Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finnish Police Board Wants Justification For Wikipedia's Fundraising Campaign

Posted by timothy on from the citizens-united dept.

linjaaho writes "Yesterday, the admin list of Finnish language Wikipedia received a request for comment from the National Police Board of Finland. The Police Board claims that the fundraising message appearing on the top of the Wikipedia pages is illegal fundraising and is punishable by criminal law. The Police Board asks how much money have they raised and ask for justification for the campaign. This is not the first time the Police Board has attacked fundraising; in 2012, a crowdfunded textbook Kickstarter project was delayed by a similar request for comment."

38 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. wikipedia by CurryCamel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That reminds me, I should make a donation.

    1. Re:wikipedia by paiute · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought the whole fuck beta thing is over with now? Didn't they already indicate in the official response the whole thing was just to instigate feedback and everyone hyper reacted?

      Nice try, Dice managment.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:wikipedia by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      I thought the whole fuck beta thing is over with now? Didn't they already indicate in the official response the whole thing was just to instigate feedback and everyone hyper reacted?

      They did respond. I quit protesting at that point figuring we made our thoughts clear and they would not continue untill things had been fixed. Others are protesting until the beta is completely dropped.

      I wish that they would post on topic then at the end of their post, put their beta protest.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:wikipedia by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is getting a little annoying. We made our point (in spades I'd say). Dice knows full well if they pull a stunt like that again, they'll have another revolt. I'd say, for now, it's time to back off a little bit.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:wikipedia by pla · · Score: 2

      Hence Dice decided to slash the site's budget from several millions to zero.

      That doesn't say what you think it does: "Therefore, $7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media were reduced to zero"

      A ledger entry for "goodwill" means that Dice previously claimed that Slashdot had more real worth than its book value suggests, due to hard-to-measure aspects of the site (demographics, loyalty, reputation, etc). Usually a company will record that largely to justify to shareholders that they paid too much for an asset they "want" but that doesn't make sense on a purely financial level. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with "funding" of Slashdot.

      That said, the page you link does mention something... Odd: "Slashdot Media was acquired to provide content and services that are important to technology professionals in their everyday work lives and to leverage that reach into the global technology community benefiting user engagement on the Dice.com site"

      I find that odd because Dice.com has no "user engagement". As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have many real job postings, with most of its listings nothing more than the HR equivalent of honeypots - Just tasting the waters and hoping to find out how much leverage they have to screw their current employees.

    5. Re:wikipedia by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Because I, for one, don't understand a FUCKING thing about allllllll of this Anti-Beta graffito all over Slashdot.

      Well that's easy to fix. Here, let's get you going on what's wrong, just use this site for a day or so and get back to us.

      You stupid fucks are basically now Public Nuisance #1. It's gotten nothing done and it should get nothing done because any number of simple assholes shouldn't have any affect on any SYSOPs policies.

      Odd, because it does seem to somewhat have gotten their attention going by the feedback thread. But I guess when the majority of the commenter base says they don't like something, they should just shut up because someone doesn't have an opinion on it. Gee, isn't that the same mentality the people whine and cry about, when government does something and no one speaks up?

      I hope you have a shitty fucking day!

      Perhaps, just perhaps it's time to grow up a bit. After all, who hopes for something like that on someone.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Website development is not a quick process. We've been collecting feedback -- not everybody reads Slashdot concurrently, and we don't want to leave out the people who didn't happen to be around on Wednesday and Thursday. After that's done, we need to decide what needs to be done, what order we're going to do it in.. and then the engineers will start hacking at the code. (In reality, they're already hacking at it, to continue implementing features while we work toward parity.)

      That's why the beta site is... beta. And why the Classic site is still around, and will continue to be around for quite a while. I'm sorry it's not as fast as you'd like, but it's entirely incorrect to say we're not acting on feedback.

    7. Re:wikipedia by The_Noid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The beta looks pretty much the same as the last time you asked for feedback on it.
      What feedback did you get back then, and what did you do with it? Because the general impression is that you did nothing with it, and that is why people are angry.

      You should already have this information. You should be able to post, right now, what you did with the previous feedback and what you changed on the beta as a result, and which points you did not change, and why. This is data from months ago. Where is it? Why do you not publish it? Is it because you really didn't do anything with that feedback?

    8. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 2

      I don't have a full changelist -- one of the things I'm doing for our next post, whenever that is, is asking our design team for a complete list of changes. But I can throw out some examples (I've posted this in another thread, so it's partly cut and paste -- apologies if anybody's already read it).

      One of the biggest complaints back in October was that the beta site was limited to a relatively narrow max width. I don't recall exactly what it was -- around 900px, perhaps. In response to feedback, we made it responsive up to a much wider limit. We've also been busily implementing features as we work toward full parity with the old site. It's still not finished, but a lot more things work (or, at least, are implemented) now than was the case in October. We've changed how the pictures flow as window size increases. We've reduced the whitespace on all of the layouts to one degree or another (and yes, we know -- it's still too much).

      I get that you're still not happy with it -- but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed. It will continue to change.

    9. Re:wikipedia by The_Noid · · Score: 2

      Sound like minor tweaks to me, but I'm looking forward to the full list. Two questions:

      What percentage of active users is still using the Classic Discussion System (D1)?

      What kind of response where you expecting when you decided to push a broken, incomplete beta upon 25% of your users?

    10. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 2

      I don't know offhand how many users are still using D1 -- I'll ask one of the engineers to run a db query when I can.

      Personally, I was expecting the community to rain hell down on us. I was not disappointed.

      Let me ask you a question: if we'd spent a bit more time polishing the site and then just set it live for 100% of users, do you think that would have gone better? That's basically what we did for the 2011 redesign. Hearing some users now say, "Slashdot's perfect as it is, don't change it" is.. odd, to say the least, after the amount of criticism it received on launch.

      We've got the beta site up because we really want to work with the community this time around.

    11. Re:wikipedia by The_Noid · · Score: 2

      I'm one of the users that still use the old comment system, so for me you didn't change much in 2011. But since you implied that that won't be an option this time, users are not happy...

      I would have expected you to make the beta feature complete before pushing it on 25% of the users. Then the feedback probably would not have been quite so negative.

      If you wanted feedback on the design aspects I would have expected you to make a story about it, asking for feedback, like last time. But for a second round of feedback I would have expected a changelog, with details of what was done with the last feedback.

      You can not get any other feedback from an incomplete site than on the design. If you want feedback on an incomplete site you have to give a big disclaimer before asking people for feedback, detailing which parts are still incomplete, and how they are planned to be changed. You can not just push something functionally broken like that on 25% of your users and expect anything useful.

    12. Re:wikipedia by woodlandbop · · Score: 2

      So why did you ever imagine all that white space was a good idea? Reducing each line to around four words just makes for a very irritating reading experience. You say you're now listening but all available indicators are contrary to that - but - more to the point, it would only have taken 10 seconds thought to recognise that the whole orientation of the beta was completely misguided and accordingly would be instantly rejected - it is an absolute mystery why you started down this path and seems so intent on pursuing it even though it's so obviously a huge mistake.

    13. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right -- we should have communicated it better. It would have been my preference to get closer to feature parity, too, personally. But I do see value in rolling it out to more people, particularly when they're free to switch back to the Classic site. It helps a lot with the statistical significance of the feedback. Our earliest, invite-only alpha got very positive feedback overall. If we'd just gone with that, we'd be in serious trouble.

      I got some numbers for you on the D1 system. The total number of users who have it enabled is very small -- less than 10,000 out of 3M+ accounts.

      However, among active users, the percentage is much higher -- around 10%. And those users contribute roughly 15% of the comments on the site.

    14. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can categorically state that the beta site will certainly get more features and layout changes.

      I can categorically state that redesigns happen, and will continue to happen. We've had, what.. 4 redesigns, now? This isn't our first, and I'm sure it won't be our last.

      As for how long the classic site will stay up: it's not my call, and plans are far from firm. I wish I had more information for you, but I don't.

      I'm really sorry if it doesn't end up in a state that's to your personal preference. But given your comments, I'm not sure how that's even possible. Are you objecting because you don't like the specific changes, or because you don't want it to change at all?

    15. Re:wikipedia by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I miss the one-line comments, too, and it's one of the features I've been trying to get bumped up on the to-do list. The commenting system is not finished, by any means.

      Since Slashdot seems to have little or no interest during the past couple of years in repairing broken issues with profile options, I suspect the new version isn't going to be any better.

      That's actually one of the reasons for the redesign. Our codebase is vast and byzantine, and some of it stretches back from more than a decade ago. Rewriting and redesigning will allow us to make some changes and fixes much more easily than we can do currently.

  2. