Italian Wikipedia blocks all access Options

[Adrignola]

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-wikip...tapping-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:Com...ottobre_2011/en

[Michaeldsuarez]

Wikimedia has published a statement:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regar...lian-wikipedia/

And a Wikinews sysop retired because of it:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=U...6&oldid=1288957

[EricBarbour]

And a Wikinews sysop retired because of it:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=U...6&oldid=1288957

More pathetic words of arrogant cluelessness were never spoken.

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) "neutral point of view". Imbecile.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[melloden]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[SB_Johnny]

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.

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

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.