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

[Ottava]

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.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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?

[SB_Johnny]

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?

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[SB_Johnny]

Apparently the God-King approves:

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

[Adrignola]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/069299.html

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.

[Kelly Martin]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/069299.html

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Exactly right, Kelly.

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.

[carbuncle]

Someone has observed that the it.wiki action could precipitate a similar de.wiki action over the imposition of an image filter. Now that would be interesting.

[Ottava]

Someone has observed 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.

[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

[Detective]

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

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Com...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.

[The Adversary]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[HRIP7]

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 didn't actually say that.

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.

[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)

[SB_Johnny]

Someone has observed 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.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.

[SB_Johnny]

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).

[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.

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 this article referrers to this Facebook page but that is hardly cooperating with others. But I got lots more articles before 14:00 EDT.

This article says "Protesters gathered near parliament with their mouths taped shut" but make no connection between that protest and any Wikipedian.

This one 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.

This article has a whopper: "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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454060507:

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=...oldid=454081456:

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=...oldid=454055761

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454149652

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Silver seren]

Any law that based on the person in charge trying to cover up their own corruption is a law i'm opposed to, personally. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Any law that based on the person in charge trying to cover up their own corruption is a law i'm opposed to, personally. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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

[The Joy]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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."

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454055761

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454149652

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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=...oldid=454204900

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454099232

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

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[GlassBeadGame]

They seem to have returned to editing cartoon and video game articles.

[Kelly Martin]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

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...go_di_rettifica

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar...oni_e_Wikipedia

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar...tiriamo_le_fila

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._nel_sitenotice

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._brutte_notizie

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar...ultime_speranze

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

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._29_e_Wikipedia

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

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar...intercettazioni

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

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar...ella_situazione

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[SB_Johnny]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If I understand what happened (hard with language barrier and all):

• WMF and en.wikipedia softened their initial support for the shut down (Wales: "not well informed")
  
• The shutdown was not as universally accepted, even on it.wikipedia, as represented.
  
• The "shut-her-downers" overstated some aspects of the proposed law.
  
• Either the "shut-her-downers" corrected their misunderstand/exaggerations or the Italian lawmaker clarified the proposed law to apply to only newspaper owned or similar sites, not blogs social media etc.
  
• The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.

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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

• The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._29_e_Wikipedia:

• 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...a_di_riapertura

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[SB_Johnny]

• The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._29_e_Wikipedia:

• 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...a_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.

[SB_Johnny]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

• The "shut-her-downers" abandoned their efforts, retaining only some click through information about the matter.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar..._29_e_Wikipedia:

• 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...a_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?