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)