[Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[David Gerard-2]

On 11 July 2012 08:07, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Yes, very encouraging. We should suggest to the various language Wikipedias
>> that they monitor laws in their home country, and each time one is
>> considered (or even proposed!) that they don't like, the projects should be
>> blacked out. In this way, Wikipedia can function like a crowdsourced global
>> legislature, and more effectively fulfill its educational mission.

> Do you think that educational mission is not political?


No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
*your* politics are weird and radical.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Milos Rancic-2]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No, no, you don't understand: *my* politics are the neutral baseline,
> *your* politics are weird and radical.

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Nikola Smolenski-2]

On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
> Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)
>
> [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html

By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
see f.e.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:47:25 +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
>> Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)
>>
>> [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html
>
> By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin
> protest, see f.e.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest

Which is a sheer bullshit.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Виктория-6]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It looks like we won again.
>
>
I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the law,
the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being "comissioned by
a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about Larry
Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The Community will
be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate EnWiki
success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.

Victoria
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.

Fred

> On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
>> Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)
>>
>> [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html
>
> By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
> see f.e.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[David Gerard-2]

On 11 July 2012 08:57, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
> purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


Censoring porn is *always* a stalking horse for political and
historical censorship.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Milos Rancic-2]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Виктория <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the law,
> the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being "comissioned by
> a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about Larry
> Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The Community will
> be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate EnWiki
> success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.

The message has been understood clearly, as it was the case with
Italian law and SOPA. One thing is what a group of morons from a lobby
group or a group inside of a ruling party could do, completely other
is what the government would do. Lobbyists and random dilettantes
won't deal with the consequences of clearly expressed opposition by
the wide specter of society.

BTW, 292:22 doesn't look like a lack of participation nor as a lack of
consensus. And the actions which affect the real world have their
right time, unlike building the knowledge.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:47:09 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Виктория <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> I don't know if we "won". The main contentious issues remain in the
>> law,
>> the author of the proposed law accuses Wikipedia of being
>> "comissioned by
>> a  paedophile lobby" (that again, and I don't think  she knows about
>> Larry
>> Sanger's campaign) and there is an ArbCom case brewing. The
>> Community will
>> be disrupted for weeks, because some people had decided to emulate
>> EnWiki
>> success skipping the due process and flex a political muscle.
>
> The message has been understood clearly, as it was the case with
> Italian law and SOPA. One thing is what a group of morons from a
> lobby
> group or a group inside of a ruling party could do, completely other
> is what the government would do. Lobbyists and random dilettantes
> won't deal with the consequences of clearly expressed opposition by
> the wide specter of society.
>

Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is correct?
Just a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading
basically unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading
(which is also expected to pass unchanged). The minister already
expressed full support of the law and disapproved the action of Russian
Wikipedia. What are your statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia
who failed to take any action after the law passed the first reading on
July 6 but were of course happy to issue a statement after the decision
was taken on July 9?

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yann Forget-3]

2012/7/11 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> On 11 July 2012 08:57, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
>> purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.
>
>
> Censoring porn is *always* a stalking horse for political and
> historical censorship.

And copyright is used more and more for the same.

Yann

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Milos Rancic-2]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is correct? Just
> a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading basically
> unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is also
> expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full support of
> the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are your
> statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any action
> after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course happy to
> issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?

As written above:

"Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning."
[1]

-- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:21:26 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Milos, do you have any evidence that what you have written is
>> correct? Just
>> a single fact? So far the law was accepted in the second reading
>> basically
>> unchanged, and is currently undergoing the third reading (which is
>> also
>> expected to pass unchanged). The minister already expressed full
>> support of
>> the law and disapproved the action of Russian Wikipedia. What are
>> your
>> statements based on? On opinions of WM-Russia who failed to take any
>> action
>> after the law passed the first reading on July 6 but were of course
>> happy to
>> issue a statement after the decision was taken on July 9?
>
> As written above:
>
> "Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
> current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
> outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be closed
> down. But this step is an important reaction by society, a sign that
> the legislation needs to be improved,” he tweeted on Tuesday
> morning."
> [1]
>
> -- which means that you should just remind him at the right time,
> before the third reading. (By closing Wikipedia again, of course.)
>
> [1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20120710/189942195.html

The third reading will be TODAY 17:00 Moscow time (in two and a half
hours). It was just a figure of speach.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Виктория-6]

Milos,

>BTW, 292:22 doesn't look like a lack of participation nor as a lack of
>consensus. And the actions which affect the real world have their
>right time, unlike building the knowledge.

Did you count how many of thsee 292 votes, especially among the last couple
of hundred, have a right for RFA vote and how many among 22 (mainly
opinions, not votes) are admins? The poll was formulated in such a way
(against censorhip), that it begged for Support and the short time didn't
allow a lot of people to express their opinion - an opinion  have to be
formulated, written down, even edited, unlike vote.

What we have is a flasmob, which is very dangerous thing to approve. This
time we were lucky that the poll was in general vein of the WM movement
strategy, but knowing the situation in Russia we can (very soon) have, for
example, a


Russian Wikipedia for Russians


banner  on the main page  after 300 editors voted for it.


Regards

Russian-speaking British/Belarusian citizen


Victoria
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Nikola Smolenski-2]

On 11/07/12 09:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Try
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH
>
> It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
> purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with Putin. First, it doesn't seem that
this law is pushed personally by Putin. Second, Russian Wikipedians
would be against the law regardless of whether it is pushed by Putin or
not. Third, a anti-Putin pro-Western government could be expected to be
even worse in this regard.

>> On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>> Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
>>> Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html
>>
>> By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
>> see f.e.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Виктория-6]

Milos,

1) Btw, I looked more carefully at the poll: 22 support a press-release,
but *74* are against the switch-off. The result is not as clear cut as it
seemed, isn't it?

2) In the ArbCom case we already have a request for recusal of  ArbCom
members, who don't live in Russia - this is three out of five.

Victoria
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Anthony-73]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:02 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 July 2012 09:22, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
>>> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russian).
>
>> Unless I am missing something key; whilst this is a crappy law, it is not
>> much like SOPA/PIPA in that it doesn't seem to threaten the existence of
>> Russian Wikipedia.
>
>
> You're missing something key: the way it's written, even articles on
> chemistry would be blocked.

So if the law passes, WMF is going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?

If the law passes, will WMF also shut down English Wikipedia?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Seth Finkelstein]

>>> SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,
>>
>> Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.
>
> Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition
> of an 'Internet search engine'".
>
> <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/>

I may regret this message, but I don't see the citation above as
actually making any (my phrase) mortal-peril claim. There is the
following statement:

"And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a
serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet."

However, that is mere rhetoric, not a specific threat claim to Wikipedia.

Many paragraphs down, after the extensive parade of horribles, there
is the following "buried lede", which I'll quote in full to avoid
any accusation of taking out of context:

  Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement.  The new
  version exempts U.S. based companies – including the Wikimedia Foundation
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  – from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights
  owners could claim that our site was an "Internet site dedicated to
  theft of U.S. property."  Such a damnation against Wikimedia could
  have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment
  processors.   The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. ..."
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The ending Wikipedia claim is quite vague, "endure significant burdens":

 "Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its
 resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill
 will deprive our readers of international content, information, and
 sources."

Semi-digression - I'd take the above argument more seriously if dedicated
Wikipedia editors didn't keep making "BADSITES" proposals. There's a
very common view that Wikipedia *can* and *should* remove all links to
certain "evil" sites - but only if "evil" is defined as devoted to
*criticizing Wikipedia*, rather than devoted to copyright infringement.
I have a saying - "It's always different when it's you".

But the whole post gave me an impression of a good lawyer attempting
to reconcile the imperative of being a zealous advocate for the
interests of a client, while still remaining intellectually honest.
Yet, read carefully, it doesn't say what people seem to think was the
case. I've actually been trying to figure out, from my interest in
cognitive errors, why so many people believe that SOPA put Wikipedia
in mortal peril, when it appears to me even the Wikimedia Foundation's
own General Counsel admitted it did not.

Disclaimer: I *OPPOSE* SOPA. But I'm quite torn over what was done to
fight it, which seems to me a classic ends-vs-means moral dilemma
(i.e. of the sort - do you want to be honest, or do you want to win?).

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Anthony-73]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Seth Finkelstein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But the whole post gave me an impression of a good lawyer attempting
> to reconcile the imperative of being a zealous advocate for the
> interests of a client, while still remaining intellectually honest.

Well, it also has to be read keeping in mind that it would be
borderline malpractice for him to have stated "if SOPA passes then
Wikipedia will be in violation of the law and forced to shut down" -
just in case SOPA actually did pass, forcing WMF to argue the exact
opposite.

Due to this difficult position, I was surprised that he wrote anything
public about it at all.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:23:22 +0200, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> Ok, let me may be provide a bit of a background.
>
> 1) The law is formally directed against child pornography, drug
> trafficking, hate between religions etc. The idea is that every
> website (whatever it means) where information violating the law has
> been discovered will get a one-day notice to remove the info, and if
> it fails to do so, the access to the whole website will be blocked by
> all providers legally operating in Russia. On paper, nothing in this
> law threats Wikipedia and sister projects.
>

The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be
now signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on
November 1, 2012.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Anthony-73]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The law just passed the third reading without any changes. It has to be now
> signed by the president and will be enforced in the present form on November
> 1, 2012.

So is this going to shut down Russian Wikipedia?  I still don't see
what the language has to do with anything.  The Russians don't have a
monopoly over the use of the Russian language (especially given that
there are countries other than Russia where Russian is widely spoken).

Maybe a better solution would be send all accesses from IPs in Russia
to a page describing how to use TOR.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l