WMF and Article 13

Wikimedia fundraising, financial issues (and improprieties), expenditures, contracting, and corporate relations.
Post Reply
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

WMF and Article 13

Post by Renée Bagslint » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:23 pm

The Foundation doesn't like Article 13 of the proposed EU Copyright Directive and has rebuked the EU for proposing it. I commented
There seem to be a couple of things wrong here.

"community mechanisms like the ones used on Wikipedia can be just as, if not more, effective" -- is not supported by the current status of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 where 6539 possible copyright violations have been under scrutiny by volunteers since November 2011, and are being cleared up at a rate that suggests completion round about 2030. This is not "effective": it is quite the opposite.

"Wikipedia [...] provides a platform for free expression." -- this is not correct either. As a project claiming to be an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has very clear limitations on freedom of expression. For example, it does not allow free expression of opinions on the flatness versus the roundness of the earth.

Your op-ed would have been more effective if it had acknowledged that there is a balance to be struck between freedom of expression and the legitimate rights of content creators.
I wonder what the response will be?

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Renée Bagslint » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:03 pm

Followup: the Foundation tweets that
Wikimedia Policy wrote:Wikimedia envisions an Internet that does not have filters and blocks.
English-language Wikipedia has 190 abuse filters. I wonder if they should be told about the policy.

sashi
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:26 pm

WMF and Article 11

Post by sashi » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:27 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:03 pm
Followup: the Foundation tweets that
Wikimedia Policy wrote:Wikimedia envisions an Internet that does not have filters and blocks.
English-language Wikipedia has 190 abuse filters. I wonder if they should be told about the policy.
:lol: :lol: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis ... ditfilters

But Renééeee, those are rose-tinted, cult-crafted filters & blocks.... there you go comparing eggplants to aubergines again. Those filters don't calculate the tax owed by a news aggregator based on the distributed load of RS they're weighed down with.

(I should check how that French bill preparing for the content-recycler tax is doing... )

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:11 pm

And Nemo uses the WMF blog to suggest a campaign of harassment:
On the WMF blog, Nemo wrote:It’s really possible to make a difference by making MEPs hear your voice (literally) over the phone, with no charge: [redacted] and [redacted] are neat tools.
Just the thing that a responsible Foundation with a reputation to protect should encourage.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:10 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Dysklyver » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:34 pm

Fun with the sitenotice idea continues, I don't think anyone worries about these things till the last minute, this law has been under debate since 2014, why can't they realise that the democratic debate has already happened and they ignored it?
Editor of the The Wiki Cabal. I live at www.wiki.org.uk.

Proabivouac
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: WMF and Article 11

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:36 am

sashi wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:27 pm
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:03 pm
Followup: the Foundation tweets that
Wikimedia Policy wrote:Wikimedia envisions an Internet that does not have filters and blocks.
English-language Wikipedia has 190 abuse filters. I wonder if they should be told about the policy.
:lol: :lol: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis ... ditfilters

But Renééeee, those are rose-tinted, cult-crafted filters & blocks.... there you go comparing eggplants to aubergines again.
This.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:24 pm

Interesting that Wikitribune is taking a fiercely pro-Jimbo line on this. It would be great if people from the critical community were to engage at Wiktribune when it's being used to promote Jimbo and the Foundation in their quest for world domination.

Proabivouac
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:45 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:24 pm
Interesting that Wikitribune is taking a fiercely pro-Jimbo line on this. It would be great if people from the critical community were to engage at Wiktribune when it's being used to promote Jimbo and the Foundation in their quest for world domination.
This Wikitributne is really awesome. Here they decry the sexual harassment of virtual assistants, framing it as part of the #metoo movement:

https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/ ... ome/76191/

They should be programmed to call the police and then file a lawsuit.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: WMF and Article 13

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:02 am

On looking into the Wikitribune article, some interesting facts emerge. The author, Link Nguyen, is described on her Wikitribune page as a staff journalist "with a background in literature and philosophy" and "a strong advocate for human digital rights". This page links to her Twitter account where she posted
Linh Nguyen wrote:EU JUST REJECTED THE COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE. GOOD DAY FOR THE INTERNET.
Not the ideal person to be writing a neutral, objective article about this topic. And in fact she didn't. She is an adherent of the "false balance" theory, which is that when your personal point of view on a story is progressive and hence right, so that opposing points of view are just plain wrong, then calls for balance are just disguised ("coded", "dog-whistle") calls for balance between right and wrong, and can be ignored.

The reason it's worth exposing here is that she has a rather surprisingly detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia's arcane internal politics works, citing a VPP discussion to support her assertion that the Wikipedia banner were placed there by the community. It is unfortunate for her that the link she cites shows the exact opposite, as she presumably knew, and that as we all know, and the evidence shows, the banners were imposed by the WMF. But an outsider would not know enough to say any of this -- presumably she is either an experienced Wikipedian herself, or possibly taking dictation from her boss Jimbo. Either way, given the involvement of Jimbo, the WMF, Wikipedia and Wiktribune in the whole EU copyright thing, it seems a legitimate subject of scrutiny for a site such as this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest