Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ International _ Italian Wikipedia blocks all access

Posted by: Adrignola Tue 4th October 2011, 8:35pm

The users of the Italian Wikipedia have blocked all read and write access to http://it.wikipedia.org in protest of a possible law that is being discussed in the Italian Parliament.

News: http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10

Foundation-l thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/252490

The page all users are redirected to (English version):

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en

Posted by: Ottava Tue 4th October 2011, 9:10pm

That is ridiculous. The WMF should remove the people doing that and instead restore what was taken down. Italian Wiki is more than just residents of Italy, and the servers are in the US. It is time the silly political stuff dealing with Europeans should be put to an end.

If people are concerned about the Italians coming under fire, they will come under fire on -any- Wiki. So ban all Italian IPs and not the Italian wiki.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Tue 4th October 2011, 9:17pm

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Tue 4th October 2011, 2:35pm) *

The users of the Italian Wikipedia have blocked all read and write access to http://it.wikipedia.org in protest of a possible law that is being discussed in the Italian Parliament.

News: http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10

Foundation-l thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/252490

The page all users are redirected to (English version):

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en


While I mourn this setback of the Italian people's free speech rights I will be interested to see if what happens as the nation sees it can get by just fine without Wikipedia. Wikipedians are always overestimation their own importance. This fight will be carried out by the institutions (the press media universities) that represent politically significant speech. The free culture kiddies will back down as soon as they start jonesing to edit video game and cartoon articles.

Remember the "Free the DVD Hashcode" incident?

Posted by: SB_Johnny Tue 4th October 2011, 9:29pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 4th October 2011, 5:17pm) *

Well I mourn this setback of the Italian people's free speech rights I will be interested to see if what happens as the nation sees it can get by just fine without Wikipedia. Wikipedians are always overestimation their own importance. This fight will be carried out by the institutions (the press media universities) that represent politically significant speech. The free culture kiddies will back down as soon as they start jonesing to edit video game and cartoon articles.

Remember the "Free the DVD Hashcode" incident?

Is the Italian WP as pop culture oriented as the English one?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Tue 4th October 2011, 9:53pm

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 4th October 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 4th October 2011, 5:17pm) *

Well I mourn this setback of the Italian people's free speech rights I will be interested to see if what happens as the nation sees it can get by just fine without Wikipedia. Wikipedians are always overestimation their own importance. This fight will be carried out by the institutions (the press media universities) that represent politically significant speech. The free culture kiddies will back down as soon as they start jonesing to edit video game and cartoon articles.

Remember the "Free the DVD Hashcode" incident?

Is the Italian WP as pop culture oriented as the English one?


Don't know but free culture wikis breed obsessive fanboy stuff by their very nature. If not those exact types then something else. We could look at a dozen random pages and check but...well you know.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Tue 4th October 2011, 11:44pm

Apparently the God-King approves:

QUOTE
I'm supportive. I think the Italians are moving rather more quickly than we would, and making a more dramatic gesture than we would, but that's ok: they're Italians and that's awesome. Their interpretation of the law is correct, based on reports I have from various people, and so it's worthwhile to make the point really BIG in Italy, and around the world: freedom of expression matters, if the world wants to have Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Because, you know, "they're Italians and that's awesome". Yup, lots of hot brunettes in Italy. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Adrignola Tue 4th October 2011, 11:59pm

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069299.html

QUOTE
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
though, and definitely not true for the communities.

But guess how the media will see this situation? Seems like this is the best avenue yet for those seeking revocation of non-profit status to fulfill their desires.

Posted by: Kelly Martin Wed 5th October 2011, 12:18am

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Tue 4th October 2011, 6:59pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069299.html

QUOTE
The WMF isn't allowed to lobby for or against legislation, per our 501c3
non-profit status in the US. This is not necessarily true for chapters
though, and definitely not true for the communities.

But guess how the media will see this situation? Seems like this is the best avenue yet for those seeking revocation of non-profit status to fulfill their desires.
The statement is also wrong. Non-profits may lobby for or against legislation, when the legislation is relevant to their purpose as a non-profit; virtually all responsible non-profits have, at some time, issued a policy statement related to some proposed legislation, and some non-profits do little but. What non-profits may absolutely not do is campaign for or against a candidate for office.

In any case, whoever said that the WMF is not permitted to lobby for or against legislation (apparently Ryan Kaldari) is an idiot. But we already knew that.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 5th October 2011, 1:12am

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 4th October 2011, 6:18pm) *

Non-profits may lobby for or against legislation, when the legislation is relevant to their purpose as a non-profit



Exactly right, Kelly.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 4th October 2011, 6:18pm) *

In any case, whoever said that the WMF is not permitted to lobby for or against legislation (apparently Ryan Kaldari) is an idiot. But we already knew that.


I have not read that list before this incident in many months. If possible they are more stupid and self involved than ever.

Posted by: carbuncle Wed 5th October 2011, 1:32pm

Someone has http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069317.html that the it.wiki action could precipitate a similar de.wiki action over the imposition of an image filter. Now that would be interesting.

Posted by: Ottava Wed 5th October 2011, 2:06pm

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 5th October 2011, 9:32am) *

Someone has http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069317.html that the it.wiki action could precipitate a similar de.wiki action over the imposition of an image filter. Now that would be interesting.


Closing de.wiki isn't fair because it is just users who state they don't want to be part of it. I propose a mandatory forking, aka, kicking them off the island, and make it irrevocable. If people have a complaint where you feel the only solution is to destroy the Wiki, scramble your password and go. That would be the best solution for everyone.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Wed 5th October 2011, 2:58pm

Wikimedia has published a statement:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wikipedia/

And a Wikinews sysop retired because of it:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dendodge&diff=1295186&oldid=1288957

Posted by: Detective Wed 5th October 2011, 3:23pm

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Tue 4th October 2011, 9:35pm) *

The page all users are redirected to (English version):

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en

Note that this page is signed "The users of Wikipedia", as if there were unanimity or at least "consensus" among the users. As someone with hundreds of edits on the Italian site, I can reasonably consider myself one of those users. Yet I was not consulted. For that matter, there must be thousands, maybe millions, of people who consult the site without editing it. Are they not users? Guess how many of them were consulted.

Posted by: The Adversary Wed 5th October 2011, 7:07pm

The servers of wp are in the US (AFAIK), and wp is a US foundation. In short: not under Italian laws. However; from what I understand, this law most of all affect those people who live/edit in Italy. Correct me if I´m wrong, I understand it that the Italian state (with this new law) can look up your IP, then find "RealLife" you, and instruct you to do certain edits. Or be fined.

No wonder the Italian editors are up in arms.

Also, quite interesting (and depressing!) to know that with all the totalitarian regimes in the world; the first to actually manage to shut up Wikipedia was an old Italian billionare pig who doesn´t want the details of his piggish way public.

As they say: money don´t talk, they scream.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 5th October 2011, 7:39pm

QUOTE(The Adversary @ Wed 5th October 2011, 1:07pm) *

The servers of wp are in the US (AFAIK), and wp is a US foundation. In short: not under Italian laws. However; from what I understand, this law most of all affect those people who live/edit in Italy. Correct me if I´m wrong, I understand it that the Italian state (with this new law) can look up your IP, then find "RealLife" you, and instruct you to do certain edits. Or be fined.



This reasoning seems internally inconsistent. If you are saying that WMF is beyond the reach of the law but not those editors living in Italy then you might be correct. It looks like the law is some sort of "take down notice" or "retraction demand" that addresses an expansive sort of defamation rather than copyright. It might work like a DMCA notice. It gives the writer a chance to clean up the statement and avoid penalties. This is not really the same as affirmatively telling people what to say. It probably is some more Berlusconi mischief but I don't doubt it could be argued better than we are likely to see here.

Posted by: HRIP7 Wed 5th October 2011, 9:35pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 5th October 2011, 8:39pm) *

QUOTE(The Adversary @ Wed 5th October 2011, 1:07pm) *

The servers of wp are in the US (AFAIK), and wp is a US foundation. In short: not under Italian laws. However; from what I understand, this law most of all affect those people who live/edit in Italy. Correct me if I´m wrong, I understand it that the Italian state (with this new law) can look up your IP, then find "RealLife" you, and instruct you to do certain edits. Or be fined.



This reasoning seems internally inconsistent. If you are saying that WMF is beyond the reach of the law but not those editors living in Italy then you might be correct. It looks like the law is some sort of "take down notice" or "retraction demand" that addresses an expansive sort of defamation rather than copyright. It might work like a DMCA notice. It gives the writer a chance to clean up the statement and avoid penalties. This is not really the same as affirmatively telling people what to say. It probably is some more Berlusconi mischief but I don't doubt it could be argued better than we are likely to see here.

As far as I can tell, the law only requires people to post a correction in the same format as the original piece of news that the subject took exception to.

The Italian statement originally asserted that people could demand removal of offending content. Someone noticed that the proposed law http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=43934772&oldid=43934752 actually http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011%2Fen&action=historysubmit&diff=43934773&oldid=43934765.

The 48-hour time frame (don't ever leave your computer if you blog about Berlusconi) and the level of fines that could theoretically be imposed do seem nuts though.

Posted by: EricBarbour Wed 5th October 2011, 9:54pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 5th October 2011, 7:58am) *
And a Wikinews sysop retired because of it:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dendodge&diff=1295186&oldid=1288957

More pathetic words of arrogant cluelessness were never spoken.
QUOTE
I may be back, if and when a neutral point of view - one of the Foundation's core principles, and perhaps the most important - is returned to its prior position as a prime tenet by which the communities function.

laugh.gif "neutral point of view". Imbecile.

Posted by: melloden Wed 5th October 2011, 10:10pm

I find it interesting that the WMF supports a site's consensus to completely block off all their content to readers, yet blocked the recently proposed trial that would restrict article creation to autoconfirmed users.

I also find it a bit surprising that they're choosing to take a political stand now, when they don't seem to care much in other cases.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 5th October 2011, 10:52pm

I wonder if WMF Wikipedian and the Free Kulture Klan could get over themselves long enough to realize that this law is not about them? It may indeed limit free speech in a meaningful way. It may even effect it.wikipedia. It might even be something that deserves serious and sustained opposition. But why only more navel gazing? I have heard nothing about working together with the broader social forces in Italy to oppose this law. That would require discipline patience and self restraint. It is more the Wiki Way to respond with a self contained stunt involving only the thin ether of their own site.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Wed 5th October 2011, 11:16pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 5th October 2011, 6:52pm) *

I wonder if WMF Wikipedian and the Free Kulture Klan could get over themselves long enough to realize that this law is not about them? It may indeed limit free speech in a meaningful way. It may even effect it.wikipedia. It might even be something that deserves serious and sustained opposition. But why only more navel gazing? I have heard nothing about working together with the broader social forces in Italy to oppose this law. That would require discipline patience and self restraint. It is more the Wiki Way to respond with a self contained stunt involving only the thin ether of their own site.

I'm probably just as surprised as you are about this, but the Italian wikipediots do seem to be doing real outreach, according to some of the newsfeed scrapes.

OTOH, all of the above is spot on regarding the bandwagonny endorsements by the WMF and Jimmy.

QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 5th October 2011, 11:23am) *

Note that this page is signed "The users of Wikipedia", as if there were unanimity or at least "consensus" among the users. As someone with hundreds of edits on the Italian site, I can reasonably consider myself one of those users. Yet I was not consulted. For that matter, there must be thousands, maybe millions, of people who consult the site without editing it. Are they not users? Guess how many of them were consulted.

7.5? Am I close? evilgrin.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny Wed 5th October 2011, 11:21pm

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 5th October 2011, 9:32am) *

Someone has http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069317.html that the it.wiki action could precipitate a similar de.wiki action over the imposition of an image filter. Now that would be interesting.

All it takes is one of the FKK admins on en.wp to smoke a bit more pot than usual and get the idea change the common.js page to protest something or other that the WMF has done. He'd be blocked and stripped pretty quickly, but then there would be an uproar and probably copycats.

Those who want to hasten the day should spread that .js file around. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 5th October 2011, 11:37pm

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 5th October 2011, 5:16pm) *


I'm probably just as surprised as you are about this, but the Italian wikipediots do seem to be doing real outreach, according to some of the newsfeed scrapes.



Could you point those out? I started to wade through the news pile but it was soon obvious that this would be no fun.

Of course the best evidence of Wikipedian cooperation would be articles/press releases from other entities saying so or listing them in with others in their coalition. Just saying "we work with them" doesn't even confirm that they know anything about it.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Wed 5th October 2011, 11:45pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 5th October 2011, 7:37pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 5th October 2011, 5:16pm) *


I'm probably just as surprised as you are about this, but the Italian wikipediots do seem to be doing real outreach, according to some of the newsfeed scrapes.


Could you point those out? I started to wade through the news pile but it was soon obvious that this would be no fun.

Of course the best evidence of Wikipedian cooperation would be articles/press releases from other entities saying so or listing them in with others in their coalition. Just saying "we work with them" doesn't even confirm that they know anything about it.

It's in one of the ones before early afternoon today (14:00 EDT or so) ... apparently they have a petition and some "off wiki" social media thing going. I read quite a few of them before giving up and herding all the little kitties into the one thread (and there's been very little else picked up today).

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 12:25am

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 5th October 2011, 5:45pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 5th October 2011, 7:37pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 5th October 2011, 5:16pm) *


I'm probably just as surprised as you are about this, but the Italian wikipediots do seem to be doing real outreach, according to some of the newsfeed scrapes.


Could you point those out? I started to wade through the news pile but it was soon obvious that this would be no fun.

Of course the best evidence of Wikipedian cooperation would be articles/press releases from other entities saying so or listing them in with others in their coalition. Just saying "we work with them" doesn't even confirm that they know anything about it.

It's in one of the ones before early afternoon today (14:00 EDT or so) ... apparently they have a petition and some "off wiki" social media thing going. I read quite a few of them before giving up and herding all the little kitties into the one thread (and there's been very little else picked up today).


Fun Fun. Fun. Are all these popups javascript or do make Flash look like js? Anyway http://www.groundreport.com/World/Wikipedia-blaks-out-its-home-page-in-Italy-to-prot/2941736referrers to http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rivogliamo-Wikipedia-No-alla-legge-bavaglio/185745561500946 but that is hardly cooperating with others. But I got lots more articles before 14:00 EDT.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2011/10/05/18784776.html says "Protesters gathered near parliament with their mouths taped shut" but make no connection between that protest and any Wikipedian.

http://www.sknvibes.com/news/newsdetails.cfm/44744 has a two year old pic of Mr.Wales that could also be pressed into service for an article on Hank Williams Jr. raving that Obama is Hitler.

http://technorati.com/technology/article/italian-wikipedia-hidden-in-protest-of/"Wikipedia has been around for a decade now, and the site says its own internal review board has properly handled such issues in the past and asserts that there’s no reason for a law to handle them"

And that all folks. Every news feed for whole day 12mn until now. No sign of working with others AFAIK.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Thu 6th October 2011, 2:33am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=454061674&oldid=454060507:

QUOTE
I'm told that this was under discussion in the Italian community for months, and I trust that they are just as analytical and thorough as we are, so I don't think they got the law wrong, nor took the action lightly. However, they didn't let me know or the Foundation know or other communities know, so it wasn't possible to get them wider support and more "eyes on the problem" beforehand.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=454082444&oldid=454081456:

QUOTE
I think it's safe to say that, in the main, the advice the Foundation is getting is mainly from the Italian Wikipedia community. I think it's safe to say that, no, the Foundation is not well-informed on the matter, and that they received no advance warning. I consider that to be sub-optimal, obviously, but second-guessing the community in the midst of a breaking news story would send a really false signal.


Jimbo and the WMF apparently believes anything Wikipedians tell them without checking the facts or investigating.

Meanwhile, some Wikipedians are trying to figure out what's the law is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=454055761

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=454149652

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=454134810

I'm unfamiliar with Italian law and the proposed law, so I won't comment on who's right or wrong, but I think it's safe to say that the Foundations is making a mistake by not doing some legal research before making statements and taking sides.

Posted by: Silver seren Thu 6th October 2011, 3:11am

Any law that based on the person in charge trying to cover up their own corruption is a law i'm opposed to, personally. hrmph.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 3:23am

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 5th October 2011, 9:11pm) *

Any law that based on the person in charge trying to cover up their own corruption is a law i'm opposed to, personally. hrmph.gif


Now all you need do is pick out that just-so-right color ribbon and put it on your Wikipedia userpage.

Posted by: The Joy Thu 6th October 2011, 3:53am

So, if I'm an Italian and I put a picture of Mussolini on Berlusconi's* Italian Wikipedia article, I personally have 48 hours to remove it. If that does not happen, I would be fined, but would all Italian Wikipedians be fined because they did not revert in time?

*Firefox says the spelling should be "Berliners." How disturbingly coincidental. wacko.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 4:21am

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 5th October 2011, 9:53pm) *

So, if I'm an Italian and I put a picture of Mussolini on Berlusconi's* Italian Wikipedia article, I personally have 48 hours to remove it. If that does not happen, I would be fined, but would all Italian Wikipedians be fined because they did not revert in time?

*Firefox says the spelling should be "Berliners." How disturbingly coincidental. wacko.gif



I don't speak Italian and I'm not going to look at the relevant statutes but my guess is a take down notice is sent. If you comply it is over. If not then you can be prosecuted. I'm pretty sure Italy is still far enough in rule-of-law camp that that means you can defend with lawyer judges hearings witnesses etc at that point. I don't know what the elements of the offense are or what defenses are available. But I'm pretty sure the Wikipedians are not accurately representing it. Democracies generally don't even have the machinery needed to collect extra judicial "fines."

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Thu 6th October 2011, 12:42pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 5th October 2011, 10:33pm) *

Meanwhile, some Wikipedians are trying to figure out what's the law is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=454055761

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=454149652

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=454134810

I'm unfamiliar with Italian law and the proposed law, so I won't comment on who's right or wrong, but I think it's safe to say that the Foundations is making a mistake by not doing some legal research before making statements and taking sides.


More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=454205892&oldid=454204900

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=454112916&oldid=454099232

Meanwhile, the Italians are apparently trying to work out the kinks in their bill:

http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 2:58pm

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park

Posted by: Kelly Martin Thu 6th October 2011, 3:06pm

Expect the Wikipedioids to take all the credit for whatever changes are made to the bill.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 3:13pm

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th October 2011, 9:06am) *

Expect the Wikipedioids to take all the credit for whatever changes are made to the bill.


...and to bail if the rights of any non-Wikipedians are impaired.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Thu 6th October 2011, 3:45pm

QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 5th October 2011, 11:23am) *

Note that this page is signed "The users of Wikipedia", as if there were unanimity or at least "consensus" among the users. As someone with hundreds of edits on the Italian site, I can reasonably consider myself one of those users. Yet I was not consulted. For that matter, there must be thousands, maybe millions, of people who consult the site without editing it. Are they not users? Guess how many of them were consulted.


Here are the discussions you missed out on:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Obbligo_di_rettifica

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Legge_intercettazioni_e_Wikipedia

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Protesta_di_it.wiki_per_il_DDL_intercettazioni:_tiriamo_le_fila

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comunicato_DDL_rettifiche_nel_sitenotice

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Rettifiche,_brutte_notizie

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Intercettazioni:_ultime_speranze

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Obbligo_di_rettifica,_ci_risiamo

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia

Here's a petition signed by slightly over 300 Wikipedians:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comunicato_di_WMI_riguardante_il_DDL_intercettazioni

Edit: Here's a link to the current discussion:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Sciopero:_il_punto_della_situazione

Posted by: SB_Johnny Thu 6th October 2011, 6:13pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 11:13am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th October 2011, 9:06am) *

Expect the Wikipedioids to take all the credit for whatever changes are made to the bill.


...and to bail if the rights of any non-Wikipedians are impaired.

...and for the WMF to bail even quicker if any of their "editors" actually gets sued. dry.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 6:41pm

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 6th October 2011, 12:13pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 11:13am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th October 2011, 9:06am) *

Expect the Wikipedioids to take all the credit for whatever changes are made to the bill.


...and to bail if the rights of any non-Wikipedians are impaired.

...and for the WMF to bail even quicker if any of their "editors" actually gets sued. dry.gif

If I understand what happened (hard with language barrier and all):So once the world was free for WoW and Transformer articles the "shut-her-downers" turned out to be not so interested in free speech after all. Of course newspapers, already undermined by Wikipedia and social media, are a much more socially important protector from anti-democratic forces. They seem to be on their own as far WP and FKK is concerned.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Thu 6th October 2011, 9:35pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 2:41pm) *
  • The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia:

QUOTE
  • La proposta è di chiudere per un giorno it.wiki facendo sì che si visualizzi solo questo comunicato (sul quale si accetta ogni genere di parere ma per cortesia in pagina di discussione), previo (ovviamente) consenso comunitario e di WMF.
  • Una misura più soft è quella di ficcare il comunicato sopra ogni voce per una giornata.


The protest was meant to only last a day (24 hours). They didn't "abandon" anything. In fact, some were calling for a 48-hour blackout:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Sciopero:_il_punto_della_situazione#Pareri_sulla_tempistica_di_riapertura

Posted by: SB_Johnny Thu 6th October 2011, 9:41pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 6th October 2011, 5:35pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 2:41pm) *
  • The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia:

QUOTE
  • La proposta è di chiudere per un giorno it.wiki facendo sì che si visualizzi solo questo comunicato (sul quale si accetta ogni genere di parere ma per cortesia in pagina di discussione), previo (ovviamente) consenso comunitario e di WMF.
  • Una misura più soft è quella di ficcare il comunicato sopra ogni voce per una giornata.


The protest was meant to only last a day (24 hours). They didn't "abandon" anything. In fact, some were calling for a 48-hour blackout:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Sciopero:_il_punto_della_situazione#Pareri_sulla_tempistica_di_riapertura

Hey, we're all in awe that you can read Italian. You are awesome! Really, really, AWESOME!!!

Maybe you can offer some translations and/or synopses rather than lists of links that the vast majority here can't read. I mean, that would be even more awesome.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Thu 6th October 2011, 9:49pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 2:41pm) *

So once the world was free for WoW and Transformer articles the "shut-her-downers" turned out to be not so interested in free speech after all. Of course newspapers, already undermined by Wikipedia and social media, are a much more socially important protector from anti-democratic forces. They seem to be on their own as far WP and FKK is concerned.

It's actually rather interesting (to me) that the "traditional" media tends to always say nice fluffy things about WP and the WMF, when they either don't give a crap about and/or are actively hostile to the "traditional" media unless they're pawns in some sort of argument about how best to (mis)represent the topic of a given article they want to spin.

I think the majority of the FKK crowd can usually be forgiven under the "they know not what they do" clause, but the knee-jerk support and passive-aggressive backing off by the WMF was done by people who should damn well know better.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 6th October 2011, 10:31pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 6th October 2011, 3:35pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 2:41pm) *
  • The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia:

QUOTE
  • La proposta è di chiudere per un giorno it.wiki facendo sì che si visualizzi solo questo comunicato (sul quale si accetta ogni genere di parere ma per cortesia in pagina di discussione), previo (ovviamente) consenso comunitario e di WMF.
  • Una misura più soft è quella di ficcare il comunicato sopra ogni voce per una giornata.


The protest was meant to only last a day (24 hours). They didn't "abandon" anything. In fact, some were calling for a 48-hour blackout:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Sciopero:_il_punto_della_situazione#Pareri_sulla_tempistica_di_riapertura


Of course they bailed. If not what are they doing to protect the free speech rights of the newspapers and the other sites still on the line? Also thanks for earlier posting the same link without elaboration or translation. You know the whole "blackout" was juvenile and petulant, right? How would more of that help anyone?

Posted by: Kelly Martin Thu 6th October 2011, 10:45pm

I've never thought much of "protest strikes" and the like. If you're serious, then you go on strike until your demands are met. Going on strike for 24 hours is just a stunt.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Fri 7th October 2011, 1:09pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:31pm) *

You know the whole "blackout" was juvenile and petulant, right? How would more of that help anyone?


QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:45pm) *

I've never thought much of "protest strikes" and the like. If you're serious, then you go on strike until your demands are met. Going on strike for 24 hours is just a stunt.


Yes, I know that it was a juvenile, attention-seeking stunt:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/Media

They do something that gains the attention of the media, the media spreads news of "Fascism returning to Italy," and readers of the media scream, "FREE SPEECH." They didn't need to go on for longer than 24 hours because they gained the media's attention in less than 24 hours. They've turned Wikipedia into an effective tool for political activists.

I'm not going to comment on whether the stunt was wrong or not until I understand whether or not Wikipedia was actually endangered. I'm also wondering if Wikipedia had anything to do with http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law being made to the bill. If so, then the stunt might have resulted in something positive.

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:31pm) *

Of course they bailed. If not what are they doing to protect the free speech rights of the newspapers and the other sites still on the line?


Because they believe or they're claiming to believe that the protest was an act of self-preservation rather than activism. Defending non-WMF properties wouldn't be in line with the self-preservation line of thinking.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 6th October 2011, 5:41pm) *

Hey, we're all in awe that you can read Italian. You are awesome! Really, really, AWESOME!!!

Maybe you can offer some translations and/or synopses rather than lists of links that the vast majority here can't read. I mean, that would be even more awesome.


I'd rather have you use Google Translate so that you could make your own judgments than to have you depend on my judgments and interpretations alone.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Fri 7th October 2011, 1:56pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 7th October 2011, 7:09am) *



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:31pm) *

Of course they bailed. If not what are they doing to protect the free speech rights of the newspapers and the other sites still on the line?


Because they believe or they're claiming to believe that the protest was an act of self-preservation rather than activism. Defending non-WMF properties wouldn't be in line with the self-preservation line of thinking.



More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28reality_show%29

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Fri 7th October 2011, 2:50pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 7th October 2011, 9:56am) *

More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28reality_show%29


I believe that Wikipedia has the right to defend itself, but I don't believe that Wikipedia has the right to be used for activism. The Wikipedia community, on the hand, has the right to advocate changes in government, as long as they're not using Wikipedia or the Wikipedia name in order to do it (ie. activity outside of Wikipedia). Each individual Wikipedian has the right to express their views. They can create blogs and use Twitter in order to show their opposition to the public and help non-WMF publications.

Also, Wikipedia did help newspapers. Wikipedia turned local Italian concerns into international news. They drew international attention to the proposed law. Wikipedia's "weapon" is the spreading of information, and they used it well. Wikipedia passed the torch to the media, who in turn, passed it to an international community of vocal free speech advocates. Silvio Berlusconi and his bill are now under international scrutiny.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Fri 7th October 2011, 4:34pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 7th October 2011, 8:50am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 7th October 2011, 9:56am) *

More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28reality_show%29


I believe that Wikipedia has the right to defend itself, but I don't believe that Wikipedia has the right to be used for activism. The Wikipedia community, on the hand, has the right to advocate changes in government, as long as they're not using Wikipedia or the Wikipedia name in order to do it (ie. activity outside of Wikipedia). Each individual Wikipedian has the right to express their views. They can create blogs and use Twitter in order to show their opposition to the public and help non-WMF publications.

Also, Wikipedia did help newspapers. Wikipedia turned local Italian concerns into international news. They drew international attention to the proposed law. Wikipedia's "weapon" is the spreading of information, and they used it well. Wikipedia passed the torch to the media, who in turn, passed it to an international community of vocal free speech advocates. Silvio Berlusconi and his bill are now under international scrutiny.


Bullshit. You have your head so far up Wikipedia's ass you have no sense or reality at all. Wikipedians live in an isolated fantasy world of self importance. A few pieces of over scrapped techie press coverage, because it was a slow day on Baxter sightings, and the delusions of adequacy kick in . "Pass the torch to media?" Really? You caused scrutiny? Really? All I would ask is to participate as part of a wider social action for free speech. Just act responsible for a change. Be a part of something outside yourselves. It is much more fun I guess to engage in the delusion that you are the vanguard leadership of intergalactic struggle for free culture. Pathetic.

Posted by: thekohser Fri 7th October 2011, 4:54pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 7th October 2011, 10:50am) *

Silvio Berlusconi and his bill are now under international scrutiny.


His bill http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silvio_Berlusconi&diff=next&oldid=236291724 being scrutinized by Wikipedia.

(That stood on Wikipedia for over 5 months, largely because it wasn't visible in the rendered template.)

Posted by: Abd Sat 8th October 2011, 7:52pm

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 5th October 2011, 10:58am) *
Wikimedia has published a statement:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wikipedia/
Mindless rot. Demonstrates WMF incompetence. What was really needed? A sober legal analysis of the impact of the Italian law, providing sound advice for Italian Wikipedia editors and administrators. While the huge amount of content generated about this issue might contain it somewhere, I sure haven't seen it. It should be created by an Italian lawyer and should represent the consensus of such available lawyers.

Otherwise this is all uninformed hysteria. I've seen this very kind of hysteria from steward-checkusers, and, in fact, I'm currently banned at meta, a minor inconvenience at worst, because of pointing it out to some of the very users who are wringing their hands over this mess, such as Millosh. If anyone is interested, see User talk for Marco Aurelio, where I asked Marco (the former Dferg) to explain a comment of his about my alleged "misrepresentations." He refused, and when I responded "suit yourself," dropping it, he demanded I be blocked indef. And then the mob shouts and waves the pitchforks, and very few actually look at the diffs presented. After all, why bother? We all know what a tendentious jerk Abd is, after all, he questioned my position a couple of times. Can you imagine that?
QUOTE
And a Wikinews sysop retired because of it:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dendodge&diff=1295186&oldid=1288957
Yeah. Clear statement about neutrality policy. He's absolutely correct. Neutrality be damned. Worse, the WMF's own nonprofit status *could* be in question as a result of that WMF statement, though the situation has been shifting in the U.S, and there are lots of loopholes. This is the WMF attempting to influence Italian lawmakers, or it could be seen that way.

Independent associations of users could advocate for or against legislation, but ... the WMF may not be thrilled to allow such associations, with enough power to accomplish something, to exist. Maybe chapters can do it, if they are legally independent.

From what I've seen so far, there is no threat at all to either the WMF or to Italian users from the Italian law. It's wiki-hysteria. I've seen similar hysteria about "copyvio." Which, unless actually and officially encouraged, creates no hazard at all for the WMF, provided it merely responds properly to take-down notices, which, one might notice, would be far more efficient than holding massive discussions about each marginal copyvio. (And, yes, there are other issues, but, as well, some serious and common misunderstandings of copyright law among many who voice strong opinions in those discussions.)

One way to look at this situation is as a collective intelligence test. At one time, for enwiki, the user base would include enough experts, who were respected, that these nutso discussions would terminate with some sensible decision. Increasingly, those experts have burned out and what is left is ... what is willing to continue pushing the boulder up the hill.

Posted by: Anonymous editor Fri 15th September 2017, 7:20pm

Bizarre