[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Tilman Bayer
Forwarding, as this doesn't yet seem to have made it through from the
Announce list (possibly because of the HTML content; but trying anyway. The
message can also be read at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2012-August/000450.html
 ).


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geoff Brigham <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Geoff Brigham <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:34:05 -0700
Subject: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Hi all,

Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
 That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
review process in place, especially where there is strong community
interest in an issue.

To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
Affiliations Guideline<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
political issues.  This guideline is an internal “rule of thumb” covering
requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

We are also establishing an open Advocacy Advisory Group to provide a
community venue to discuss political and legislative developments worldwide
that affect our mission, such as censorship laws and proposals that seek to
restrict a free and open Internet.

The new guideline incorporates consultation with the Advocacy Advisory
Group into the review process.  With the most important cases, WMF will
also seek a community Request for
Comments<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RFC>(RfC) for consultation or
consensus.

We encourage community members interested in political and policy issues to
join the Advocacy Advisory Group, and members should feel free to apply to
be moderators. You can join the advisory group here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors .

If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on the talk page. You can
find the guideline at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline

Cheers,

Geoff

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation


--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

MZMcBride-2
Geoff Brigham wrote:

> Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> interest in an issue.
>
> To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
> in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> Affiliations
> Guideline<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
> on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Philippe Beaudette-2
Hi MZ -

I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't impact community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to the Foundation.  It seems logical that there be a uniform process for routing those internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the community what that process is. The alternative is to have no policy for handling it and make it up every time.

Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out at the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or adjust the policy in some way?

PB
-----------------------
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: MZMcBride <[hidden email]>
Sender: [hidden email]
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations
 Guideline

Geoff Brigham wrote:

> Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> interest in an issue.
>
> To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
> in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> Affiliations
> Guideline<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
> on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

metasj
There has been discussion about this in the past.

To second Philippe's comment:  A uniform process makes sense.  In practice,
most of the advocacy or policy positions of the WMF have for years taken
the form of amicus briefs.  And positions the WMF takes on behalf of
promoting, preserving, or collaborating on free knowledge fall under the
mandate of the LCA team (since this spring).

So we're starting from a position where that team has the most experience
and day-to-day concern with such positions.  And there is no t yet an
organized community body that tracks such things - despite the idea of an
advocacy advisory group.

I do think there are quite a lot of different staff with "approval" in the
current guideline.  Must it be so time-consuming?  And I would love to see
the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and
responsibility to non-staff groups.  We have no shortage of energy, talent,
and experience there in the community.

SJ


On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi MZ -
>
> I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't
> impact community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to
> the Foundation.  It seems logical that there be a uniform process for
> routing those internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the
> community what that process is. The alternative is to have no policy for
> handling it and make it up every time.
>
> Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out
> at the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or
> adjust the policy in some way?
>
> PB
> -----------------------
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MZMcBride <[hidden email]>
> Sender: [hidden email]
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations
>  Guideline
>
> Geoff Brigham wrote:
> > Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> > public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> > understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> > That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> > affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> > review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> > interest in an issue.
> >
> > To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are
> involved
> > in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> > Affiliations
> > Guideline<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
> > on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> > clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> > political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> > requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> > actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> > types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> > community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
>
> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
> Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
> in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Mark
On 8/2/12 7:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> And I would love to see
> the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and
> responsibility to non-staff groups.  We have no shortage of energy, talent,
> and experience there in the community.
>
In addition, there's a fairly well-organized set of advocacy groups in
related areas (Creative Commons, FSF, EFF), who perhaps some of the work
could be delegated to? There would still be a need for a process to
decide when Wikimedia should do things such as agreeing to sign on to an
EFF amicus brief. But imo it makes sense to leave most of the legwork to
advocacy organizations who focus on it.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
> Counsel.


Um ... that's a bizarre perception.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

MZMcBride-2
David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
>> Counsel.
>
> Um ... that's a bizarre perception.

Is it?

I read through the page at Meta-Wiki and couldn't help but notice that every
involvement required the approval of the General Counsel. I read the linked
Board resolution
(<https://wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affiliations>)
and looked around wikimediafoundation.org and Meta-Wiki trying to find a
resolution or vote that directed the General Counsel to develop this kind of
policy, but didn't find anything.

Philippe seemed to suggest that there's a distinction between outside groups
approaching the Wikimedia Foundation for support and the community making
its own requests. The distinction seems incredibly murky and doesn't seem
likely to become clearer over time.

