifier in WP:RS.
I'm very popular in Canada, where block evading ninjas consider me a sexist.
This user thinks User:Cla68 is a benefit to Wikipedia They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?! They're going to start thinking you're me! Personally I like the first entry on the talk page, though it's probably more applicable to Commons: WP:YOURDOODLESUCKS
|
|
|
|
Michaeldsuarez |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
|
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(cookiehead @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:25pm) This brings up a point I think often overlooked by the WP Elite in their disdain for "IP editors"....IP editors are actually more trustworthy stewards of the WP community..."you know where they live" so to speak....the rest of us Anonymous kooky name alias editors get to hide who we are and where we are editing from (like what company or government agency). Some anonymous editors even use more than one alias.
IP editors meanwhile are easily traceable by all WP editors. You can "geolocate" if someone is a corporate or government "lobbyist" without having to be a part of the Wiki Police. No favors required.
WP should allow editing only with a verified "real name" or otherwise post IP addresses next to each edit/alias.
But I guess that would take the fun out of what appears to be WP's #1 goal, to be a social media game.
This. User accounts on Wikipedia are onerous collars of discipline that are meant to subject the human being who knows the password to the account to arcane and arbitrary rules. If you follow the rules and pay enough lip-service, the "community" will come to "like" you. Alternatively, if you point out that the emperor has no clothes, if you broadcast how shaky their infrastructure is, or if you ignore their arbitrary rules, the "community" will come to "dislike" you. As a person. The person behind the user account. The freak show that is WR comes in part from the fact that many of the ex-contributors here were hoodwinked into thinking that user accounts were an attractive feature of the website. They are, rather, the means to Party Membership into their 1984-like cult. And WR is Emmanuel Goldstein.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Funny thing is, III is correct. Plus: Jimbo posted about the strike on the admin noticeboard on Saturday, and it was roundly ignored. I suspect that, even with a favorable vote, this will go nowhere. It is a wargame and a drug, and No One Is Permitted To Take Away Their Drug. If anyone at the WMF actually does work up the nerve to shut down the servers, even for a few hours, the resulting shitrain will be massive. The person who did the deed will be offered up for ritual slaughter. Cowards......all of them, snivelling cowards.....This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 7:18am) Funny thing is, III is correct. Plus: Jimbo posted about the strike on the admin noticeboard on Saturday, and it was roundly ignored. I suspect that, even with a favorable vote, this will go nowhere. It is a wargame and a drug, and No One Is Permitted To Take Away Their Drug. If anyone at the WMF actually does work up the nerve to shut down the servers, even for a few hours, the resulting shitrain will be massive. The person who did the deed will be offered up for ritual slaughter. Cowards......all of them, snivelling cowards.....It should have been proposed by someone with a little bit of je ne se qua - Jimbo just doesn't have it. This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses. Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa, usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins are doing this, and have been doing this for years. If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 3:40am) QUOTE SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses. Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa, usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins are doing this, and have been doing this for years. If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly. You are forgetting that the main teeth deal with 1. foreign websites and 2. ad revenue. Wikipedia has neither. Now, if the Germans managed to get their own local servers, then the law may affect them and their porny ways. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Geoff says: QUOTE The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,†and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.†Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available. Hey, dipwad... what do you think the WikiNazis are doing on a daily basis with the "Spam Blacklist", where they censor sites that aren't even spamming? Oh, I see someone already made that point in the blog comments: QUOTE Evan Prodromou Says: December 14th, 2011 at 07:45 I oppose SOPA and support Wikimedia and Wikipedia. But I think your argument is dangerously weak. MediaWiki already has a domain-blacklisting extension, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist . URLs with domains in the blacklist can not be added to an article. It’s in use on English Wikipedia; it might be in use on more sites. It would not require an undue amount of work to add new domains to the blacklist. The extension includes scripts to scan for URLs in existing articles when you add new ones to the blacklist. SOPA may be bad, but I’m not sure the argument that it would be hard to comply is coherent.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 14th December 2011, 5:31pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 5:00pm) I think we should tell Congress to stop online piracy. Thanks for that, I'm finding it hard to get the other side of this story. This one is also interesting http://vimeo.com/32592166particularly some of the moronic comments (corporates are so obviously evil, aren't they). We sell design and manufacturing software across the world, a lot of US companies use the software to make the products and parts that everyone here will use everyday. We have a number of company forums that support customers. Daily we get an influx of spam messages posted onto the forums with links to websites advertising counterfeit goods of our customers. Messages advertising send us a genuine part and we'll give you a price on making N copies. Design and manufacturing companies lose billions each year.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 8:40am) QUOTE SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses. Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa, usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins are doing this, and have been doing this for years. If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly. Whenever someone from corporate management, any corporate management, tries to blow sunshine up everyone's patooty with rosy, general statements like this, the way to respond is asking for specifics: Exactly what measures does the WMF take to ensure there are no copyright violations in its projects? Is the number of violations found each year measured and recorded? If so, what are the numbers per year? Is copyright violation oversight incorporated into the WMF's 5-year plan? If not, why not? How much does the WMF spend each year on copyright infringement oversight? How many personnel are assigned to the issue? Are their performance evaluations based on their performance in this area? and so on...
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 14th December 2011, 10:46pm)
Whenever someone from corporate management, any corporate management, tries to blow sunshine up everyone's patooty with rosy, general statements like this, the way to respond is asking for specifics: Exactly what measures does the WMF take to ensure there are no copyright violations in its projects? Is the number of violations found each year measured and recorded? If so, what are the numbers per year? Is copyright violation oversight incorporated into the WMF's 5-year plan? If not, why not? How much does the WMF spend each year on copyright infringement oversight? How many personnel are assigned to the issue? Are their performance evaluations based on their performance in this area? and so on...
Don't be silly. Web 2.0 companies are almost all anti-copyright and have an absolute contempt for content creators. Copyright is just nasty gunk in the money making machine. It means that you have to have actual people dealing with infringement cases, you need lawyers, and all sorts of arrangements that get in the way of making money.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
No comment (other than to note that Wehwalt is a lawyer): QUOTE TriggerI believe that we should act sooner. Currently, this proposing is advising us to wait until the bill passes through both Houses of Congress before acting. I believe that this is too risky. If the bill passes through both Houses, then Wikipedia's fate shall be left in the hand of a single individual. Let's send a strong message to Congress and its constituents first. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC) While Geoff doesn't quite come out and say this (he says parts of it, but it's rather buried in his text), it appears that this statute as presently proposed has no applicability to Wikipedia. We are not a foreign site, and we are not an internet search engine. We do not in response to a query list sites elsewhere on the internet; we list our own pages. We don't even have a google option. Accordingly, if we were to strike, we would be striking in sympathy with other sites, rather than because of a direct threat. That would be a bad idea, because then we have lowered the bar for action, which will take place whenever someone can pull in off the net sufficient support (say a verdict goes the wrong way in some criminal trial, or that death penalty is really bad isn't it, or let's go with that old chestnut, social justice).--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th December 2011, 3:54pm) No comment (other than to note that Wehwalt is a lawyer):
Pretty much as I called it yesterday: QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th December 2011, 7:36am) Godwin's replacement speaks: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-s...-and-wikipedia/Basically SOPA won't affect them at all, they are shilling for Google. I surmise that it is Wales' and wikipedia's debt to Google that is being called called in. Jump rabbits, jump.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 15th December 2011, 7:55pm) Just in: a group letter, signed by the high nabobs of the internet, sent to Congress. Please note that Wales is calling himself "founder of Wikipedia" again. Was it a mistake to get Hurley to sign it: QUOTE YouTube’s posting of its copyrighted works, e-mails among the video site’s three primary founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawad Karim, demonstrate the debates the trio had over how to handle unauthorized content. The e-mails, from the first year of YouTube’s existence, detail clear concerns and veer to outright indifference among the founders and about how it should handle the issue. For the most part, Hurley is mostly worried about creating ill will among large media companies he hoped would pay “big money†to acquire YouTube. http://paidcontent.org/article/419-youtube...uggles-over-co/
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE At bottom, this is a political fight between the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Americans, companies and institutions hurt by rampant piracy versus a small minority of special interests who profit or benefit from the convenience of unfettered piracy, and a small minority of techtopians who politically oppose enforcement of property rights online as a threat to transparency, sharing, freedom of speech and democracy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2...ecially-google/And better yet: QUOTE Google is the only public opponent that is an admitted criminal aider-and-abettor of piracy via rogue websites. Remember, in August, Google admitted to knowingly and repeatedly violating Federal criminal laws against the “unsafe and unlawful importation of prescription drugs†via the promotion of rogue websites for years, in a criminal non-prosecution agreement; Google also paid a near record $500m criminal forfeiture penalty. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2...ially-google/2/
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 17th December 2011, 4:47am) QUOTE At bottom, this is a political fight between the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Americans, companies and institutions hurt by rampant piracy versus a small minority of special interests who profit or benefit from the convenience of unfettered piracy, and a small minority of techtopians who politically oppose enforcement of property rights online as a threat to transparency, sharing, freedom of speech and democracy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2...ecially-google/And better yet: QUOTE Google is the only public opponent that is an admitted criminal aider-and-abettor of piracy via rogue websites. Remember, in August, Google admitted to knowingly and repeatedly violating Federal criminal laws against the “unsafe and unlawful importation of prescription drugs†via the promotion of rogue websites for years, in a criminal non-prosecution agreement; Google also paid a near record $500m criminal forfeiture penalty. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2...ially-google/2/Exactly, Lilburne. Which is why it is generally a safe bet that if the Wikimedia Foundation rallies around some cause in the real world, one is more likely to be choosing the more ethically high-minded path by selecting the path not followed by the WMF. I knew I supported the SOPA legislation the moment Jimbo started yammering dramatically about it.
|
|
|
|
Michaeldsuarez |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
|
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 19th December 2011, 4:17pm) So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!
Knowing how popular that mess is, just denying a Googler looking for quick info, once, is all they need to do. I would not be surprised if the single blank page causes a shitstorm of publicity, 4chan threads, hackers trying to break things, etc. to "punish" Wikipedia for not being there. Every time WP goes down, even for one hour, the squawking starts.
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:31am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 19th December 2011, 4:17pm) So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!
Knowing how popular that mess is, just denying a Googler looking for quick info, once, is all they need to do. I would not be surprised if the single blank page causes a shitstorm of publicity, 4chan threads, hackers trying to break things, etc. to "punish" Wikipedia for not being there. Every time WP goes down, even for one hour, the squawking starts. 1 hour without da 'pedia = irritable squawking 8 hours without da 'pedia = frustration and mild panic 24 hours without da 'pedia = anger, frustration and fear 72 hours without da 'pedia = sadness, mild annoyance 1 week without da 'pedia = meh! Who cares, more time for looking at porn. This post has been edited by RMHED:
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:17am) So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!
Tell them to use a Russian proxy address. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
In case you hadn't heard....... Jimbo posted this on his Twitter today. And got tons and tons and tons and tons of favorable publicity. And, apparently, more WMF donations ensued. "Huge balls"? How pathetic. Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:25pm) In case you hadn't heard....... Jimbo posted this on his Twitter today. And got tons and tons and tons and tons of favorable publicity. And, apparently, more WMF donations ensued. "Huge balls"? How pathetic. Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato. Is that just the domain holding service? How much capital expenditure is that for WMF to GoDaddy? Like $1,000 per annum? Such a powerful demonstration of his political might. Whatever happened to that bid for U.S. Senate from Florida, Jimbo?
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th December 2011, 4:25am) Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Including all his girlfriends?
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 24th December 2011, 9:32am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th December 2011, 4:25am) Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Including all his girlfriends? Vibrators. And, artificial insemination. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (Doesn't bother me to mock Jimbo in such a horrible fashion. Because today, I re-read Jimbo Found Out. Still as disgusting as ever. Disturbing that people have already forgotten that happened.)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 7:21am) Dow Lohnes is not registered with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. Neither is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House. Dow Lohnes is now on file for the Wikimedia Foundation with the Senate: QUOTE DOW LOHNES GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES LLC WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. 316013-1005332 ...and with the House: QUOTE 392500056 Dow Lohnes Government Strategies LLC Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2011 Effective date of registration was November 15, 2011. James M. Burger is the lobbying firm's contact.
|
|
|
|
mnemonic |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 51
Joined:
Member No.: 73,792
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:21am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question! Dow Lohnes is not registered with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. Neither is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House. Sounds to me like Jimbo remembered the name of the firm that Godwin told them they should work with, but that the WMF hasn't actually hired them yet, but Jimbo wanted to sound like the Big Man on Capitol Hill, so he started dropping phrases like "our paid lobbyists" when he really meant to say "that lobbying firm that Godwin mentioned we ought to consider working with", because "our paid lobbyists" sounds so much more mature. No Wikipedia article about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Ponyta and Rapidash, and they never successfully lobbied a single case for their clients! Or, it's possible that the WMF only hired Dow Lohnes in the past 44 days: QUOTE (1) General rule No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact, whichever is earlier, or on the first business day after such 45th day if the 45th day is not a business day, such lobbyist (or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. WMF's hiring of Dow Lohnes is public now, as a trivial Google Search can confirm. http://www.dowlohnesgov.com/politico_wikim...t_on_sopa_pipa/
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
|
|
|
|
Michaeldsuarez |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
|
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 15th January 2012, 6:04pm) Acoording to this, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger. But it is going to be an order of magnitude fewer who are likely to have voted for what ever action is decided, exact comparisons depending on whether the closers decide to screen out new or hardly active accounts. What does this say about the (epi-)phenomenon of the "community" that Wikipedians like to pronounce about so often? You think that's bad? Why did they stop updating most of these columns in 2009-2010? Or these? Or these? Except for totals, everything is trending downwards steadily, especially participation. And they're trying to cover it up.
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 16th January 2012, 2:25am) QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 15th January 2012, 9:04pm) Acoording to this, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger. The number of people who look up actors from obscure old TV shows on WP is probably many more orders of magnitude larger than the 5+ crowd. I doubt they're suddenly going to start calling their senators, unless they're tea party people in which case they'll probably call to support the bill because those lefty wikipedians are opposing it and therefore opposing it would be un-american. It reminds me of how trade union branches and university JCRs vote for all sort of causes without the majority of the membership being involved. The cause may sometimes be good (I'm sure that 30 years ago my JCR was voting to do things like condemn arpartheid) but it is the view of a handful of radicals and not that of the membership that are actually represented by the votes.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
NY TimesSlateThis post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:32pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 8th January 2012, 3:20pm) BTW, is a charitable organization that exists on donations allowed to go on strike? Why wouldn't it? Wikipedia can shut down today without any legal consequences. The only legal concern is that they'd have to ensure that any residual property held by the Foundation after it ceased in the furtherance of its charitable purpose was properly conveyed to some other charity or escheated to an appropriate governmental unit. (Well, actually, any restricted gifts would have to be refunded. But the Foundation receives fairly few restricted gifts.) If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 17th January 2012, 5:31am) The whole idea of Wikipedia was to pirate content from traditional information sources, process it just enough to look like it's not completely stolen, and put it all in one place where it's easy to use.
Now we see those traditional sources are starting to dry up, because there's no profit in it anymore.
And Wikipedia won't always be there either, as they make clear 100% by shutting down on 1/18/12.
If anything, the idea that Wikipedia won't always be there, and that these fly-by-night pirate sites managed by greedy post-pornographer slackers are unreliable and won't always be around, pushes me towards supporting some kind of measure to protect real content generators.
That's not even something I want... bureaucrats suck at that crap the only people who would prosper from these regs are the ones getting the gov't funds or helping organizations to comply with what are likely to be reams of stupid rules.
Agreed. What I like is that they've gone from blacking out the USA to a global blackout. There is only one thing that can stop it now, unqualified support for the switching off of Wikipedia from Wikipedia Review. Well, the 18th is one day when we can all rest easy knowing there will be no WikiCrap spouting forth, so bring it on! Perhaps they can make it a daily protest until Government unequivocally refuses to legislate on the Internet ever.
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 17th January 2012, 10:40am) And now "wikiality" comes full circle. Best comment: QUOTE Keep If it is not notable then why bother doing it - surely the whole point of it is to make an impact. Vrenator talk 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, that's hilarious - newsworthy in itself. Maybe I should write an article about the media storm that will occur when they discuss the irony of that article - then someone can AFD that, and the circle will be complete My protest statement: QUOTE Protesting the death of an encyclopedia.
The blackout of the English Wikipedia destroys for ever the concept of its political and geographical neutrality. It means rather than an open group of international contributors, uniting solely round their commitment to writing an encyclopedia, with nothing else implied, Wikipedia is now associated with a particular political position in a particular nation. While many, or most, Wikipedians may happen to hold this political position in common, it ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. Now it is not, a precedent has been set, and something important has died.
Some will say, "but SOPA is so important, and it affects us, so we must do something". But here is my problem. Do I agree with opposing SOPA? Or, do I have a different opinion that makes me wish to disassociate myself from the action that is being taken in the name of the community? Either way, my opinion on a political issue is now pertinent to my association with this community. You asked me a question that ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. That is new. That is wrong. Wikipedians came here united around five pillars - and five pillars only. I was not asked, and do not wish, to negotiate a sixth. Yes I know that, even were I to vocally support SOPA, I would still be welcome here. But that I am even asked the question changes everything. For the first time, Jimbo Wales has asked, and the community has agreed, that we no longer leave our own ideologies at the door.
In protest at this action, and mourning the day that the five pillars ceased to be the sole ideology of Wikipedia, I will not be contributing.
See also, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Yes, even a point you think is righteous.
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
So the strongest action gets supported even though I think more people voted for no action or a weaker form of action. (It would need checking to see exactly how many people appeared in each column.) It also did not reach Wikipedia's normal standards for a concensus. It all reminds me of one of my most extreme encounters with shamocracy.
Way back around the time that the median Wikipedian was being born, Margaret Thatcher had won her third "landslide" election victory (42.2% of votes cast <32% of total electorate). At this point she had started to believe in her political immortality and was becoming increasingly dotty believing that she could introduce anything she wanted. She decided to change local taxation from a property tax to a poll tax.
I joined my local anti-poll tax group. We agreed that we would not be politically alligned and that no political group should distribute their literature from our stall. However, one evening we (or at least that small fraction of the group who bothered to attend weekly meetings) turned up at our meeting to see hordes of people we had never seen before. They voted for us to affiliate to the area anti-poll tax federation which in turn was affiliated to a national federation all of whose leaders belonged to the Militant Tendency, a group which was also in the news around that time for its entryist tactics attempting to take control of the Labour Party. They also elected a representative to the area federation who was not involved in doing any of the real donkey and received no votes from the regular members. He soon started trying to sell Militant from our anti-poll tax stall but his backers never appeared again at another of our meetings and we told him where to go.
The poll tax proved to be Thatcher's downfall. It took rather longer for Tommy Sheridan, the head of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation to eventually get his comeuppance and be jailed for three years for perjury. I haven't a clue what happenned to the non-entity who was our local delegate to the federation, presumably he just disappeared back under a stone somewhere.
In the current situation we have a combination of Jimbo having the same self-belief of Thatcher, Blair, Gaddhaffi and other autocrats who have been in office for too long, with vote flooding by outside activists and with the vast majority of regular Wikipedians not taking part in the vote. The action is portrayed in the news (at least the BBC which I have on) as being by "Wikipedia". In reality it is by an autocrat, a few of his hangers-on and a load of outsiders. The majority of Wikipedians have not expressed their views and no one can know whether they back the action or not.
This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:
|
|
|
|
Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 16th January 2012, 8:13pm) If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities. Which is legally permissible, and even somewhat expected, of charities. A charity may lobby for or against the passage of legislation which has some bearing toward its charitable purpose or methods. QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 16th January 2012, 9:50pm) All those U.S. based donors are only getting 365/366 year's worth of service. Donors are not entitled to any particular level or grade of service. That's why they're called "donors". This is, what, the third or fourth time that Jimmy has disrupted Wikipedia for his own purposes? If you ever doubted that Jimmy still believes that he owns Wikipedia, doubt no more.
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
There's another issue.
In their rush to do this, there's been little thought or contingency planning. En.Wikipedia will be locked, but still readable via mobile (so I'm told). Net result, any vandalism, even libellous vandalism, that is unreverted at shut-down, will necessarily remain for the 24 hour period. No one can correct it, not even OTRS.
