Op do 21-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef Alex R.:
If Wikipedia was to start to do any lobbying for
legislation,
a strict policy would need to be implemented so that any such
activities don't jeapardize its proposed 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
Since when does an act of Free Speech joepardize a not-for-profit
organisation?
From: "Jimmy Wales"
<jwales(a)bomis.com>
> While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with
> Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act just because I (and
> presumably a majority of wikipedians) happen to agree with it.
I understand that. There are a lot of causes that need attention and
that are worth fighting for. But most of them have no direct relation
with Wikipedia / free software / open content.
> Suppose the next political protest we're
asked to participate in is
> pro-war? Or anti-war? Or whatever.
There is a war going on: the battle between openness and closedness.
As a social movement, we are stronger if we stand together.
Taking sides is something that
> all of us have a moral responsibility to do as individuals,
I strongly disagree with that. Organisations & companies are continually
taking sides, eg lobbyists, the Catholic Church,... And they have in
general more power to social reform than they are willing to admit.
Saying that decisions for creating a better world is up to the
individual, and only the individual, is choosing for the status-quo.
Of course Wikipedia's situation is very different because of its very
loose structure, and decision-making.
This is an action of protest, of making things known to the outside
world. But it's not exactly a black and white situation either: or the
webpage down, or nothing. A middle way is to show a big red protest-box,
leaving all the rest the same.
but
> Wikipedia the encyclopedia is outside politics.
What if Microsoft had some patents on some Encarta features?
Let's not forget: frames & stylesheets are already patented. If you are
little and unimportant there is no need to fear such patents.
If Wikipedia is going to be big and disruptive, would the current
establishment use the legal system to stop it? Maybe or maybe not.
Op do 21-08-2003, om 22:13 schreef Erik Moeller:
The MediaWiki developer team can take a position
against software patents
(on the software page at SourceForge, for example),
Where no one of the audience you want to reach is gonna read it. Only the already
converted.
Very efficient.
Wikimedia should try to maintain neutrality on all
controversial issues in
the interest of credibility.
In the articles, yes.
Do Free Speech advocates need to shup up on controversial issues in the interest of
credibility?
Patentibility of software is controversial *because we achieved to make it so*!
Wikipedia has credibility to win or to loose with this action.
Let's not confuse neutrality with indifference.
Wouter Vanden Hove