[Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:14:48 -0400, Anthony wrote:

> 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).
>

No, it does not, at least immediately. There is nothing in the law
which is directly dangerous for Wikipedia. The fear is that due to the
absence of intependent courts, some official may want to shut down the
whole Wikipedia because they do not like an article about them or
because they consider it a "conductor of American style of life" or
whatever, it becomes indeed easy, and it would be very difficult if not
impossible to reverse the decision. Btw the law does not specify the
language, so that Russian Wikipedia is certainly not the only WMF
project affected (though the most obvious one).

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 9:18 AM, Seth Finkelstein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Semi-digression - I'd take the above argument more seriously if dedicated
> Wikipedia editors didn't keep making "BADSITES" proposals.

It's also interesting to watch the overlap of PIPA-opponents, and
Citizens United opponents.

Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the
assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier
to impose.  And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very
well be outlawed.  The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a
corporation.

I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
traction in Congress.

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

[Seth Finkelstein]

> Anthony wrote:
> 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.

I perceive you've been very fortunate, in not having much experience
with lawyers. Ponder if a health care mandate is a tax or not, or
whether Mitt Romney thought it was in the past, or does now.

Moreover, there's already the problem you see in the argument where he wrote:

"Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an "Internet search engine,"

I'm quite sure that if SOPA actually did pass, WMF would then strongly
argue the exact opposite, that Wikipedia absolutely does not fall
under definition of an "Internet search engine" (as it is not a site
"whose primary function is gathering and reporting, ... *indexed
information* or *web sites* available elsewhere on the Internet")

> Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the
> assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier
> to impose.  And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very
> well be outlawed.  The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a
> corporation.

The Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues with lobbying are very far
from the Citizens United sort of case. This all could have happened
before that decision. The primary legal issue for WMF here is its
tax-exempt status and the restrictions which go along with that. Which,
sigh, is not to assert that WMF violated any such legal restrictions,
but only to point out that such legal restrictions will become a
limiting issue long before any corporations-aren't-people campaign
finance laws.

> I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
> proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
> traction in Congress.

Well, check if the WMF starts getting large donations from the likes
of the Koch brothers or Karl Rove's Super PAC :-) . Oh, excuse me,
it would be a community decision based on the extreme danger to
Wikipedia from such measures (hmm, Wikipedia relies on the US
Constitution, so anything which amends that COULD KILL WIKIPEDIA!!!).

By the way, the Russian law has passed despite the protests:

http://www.voanews.com/content/russian_lawmakers_approve_internet_blacklist_measure/1403276.html

"Russia's lower house of parliament has approved a bill that gives the
government power to blacklist websites containing what officials
consider objectionable material."

There's many dangers for pawns in being deluded they are players.

--
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

[Mike Godwin-2]

Anthony writes:

"I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
traction in Congress."

I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.
Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
what it can and cannot do politically, and is even more regulated by
virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO). There's no Citizens
United connection with regard to anything being discussed here.

As is generally known, I favored the English Wikipedia blackout with
regard to SOPA/PIPA, and I also supported the Italian Wikimedians'
earlier blackout, driven by fear of (effectively) similar regulation.

At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is
democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of
promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct
is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia
project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that
what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered
legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having
their own top-down way.

To my Russian comrades: I am with you.


--Mike

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

[David Gerard-2]

On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is
> democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of
> promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct
> is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia
> project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that
> what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered
> legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having
> their own top-down way.


The worrying thing is not only that we've done this three times in the
past year, it's that we've had cause to do it three times in the past
year.


- d.

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

[Thomas Morton]

On 12 July 2012 10:27, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12 July 2012 08:47, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > At the heart of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects' success is
> > democratic action, driven by those who are engaged in the process of
> > promoting, supporting, and maintaining these projects. So my instinct
> > is to believe, respect, and support the Russian-language Wikimedia
> > project activists' decision to demonstrate in an effective way that
> > what we all are working on here is under threat by ill-considered
> > legislation by legacy governmental traditions that are used to having
> > their own top-down way.
>
>
> The worrying thing is not only that we've done this three times in the
> past year, it's that we've had cause to do it three times in the past
> year.
>
>

Oh pish.

Laws like the ones we protested have been created many times over the last
few years (France, UK, etc.) and we've never protested them before.

The change was us, not them.

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

[Anthony-73]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> "I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
> proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
> traction in Congress."
>
> I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.

The connection is free speech.

> Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
> what it can and cannot do politically

What regulations are you referring to?  Corporations can't *deduct*
certain political expenditures.  But what are the profound regulations
on what it can do politically?

> and is even more regulated by
> virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation (NGO).

More specifically, by its being a 501(C)(3).  I'm not aware of any
regulation imposed by simply being a nonprofit corporation.  And even
other 501(C) corporations, such as 501(C)(4) corporations (like
Citizens United) are fairly unrestricted.

Furthermore, 501(C)(3) is a tax status.  The government isn't saying
that WMF can't be political.  It just isn't allowed certain tax
privileges if it does so more than a certain amount.  And in some
cases it is penalized if it takes the tax advantages first and then
does the actions later.

> There's no Citizens
> United connection with regard to anything being discussed here.

WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech.  In the
Citizens United decision, "the Court held that the First Amendment
prohibited the government from restricting independent political
expenditures by corporations and unions".

The connection is quite obvious.

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

[Anthony-73]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Seth Finkelstein <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Anthony wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I perceive you've been very fortunate, in not having much experience
> with lawyers. Ponder if a health care mandate is a tax or not, or
> whether Mitt Romney thought it was in the past, or does now.

There's quite a difference between a President, a presidential
candidate, and a general counsel for a corporation.

> Moreover, there's already the problem you see in the argument where he wrote:
>
> "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an "Internet search engine,"
>
> I'm quite sure that if SOPA actually did pass, WMF would then strongly
> argue the exact opposite, that Wikipedia absolutely does not fall
> under definition of an "Internet search engine" (as it is not a site
> "whose primary function is gathering and reporting, ... *indexed
> information* or *web sites* available elsewhere on the Internet")

Well.  1) I think Mr Brigham made a mistake in making a public
statement about this at all; however 2) He used the word "arguably".
If SOPA did (or does) pass, and WMF was charged with violating it
(which, frankly, would probably never happen), then surely they would
argue that Wikipedia is not an Internet search engine.  But not being
something and *arguably* falling under the definition of something,
are not mutually exclusive.

>> Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the
>> assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier
>> to impose.  And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very
>> well be outlawed.  The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a
>> corporation.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues with lobbying are very far
> from the Citizens United sort of case.

Well, yeah, sure.  And WMF's legal issues with copyright infringement
are very different from the sort of cases that would be prosecuted
under PIPA or a PIPA-like law too.

But if the court in Citizens United had opened the door to restricting
nonprofit organizations from engaging in one type of grassroots
lobbying, I don't see how they could leave the door closed regarding
other types of grassroots lobbying, such as the type which WMF is
engaging in.  And really, I don't see how the could leave the door
closed regarding speech in general involving corporate expenditures.
Political speech is, for good reasons, the type of speech which is
most heavily protected by the First Amendment.

> The primary legal issue for WMF here is its
> tax-exempt status and the restrictions which go along with that. Which,
> sigh, is not to assert that WMF violated any such legal restrictions,
> but only to point out that such legal restrictions will become a
> limiting issue long before any corporations-aren't-people campaign
> finance laws.

Not at all.  501(C)(3) charities are allowed to engage in quite a bit
of grassroots lobbying without losing their tax-exempt status (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_lobbying#Public_Charity_Lobbying_Law).
 If Citizens United had gone the other way, there would be nothing to
stop Congress from eliminating the ability of corporations to engage
in grassroots lobbying altogether.

>
>> I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the
>> proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain
>> traction in Congress.
>
> Well, check if the WMF starts getting large donations from the likes
> of the Koch brothers or Karl Rove's Super PAC :-) .

Well, no...but there is
http://www.infodocket.com/2012/01/03/wikmedia-foundation-hires-dc-lobbying-firm/

And, of course, there is the (grassroots, not direct) lobbying that
WMF has already (visibly) engaged in.  I'm not sure if we'll have any
way to know if they've been involved in any direct lobbying until the
2011-2012 990 comes in.

> Oh, excuse me,
> it would be a community decision based on the extreme danger to
> Wikipedia from such measures (hmm, Wikipedia relies on the US
> Constitution, so anything which amends that COULD KILL WIKIPEDIA!!!).

Right.  Except, well, it doesn't fit in the political persuasion of
most Wikipedians.  Not as strongly as "copyright infringement is not
theft", anyway.

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

[Mike Godwin-2]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.
>
> The connection is free speech.

Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
what role corporate expenditures can play in elections. It does not
address the question of whether corporations can engage in political
activity.

>> Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
>> what it can and cannot do politically
>
> What regulations are you referring to?  Corporations can't *deduct*
> certain political expenditures.  But what are the profound regulations
> on what it can do politically?

See, e.g., http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf.

> WMF is engaging in lobbying, a form of political speech.  In the
> Citizens United decision, "the Court held that the First Amendment
> prohibited the government from restricting independent political
> expenditures by corporations and unions".
>
> The connection is quite obvious.

Not merely obvious but "quite obvious," eh? Well, in the United States
cases like Citizens United and its predecessors center precisely on
election campaigns (including the ways money can be spent on "issue
campaigning" aimed at influencing the outcome of elections of
candidates for public office).

I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an
election. I'm also unaware of any how Citizens United applies even
remotely the subject matter of this thread, which I had understood to
center on Russian legislation, not (for example) on a Russian
election.

But perhaps you're making a one of those "obvious" (excuse me, I mean
"quite obvious") connections that is too subtle for me to follow.
Speaking only for myself, I remain cheered by the Russian-language
Wikimedians' activism.


--Mike

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

[Anthony-73]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here.
>>
>> The connection is free speech.
>
> Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
> simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
> what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.

The law in question was with respect to "electioneering
communications", which the court held was speech.

> It does not
> address the question of whether corporations can engage in political
> activity.

"Political activity" is awfully broad.  The ruling was primarily
concerned with political speech.

>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in
>>> what it can and cannot do politically
>>
>> What regulations are you referring to?  Corporations can't *deduct*
>> certain political expenditures.  But what are the profound regulations
>> on what it can do politically?
>
> See, e.g., http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
> and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf.

First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
corporations in general.  I specifically pointed out that there are
regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit misleading to say that a 501(c)(3) is
prohibited from engaging in these activities.  IRC 501(c)(3) *defines*
a certain type of organization, which does not engage in certain types
of political activities.  Saying that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from
engaging in certain political activities is like saying that a virgin
is prohibited from having sex.  If a virgin has sex, they cease to be
a virgin.  If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in "prohibited"
political activities, it ceases to be a 501(c)(3).

> I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an
> election.

Surely you understand that one need not be directly affected by the
exact law being challenged to have a great interest in free speech
rights being upheld.

If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
legislation?

> But perhaps you're making a one of those "obvious" (excuse me, I mean
> "quite obvious") connections that is too subtle for me to follow.

I guess so.

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

[Mike Godwin-2]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
>> simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
>> what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.
>
> The law in question was with respect to "electioneering
> communications", which the court held was speech.

If you are expressing a disagreement with my characterization of the
issue in Citizens United, I'm unclear what that disagreement is.

> "Political activity" is awfully broad.  The ruling was primarily
> concerned with political speech.

That's imprecise. The case centered on the scope of Congress's power
to regulate speech aimed at affecting elections.

> First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
> made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
> corporations in general.  I specifically pointed out that there are
> regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.

I hadn't understood you to be talking also about for-profit
corporations such as The New York Times Company, which (if you happen
to read the Times) you may know sometimes tries to affect the outcome
of elections.

As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

> If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
> what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
> legislation?

I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
New York Times Company from political speech.


--Mike

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

[Mike Godwin-2]

I wrote:

'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
New York Times Company from political speech.'

That paragraph got truncated through an editing error.

What I meant to write was this:

'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements). And I wouldn't want to
prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech regarding
legislation or policy.'


--Mike

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

[theo10011]

Hi Mike

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 'I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
> corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
> (e.g., through candidate endorsements). And I wouldn't want to
> prohibit The New York Times Company from political speech regarding
> legislation or policy.'


There's 2 things here, perhaps you are choosing an odd example here, a very
well-reputed newspaper without demarcating it with the corporation that
owns and publishes it. I believe the New York Times's editorial board has
been making endorsements of political candidates since 1850, starting with
Abraham Lincoln[1]. As far as I know, it is the newspaper and an editorial
board that made that endorsement, not the corporation.

But anyway, whether you are comfortable or not with The New York times
Company influencing the outcome of an election, might be colored by your
political leanings. The same analogy could be used for Fox News for
example, though I'm not sure how comfortable that would make everyone else.

I suppose there is another argument to be made here, about Media
endorsements on its own and unregulated money being used to buy Media and
such endorsements, but I shall leave that out for now.

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/23/opinion/20081024-endorse.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Anthony-73]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
>> made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
>> corporations in general.  I specifically pointed out that there are
>> regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.
>
> I hadn't understood you to be talking also about for-profit
> corporations such as The New York Times Company, which (if you happen
> to read the Times) you may know sometimes tries to affect the outcome
> of elections.

You specifically contrasted regulations "as a corporation" with
regulations "by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation".  I
responded to both.  You then quoted my response to the first, with
information with respect to the second.

> As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
> pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

501(c) *is a tax status*.  501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status.

>> If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
>> what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
>> legislation?
>
> I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
> corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
> (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
> New York Times Company from political speech.

And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.

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

[Nathan Awrich]

Is there a "service provider" exemption for entities like Wikimedia in
Russia? Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political
activism in Russia? I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian authorities
from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia community
decides to take steps like this again.

What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to protest laws
in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, etc.,
has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks involved or
potential repercussions?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:34:46 -0400, Nathan wrote:
> Is there a "service provider" exemption for entities like Wikimedia
> in
> Russia?

Not that I know of.

Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
> period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered
> political
> activism in Russia?

Legally, no, it is not political activism. From the point of view of
having good relation with the authorities, this, of course, complicates
things.

I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
> Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian
> authorities
> from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia
> community
> decides to take steps like this again.
>

Formally, they can shut down access to Russian Wikipedia on November 1.
In reality, I doubt very much they are going to do it. I do not see what
they can gain, and the public opinion, however weak, will not approve
it.

> What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to
> protest laws
> in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC,
> etc.,
> has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks
> involved or
> potential repercussions?

I guess in this case nobody asked the Foundation beforehand. And I
think the fact that nobody from wm.ru cared to show up here to provide
info and answer questions (Victoria and myself are not members and none
of us is a Russian resident, though I am a Russian citizen and was
flying from Russia just last weekend) is in my opinion very illustrative
in this respect.

But indeed a good question is would it be for instance a good idea to
blackout Chinese Wikipedia to protest the firewall. My opinion is no. It
would expose a number of people to immediate danger without any obviousl
benefits, since the probability that the blackout can change anything is
increasingly low.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

[Andreas Kolbe-2]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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/
> >
>
> The definition was:
>
> "The term ‘Internet search engine’ means a service made available via
> the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes
> information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on
> the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms,
> concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a
> means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of
> locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available
> on the Internet relating to such query or selection."
>
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261/text
>
> It's hard to see how Wikipedia could fall under this definition, but
> even if it did, what would be the consequences?
>
> "A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically
> feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in
> any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or
> within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the
> foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of
> such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct
> hypertext link."
>
> Geoff argued that we would have to manually review millions of links
> in order to comply with such a court order. But the definition of an
> "internet site" that would be specified under such a court order is:
>
> "[T]he collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or
> pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are
> addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain
> name, a common Internet Protocol address."
>
> We already index external links by domain name or IP address for easy
> searching, and we have the ability to prevent further such links from
> being submitted, for the purposes of spam control. The compliance cost
> would be no worse than a typical [[WP:RSPAM]] report.
>
> Maybe SOPA was a "serious threat to freedom of expression on the
> Internet", and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to
> Wikipedia's existence.
>
> -- Tim Starling

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

[Mike Godwin-2]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You specifically contrasted regulations "as a corporation" with
> regulations "by virtue of its being a nonprofit corporation".  I
> responded to both.  You then quoted my response to the first, with
> information with respect to the second.

I'm still not sure what you're taking issue with here.

>> As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
>> pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.
>
> 501(c) *is a tax status*.  501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status.

So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.

>> I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
>> corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
>> (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
>> New York Times Company from political speech.
>
> And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.

That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I
appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting
influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's
possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through
Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted
expenditures constitutionally.  (In short, I slightly disagree with
ACLU's position, but only slightly.)

What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians'
activism is still beyond me, however.


--Mike

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

[Milos Rancic-2]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is there a "service provider" exemption for entities like Wikimedia in
> Russia? Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
> period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political
> activism in Russia? I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
> Russia, but it seems like that wouldn't prevent the Russian authorities
> from taking steps against the Foundation if the Russian Wikipedia community
> decides to take steps like this again.

Like in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA cases, objecting to the law is socially too
wide to be considered as political activism in narrow sense. Yandex,
Russian biggest search engine, is among those opposing the law.

> What about other countries? If the Arabic Wikipedia decides to protest laws
> in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or the Chinese Wikipedia against the PRC, etc.,
> has anyone at the Foundation evaluated if there are any risks involved or
> potential repercussions?

In one email from this thread similar attitude was applied to the
hypothetical decision "Russian Wikipedia for Russians".

In short, the attitude is false excuse for vanguardism.

The first case has been based on the fact that Wikipedians from Russia
would like to articulate Wikipedia block for Russia and that they have
no means to do that, except to block Russian Wikipedia for the whole
world (which should be done by WMF).

Anyway, I don't think that anything of the written would happen:
* Every big Wikipedian community has enough collective responsibility
not to act ethnocentrically. Thus, it's false premise that something
like that would pass on Russian Wikipedia.
* Wikipedia is far from being important in China. Thus, going on
strike there wouldn't be productive. And Chinese Wikipedians know
that.
* Arabic Wikipedians come from many [Arabic] countries and there
should be something *really* heavy to see them united in desire to
strike.

Quite opposite, the threats of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, Italian and Russian
laws are by far more visible than anything mentioned above.

The logic is similar to building bulwarks in a desert because sea
level will raise in few hundreds of years. If you live there, you need
water now.

More realistically, *if* something like that happens, please think and
act if necessary. The fact that the distance between Washington DC and
Rome is smaller than distance between Washington DC and Moscow doesn't
mean that Wikipedia strikes will finish in Pyongyang.

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

[Anthony-73]

>>> As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
>>> pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.
>>
>> 501(c) *is a tax status*.  501(c)(3) is a subset of that tax status.
>
> So? I gave you pointers to regs for 501(c)(3), (c)(4), etc.

Well, no, you didn't.  But I know where the regulations for 501(c)(3),
(c)(4), etc. are, since dealing with treasury regulations is what I do
for a living.

I also explained to you that IRC 501(c)(3) does not prohibit certain
corporations from performing certain actions, rather it *defines*
certain corporations which do not perform certain actions.  I figured
you would confirm this by reading the code.  However, I'll quote it
for you.  First, I'll quote 501(a):

"An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) orsection 401 (a)
shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such
exemption is denied under section 502 or 503."

Now, the beginning of 501(c):

"The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):"

And now, 501(c)(3)

"Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized
and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to
foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only
if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic
facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children
or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the
activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in
subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for public office."

The code doesn't say that 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from
intervening in political campaigns, rather it says that organizations
which intervene in political campaigns *are not 501(c)(3)
organizations*.

As you will know if you've read the recent court cases, there is a
difference between prohibiting an action, and subjecting it to certain
taxes.

>>> I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
>>> corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
>>> (e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
>>> New York Times Company from political speech.
>>
>> And fortunately, Citizens United helped protect their right to do so.
>
> That is certainly the ACLU's view (if I recall correctly), and I
> appreciate that view, although I think the problem of the corrupting
> influence of corporate expenditures remains, and I still think it's
> possible, per the whole line of Supreme Court cases leading up through
> Citizens United, to regulate the problem of election-targeted
> expenditures constitutionally.  (In short, I slightly disagree with
> ACLU's position, but only slightly.)
>
> What this has to do with WMF or the Russian-language Wikimedians'
> activism is still beyond me, however.

Nothing.  My comment was about a proposed constitutional amendment to
overturn Citizen United, and I gave that as an example of something
that is even more important than PIPA for Wikipedians to protest.

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