Four Wikipedias To 'Black Out' Over EU Copyright Directive (wikimediafoundation.org) 49
Sherwin Siy and Jan Gerlach, writing for the Wikimedia Foundation: Volunteer editor communities in four language Wikipedias -- German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak -- have decided to black out the sites on 21 March in opposition to the current version of the proposed EU Copyright Directive. Those language editions of Wikipedia will redirect all visitors to a banner about the directive, blocking access to content on Wikipedia for 24 hours. A final vote on the directive is expected on 26 March.
These independent language communities decided to black out in the same way most decisions are made on Wikipedia -- through discussion and consensus, something summarized in a statement from the German Wikipedia volunteer community: "Each of these independent Wikipedia communities has been engaging in public online discussions as to their course of action, and voting on whether and how to protest. They have done this according to their own rules of governance."
These independent language communities decided to black out in the same way most decisions are made on Wikipedia -- through discussion and consensus, something summarized in a statement from the German Wikipedia volunteer community: "Each of these independent Wikipedia communities has been engaging in public online discussions as to their course of action, and voting on whether and how to protest. They have done this according to their own rules of governance."
SOPA Part 2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying the notability standard is a higher bar on copyright encyclopedias that Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you implying the notability standard is a higher bar on copyright encyclopedias that Wikipedia?
I bet this made more sense in the original Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably.
I was responding to the notion that "copyrighters will just make their own encyclopedia" will make their own encyclopedia and the implication that it will be better because "Wikipedia will still make you an unperson for the crime of being 'not notable'."
Wikipedia is far broader than any "copyrighter" encyclopedia and has a far lower bar for "notability".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal, -- Sid Meier's
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately they don't seem to value fighting copyright reforms as highly as the profit generated by a single day of regular usage.
The more the EU passes regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU should embrace freedoms and innovation.
Not add to more EU gov censorship and tax.
Re: (Score:1)
But nobody wanted to listen in the 80's and 90's about government. They were called crazies. Turns out they were correct all along, we still shit on them and tell them they're crazy.
owners, too? (Score:1)
Re:owners, too? (Score:4)
Well, they write the articles. Do you?
Draconian copyright is the scourge of trying to build a free dictionary. So it is directly relevant to what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the authors of the information these few editors are denying voice by taking Wikipedia hostage for a day?
The point is to drive home the fact that if these copyright rules are implemented by member states in the intended form, a hell of a lot more damage will be done to the wikis than just being down for one day. Article 13 in particular will screw over an immense number of sites, not just Wikipedia: pretty much any web site that deals with user-uploaded content.
Re: (Score:3)
24 hours??? (Score:2)
IS that really long enough for a hear say site? By Wikipedia's own policy originality is not allowed as all article have to have an outside reference. This is done to avoid legal challenges. Yet many have a subtle political, religious and other erroneous bias. Think about that.
You're wrong (Score:3)
"Worse, the final draft of Article 11 has no exceptions to protect small and noncommercial services, including Wikipedia" [eff.org].
Found through Wikipedia, of course! (Score:2)
Wikipedia's article about the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market [wikipedia.org] has useful information and pointers, such as the procedure file [europa.eu], itself pointing (in section "documentation gateway") to many documents, including:
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading [europa.eu] (PDF in top right corner of frame)
- Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading [europa.eu]
Yeah, like it will have any effect (Score:2, Interesting)
I bet both the EU commission and parliament are snickering at this "announcement". They can't wait for things like Wikipedia to disappear by themselves and save them the effort to just ban them.
Nationalist bullshit (Score:1)
This is just more bullshit by nationalists acting as Putin's useful idiots trying to teardown the EU.
They've succeeded in isolating the UK from the EU with Brexit and are now moving on fresh pastures.
I like the new law (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I find it hard to believe you do not have some idea already, but here you go: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
What is the big deal for wikipedia ? (Score:2)