If someone, say, puts obscenities on some bearded chap's page, it will be on every mobile phone for 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 17th January 2012, 1:39pm) QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 16th January 2012, 8:13pm) If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities. Which is legally permissible, and even somewhat expected, of charities. A charity may lobby for or against the passage of legislation which has some bearing toward its charitable purpose or methods. I wouldn't say it's expected. It is sometimes allowed, with limits, under 501(h), which Congress added in 1976 (before then anything more than insubstantial lobbying by charities was just plain prohibited). Only a small portion of charities elect 501(h) treatment, and as of the latest published 990 (for the 2009-2010 fiscal year), WMF wasn't one of them. This post has been edited by anthony:
|
|
|
|
Wikicrusher2 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined:
From: "The name of our country is América." -Bolivar
Member No.: 14,796
|
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Wikipedia has several problems, but this is most definitely not one of them. I supported the community's decision to do this. Jimbo Wales has done a fair bit of attention-whoring for the media, as the Sole Founder, and he may be exploiting WP's SOPA blackout for the purposes of self-promotion (as he usually does). However, the blackout was not a unilateral decision by Jimbo or the WMF Board; it was a consensus decision made by English Wikipedians, and they are in the right on this issue. There is no excuse anymore for cowardly submission to violation of our civil liberties, and while I did not participate in the Wikipedia discussion (I left a comment on the blog in support of the decision) I am glad that Wikipedians did not let a commitment to "neutrality" repress their desire to take a stand. Making sharing a crime would be totalitarian. The out-of-touch politicians who insist on pushing this BS and the greedy companies that they serve don't seem to realize that they can't control the Internet. It is unrealistic to even try. Why can't they just accept that the strict definitions of creative content as "property" that they are clinging to have shifted, and can no longer be imposed on everything? Those who wish to sign (one) petition to defend our rights to freely share creative material on the Internet can go here. Google also has a petition to stop SOPA/PIPA (available here. One of its problems is that calls to "end piracy", which insinuates that file sharing is actually a detrimental problem and needs to be banned. The freedom to share artistic works (including music files and movies) online deserves protection, both from digital restrictions management and the government; this right is integral to the survival of a free and open commons on the internet. Regardless of this problems, I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA. Even without these mean-spirited pieces of legislation, digital rights in the US are under threat (as was proven by the ridiculous indictment of MegaUpload, who should have known better than to trust the US government). But that still doesn't mean SOPA and PIPA won't make it worse if passed, they almost surely will. If passed, these pieces of legislation would affect more than just one specific country, because so many international websites are hosted in the US, and because SOPA specifically targets foreign websites for censorship in the US. It heartens me to know that this assault on civil liberties hasn't gone unchallenged.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 17th January 2012, 6:11am) My protest statement: QUOTE Protesting the death of an encyclopedia.
The blackout of the English Wikipedia destroys for ever (sic) the concept of its political and geographical neutrality. It means rather than an open group of international contributors... (blah, blah)...
In protest at this action, and mourning the day that the five pillars ceased to be the sole ideology of Wikipedia, I will not be contributing.
So far, I'm counting nine (9) contributions since your announcement that you would not be contributing. QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.
Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged!
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE So far, I'm counting nine (9) contributions since your announcement that you would not be contributing. You can count! None of them really "contribute" anything to the project. Blame Selina, I had nowhere else to play.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:35am) QUOTE So far, I'm counting nine (9) contributions since your announcement that you would not be contributing. You can count! None of them really "contribute" anything to the project. Blame Selina, I had nowhere else to play. Duly noted. I knew that would be your come-back. Let me know when you're ready to do some paid editing. That's the final stop in Wikipedia-shunning.
|
|
|
|
Wikicrusher2 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined:
From: "The name of our country is América." -Bolivar
Member No.: 14,796
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:26am) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.
Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged! Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. It seems that the United States Government simply will not tolerate free Hollywood movies on servers in its country, so that rules out (at least legally) using US servers. Thankfully, if what you're saying is true about Kazakh servers, the Kazakh government isn't as mean (at least in that regard) as the US.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:26am) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.
Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged! Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. It seems that the United States Government simply will not tolerate free Hollywood movies on servers in its country, so that rules out (at least legally) using US servers. Thankfully, if what you're saying is true about Kazakh servers, the Kazakh government isn't as mean (at least in that regard) as the US. The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you. Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit. Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole. Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort. This post has been edited by Abd:
|
|
|
|
Wikicrusher2 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined:
From: "The name of our country is América." -Bolivar
Member No.: 14,796
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you. Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit. Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole. Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort. Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing. I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place. Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO. This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2:
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 8:14pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you. Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit. Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole. Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort. Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing. I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place. Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO. You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out). Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil..
|
|
|
|
Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 1:28am) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 8:14pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) Hey, nothing wrong with that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Copying is not theft. The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you. Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit. Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole. Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort. Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing. I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place. Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO. You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out). Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil.. Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons. Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years. Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion. Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped. SBJ, your arguments are crap.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 1:28am) You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out).
Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil..
Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons. Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years. Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion. Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped. SBJ, your arguments are crap. I didn't say I'm particularly endeared to the present copyright system, I just don't think you serve your case well by defending people who really are selling/swapping/etc. pirated movies, cds, books, or whatever. I suspect most of the hot trade is not in materials that are 70+ years old. QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 10:28pm) QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.
...need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.
Two hundred years ago (in the U.S.) a copyright lasted for 14 years, and if you were still alive at the end of it, you'd get another 14-year extension. So, 28 years. Vigilant, would you say in your obviously expert opinion that if we were to return to the old 14+14 plan, we'd be fine, or would that also be the evil work of a totalitarian regime? That's certainly more reasonable, though it might need a bit of adjusting because of the rather big changes in life expectancy since the early 1800s. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |