Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>> I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story.
>>
>
> Why is that?
>
> A lack of self control, or because you actually have a
> deeply thought out viewpoint?
Yeah.
Tomorrow, I am talking in a conference. The topic is focused on scenario
planning (and how it can help to foresee and organize for important
shifts). A couple of days ago, the moderator of the session asked me if
Wikipedia had ever used "scenario planning". I stayed speechless...
hmmm, strategic planning as in SWOT, yes. Environmental scan, yes. But
scenario planning, no, I had no memory.
Hmmm, at best, a very simplified scenario planning version for the
budget, with short time "best case" and "worse case". Usually, scenario
planning is rather on the 5-10 years scale.
I then thought of the major society shifts we are currently observing.
Would the future rather follow lines of a liberalization, with more free
licences and sharing... or to the contrary follow lines of tightening of
intellectual property laws.
Would the future rather follow lines of increasing scattering of
responsibilities on internet in particular and ultimately strong
weakening of the notion of states... or to the contrary follow lines of
increasing nation-based control of content access by its citizens.
Would the future rather follow lines of mercantilization, brand
marketing... or to the contrary follow lines of equal trade, fairness
and charitable giving.
And so on.
And I thought I could perhaps drop a bait to see how wikipedians on
foundation-l would react. Would they feel like playing the game of
thinking of scenarios in the spirit of long term strategic planning. Or
would they stay STUCK to the current story.
Feedback was beyond my expectations :-)
My answer tomorrow could be
"Wikipedia was probably the least planned project ever; it currently has
reached the level of a non-profit start-up, with a planning ability of
about 1 year".
and
"Professionals could probably help us grow up in certain areas, but they
would have to cope with all the no-life standing on our mailing lists".
Cheers
Ant
>> Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and
>> WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by
>> the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps.
>>
>
> Wow. I think you are deluded if you think we are anywhere near
> to a final outcome of all this...
>> We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
>> there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
>> not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries.
>> In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may
>> be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not
>> going to cite any examples publicly ;-)
>>
> Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna
> with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are
> overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is
> even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of
> shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human
> body form.
>
> To underline why I personally find your posting very offensive
> in the absolutel, I will simply ask, why are you refraining talking
> about some things publically, but declining to talk to people
> with actual responsibility of real legal stuff, privately.
>
> Or are we to assume that you speaking out here publically is
> a result of you not getting the result you want through your
> private channels to the legal people of the foundation?
>
>> Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that
>> * we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by
>> default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA)
>> * if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the
>> affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of
>> an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us.
>> * if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain
>> image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a
>> certain country.
>>
>> And that was it !
>>
>> Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better
>> than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately
>> funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not
>> accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens
>> of this country to be blocked from editing.
>>
>> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ?
>> That citizens can not read one article ?
>> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ?
>>
>> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and
>> distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid
>> deal.
>> However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking
>> in editing is quite dramatic.
>>
>> My point is not to bend on local laws at all.
>> But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional
>> route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries
>> (legal route, with local then international tribunal).
>> And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work
>> on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases.
>> Scenario planning in short.
>>
>> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
>> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a
>> concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ?
>> If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid
>> the entire edit-blocking again ?
>>
>> And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the
>> countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was
>> setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking
>> of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what
>> governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains
>> choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ?
>>
>
> Really I am ashamed to read anyone writing such drivel, who
> has even momentarily held a position of responsibility in the
> organisation of the foundation.
>
> Of course not.
>
> If that was the responce you wanted; well, there you have it,
> from my fingers.
>
> Why anyone would want such re-assurance is beyond me though.
>
> It would be genuinely of earth-shattering import, if *we* as a
> foundation found that we should enter into the games of
> partisan politics in any shape or form. Even in issues that are
> close to hour heart in a legitimate fashion.
>
> We just don't do that.
>
>> Or should we just wait to see what's next ?
>>
>>
>
>
> /me opens wide...
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l