What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>

You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?

Good question.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Brandon Harris-4

        This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.  

        The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.


On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>>
>
> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
>
> Good question.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the
> General
> > Counsel.
>
>
> Um ... that's a bizarre perception.



Well, just look at the number of scenarios where the democratically elected
board is entirely out of the loop, or at best (possibly) consulted.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Brandon Harris-4
Brandon Harris wrote:

> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>>
>> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
>> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
>> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
>> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
>>
>> Good question.
>
> This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
>
> The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into
> existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.

To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like
that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community
initiative" or not?

Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012 SOPA
blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have
indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is
this correct?

The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's
considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me,
especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire
Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Brandon Harris-4
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]>wrote:

>
>         This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
>
>         The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed
> it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>


Yeah, and I remember how users were directed (by WMF staff, wasn't it?) to
stop marking votes by single-purpose accounts and IPs, as is common in
every other minor community discussion in the English Wikipedia. SPA and IP
votes are routinely discounted in garden-variety AfDs. But they counted in
the blackout vote.

It's a fact, and quite unprecedented. Why?

And the timeline of the Italian blackout in October, the
half-a-million-dollar Google donation in November, the first Wikimedia
endorsement of the Google position, also in November, and the subsequent
SOPA blackout in January, are what they are.

Politicians may protest, "Oh, my lobbying for Mr Rich had nothing to do
with the $500,000 they gave me at about the time I started lobbying for
them". But people generally aren't stupid.

For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my
work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.

And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We
gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen
to what we have to tell you".

A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it
isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.


* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494






>
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
> >>
> >
> > You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in
> November
> > 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> > before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> > Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
> >
> > Good question.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

FT2
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
meanings.

The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not
the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this
knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in
return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.

The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply *
indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating
our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often
to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free
knowledge.  There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by
others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.

This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the
same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you
spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I
respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me
so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true,
perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not
morally true.

We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to
whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free
knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and
humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that
we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting
this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the
ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical
and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins
pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one
might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few
people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care
whether it grows or dies.


FT2


On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my
> work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
>
> And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We
> gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen
> to what we have to tell you".
>
> A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it
> isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration
> in return for what has been given is disgusting.
>
>
> * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some discussion on his question.

This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me.

I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog.

Birgitte SB

On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>>
>
> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
>
> Good question.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Risker
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
> >>
> >> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in
> November
> >> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> >> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> >> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
> >>
> >> Good question.
> >
> > This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
> >
> > The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
> into
> > existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>
> To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like
> that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
> were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new
> statement
> from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community
> initiative" or not?
>
> Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012
> SOPA
> blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have
> indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is
> this correct?
>

My sense is that the statement is written as a response to the overtures
that have been made to the WMF since the January 2012 SOPA blackout. Like
many people outside of the WMF umbrella (and quite a few inside it, as
well, based on comments we see regularly), it seems that many of these
advocacy groups believe that WMF=Wikipedia.  Those of us "in the know"
understand that there's an awful lot more that is involved, and that there
are widely divergent opinions on many issues between projects and within
the broader community.

It's easy to forget (in fact, most people have forgotten) that the English
Wikipedia community had been discussing some form of action in relation to
SOPA for almost two months before the blackout. The Italian Wikipedia
blackout in late 2011 demonstrated some significant fault lines if a large
project suddenly closes up shop; because of this, I think the WMF
justifiably had an interest in ensuring that if the English Wikipedia
community followed suit, it was done in a controlled way that would not
cause short-term or long-term harm to the actual project. I'm not talking
"reputational harm", but damage to the hardware, software, and data that
are integral to the project.



>
> The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's
> considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me,
> especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire
> Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days.
>
>
Ah, interesting point.  My read of this was that the guideline would
consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to
be an "outside group", whereas an initiative from one or more WMF
communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall
under these guidelines.  The recent request for comment with respect to the
Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would
fall within this guideline, I think.

I think your questions illustrate the need for improving some of the prose
within the guideline so that these issues are clear to future readers, both
inside and outside of our broader community.  It's quite possible that my
own interpretation is off the mark as well.

Risker/Anne


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

metasj
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> > The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's
> > considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me
>
> Ah, interesting point.  My read of this was that the guideline would
> consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to
> be an "outside group", whereas an initiative from one or more WMF
> communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall
> under these guidelines.  The recent request for comment with respect to the
> Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would
> fall within this guideline, I think.
>

That is my reading of it as well.

Are there guidelines or discussions on it:wp or en:wp about how to handling
future community initiatives?

SJ
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by FT2
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.

Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen
goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good
Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall
says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a
law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are
stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening
the stall today."

So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them
in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill
these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what
the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that
would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you
don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market
stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to
profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of
dollars ...

One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the
community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what
SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html

Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather
than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical
problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at
least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well
and truly been lost.



On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
> meanings.
>
> The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
> altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not
> the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
> Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this
> knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in
> return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
>
> The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply *
> indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating
> our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often
> to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free
> knowledge.  There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by
> others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.
>
> This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the
> same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you
> spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I
> respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me
> so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true,
> perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not
> morally true.
>
> We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to
> whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free
> knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and
> humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that
> we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting
> this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the
> ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical
> and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins
> pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one
> might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few
> people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care
> whether it grows or dies.
>
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent
> my
> > work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
> >
> > And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We
> > gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen
> > to what we have to tell you".
> >
> > A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it
> > isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
> consideration
> > in return for what has been given is disgusting.
> >
> >
> > * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

???
In reply to this post by Brandon Harris-4
[hidden email] wrote:
>
> This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.  
>
> The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>
 

The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites. On the 14th of December Creative Commons was also calling for a blackout/action over SOPA. Whether you realize it or not you were manipulated by mega-corporations to stick it to the musicians, photographers, and authors, so that said corporations could better profit from the theft of their works.




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Hi,

Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story
represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital
content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's
what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick.

Then I don't think people here are misinformed as you says. You may
question that the blackout was the best strategy, but there was a
public debate and vote about it.

Finally, I don't think there is anything unethical about fighting against SOPA.
Quite the contrary IMO.

Yann

2012/8/3 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:

> I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
> giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
> and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
> people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
> some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
>
> Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen
> goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good
> Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall
> says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a
> law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are
> stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening
> the stall today."
>
> So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them
> in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill
> these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what
> the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that
> would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you
> don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market
> stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to
> profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of
> dollars ...
>
> One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the
> community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what
> SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
>
> Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather
> than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical
> problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at
> least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well
> and truly been lost.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

FT2
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
(warning, tl;dr!)
**
*@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I
don't agree with that assessment.  For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law
- one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an
area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like some read science fiction
or fanbooks.  It doesn't mean in any way I'm expert but I read draft
legislation. So I'm not dependent on any WMF writer to assist on that.

NPOV works well in articles with divided views, and suggests a good
approach is to characterise the issue and the divisions. In that spirit, my
attempt to fairly bridge the gap and explain where I see things diverging:


   1. Some bring stolen goods to the party, we can agree. In this case that
   means that some people breach copyright in a severe way online, which can
   fairly be characterised as theft if one ignores technicalities such as the
   minority of countries that don't make it a crime. In the vast majority we
   can agree it's theft in all jurisdictions. So yes, theft takes place. We
   can agree it's significant, though in the context of global trade and
   dubious "facts"there's a big dispute about the impact.
   2. *(Evidence: The UK govt review of copyright theft online, Hargreaves
   or something, I may have edited it, certainly read it, said of the various
   studies into online piracy that most were figures based on unproven
   assumptions, or plucked from the air, or something of that kind, and that
   not one study could be found that was actually reliable in the sense of
   unbiased fair and methodically rigourous conclusions)*.
   3. Theft in general web-wide was never the reason or issue for the
   protests by Wikimedians, or the WMF's involvement. It was not at any time a
   purported reason why *_Wikimedians_ *objected through *_this_ *site.There
   was never a plausible claim that Wikimedian protest was even slightly
   motivated by a wish to retain the ability of other sites to continue crime.
   4. As regards Wikimedia itself and its community, as far as I can tell,
   both have very strong views that theft (ie copyvio) should not be allowed
   on this site. I see no evidence that parts of the
   regular/established/core/active community have an agenda to improve our
   project's use, or ability to use, copyvio material,  see no evidence anyone
   here tries to turn a blind eye to it. We already have community policies
   that set standards far higher than the law requires.
   5. Is it therefore fair to characterize the objections to SOPA/PIPA as
   "we want to do illegal things, someone wants to stop us, and we don't want
   that"? I can't see how that's sustainable.
   6. I have the impression your complaint is that Wikimedians may have
   protested on grounds that were (a) not well founded in that in your view,
   the suggested risks were inaccurate, and (b) in protesting they chose to
   overlook harm elsewhere which these laws could have improved.
   7. I think it's fair to characterize the objections of individual users
   en masse and how they felt as, "We don't want to do illegal things, but
   illegal things may be done or claimed wrongly to be done, or actions
   threatened on the assertion of illegality. If this law passes, that could
   cause some things to be shut down for bad faith reasons or mistake without
   recompense, or legal concerns to have a chilling effect, and we don't want
   that"?
   8. They could be correct or incorrect to have that concern. I'm looking
   here at what individual Wikimedians like me, supporting the protest, may
   have believed and felt. In other words, were Wikimedian community
   protesters acting from a good faith belief there was a real concern, or in
   bad faith to  gain by pretence a means to allow crime to occur? I think the
   former.
   9. As supporting evidence I also note that the objections were not to
   the basic princviple of cutting off piracy. They were to matters that would
   allow harm without good cause. It targeted DNS issues where the markup
   committee had admitted they didn't know what technical issues would arise.
   It targeted shut down without fair hearing, and immunity for bad faith or
   mistake, no matter the harm done. Those could have been fixed. In the
   alternative OPEN bill, they generally were. One can judge the protests'
   intent by the points protested about. Whether or not that concern was
   well-founded, it was a good faith concern by individual members of the
   community expressing concerns.

From your complaints and descriptions, it's *not* that the projects offer
things "without consideration" as you suggested first. We do expect and
require consideration, such as attribution and license compliance in return
(see above). It's *not* that we give on the basis of "No strings" and later
make demands - see above, giving does not imply indifference and doesn't
exclude the right to say "we see a problem here, please don't let that
problem happen".  It *isn't* that we are hosting a giant volunteer party
and noticing some goods brought to be given away are stolen and we want to
ensure that can continue - we have rigorous standards and there's no
evidence people want to have looser ones or turn a blind eye to breaches.

Your stated issues so far - that something was given and later had
conditions added, or stolen material is covertly desired to be usable -
really dont stack up. What I *_think_* your *real** *issue is, is that you
feel the impact of SOPA/PIPA was exaggerated and it would not have had the
stated effects, and you feel the natural and rightful concern of community
members to protect freedoms and free speech and user-created sites, was
manipulated or given "spin" to motivate action which protected rights that
(in your view) werent at risk in the ways suggested.  In the worst case
scenario, you suggest such manipulation, or spin, was driven by large
internet businesses and their links to WMF.

So maybe your *real *question is, were the legal analysis and the proposed
fears, significant/realistic, or were they manipulated, spun, and "sold" to
community members. That's a fair question.  *If the analysis was
valid*then the community acted in good faith and with good reason.
*If the analysis was invalid* then the community acted in good faith but
was "sold" the idea on false or exaggerated grounds, perhaps to benefit
others' business (in your suggestion).  It comes down to the validity of
legal analysis.

What is *not *fair is suggesting *the protests by mass Wikimedians* was
somehow intended either to support theft, or to impose demands related to
material understood to ave been freely gifted with no strings.

If that's close, then can you comment so far and we'll carry on.


 FT2

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
> giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
> and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
> people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
> some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
>
> Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen
> goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good
> Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall
> says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a
> law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are
> stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening
> the stall today."
>
> So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them
> in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill
> these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what
> the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that
> would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you
> don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market
> stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to
> profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of
> dollars ...
>
> One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the
> community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what
> SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
>
> Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather
> than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical
> problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at
> least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well
> and truly been lost.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
> > meanings.
> >
> > The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
> > altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's
> not
> > the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
> > Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of
> this
> > knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in
> > return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.
> >
> > The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply *
> > indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating
> > our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and
> often
> > to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free
> > knowledge.  There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by
> > others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further
> humanity.
> >
> > This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's
> the
> > same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you
> > spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I
> > respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me
> > so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally
> true,
> > perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not
> > morally true.
> >
> > We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to
> > whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free
> > knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge
> and
> > humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that
> > we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us
> putting
> > this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming
> the
> > ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely
> ethical
> > and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins
> > pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one
> > might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few
> > people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care
> > whether it grows or dies.
> >
> >
> > FT2
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply
> resent
> > my
> > > work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
> > >
> > > And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We
> > > gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to
> listen
> > > to what we have to tell you".
> > >
> > > A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it
> > > isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand
> > consideration
> > > in return for what has been given is disgusting.
> > >
> > >
> > > * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12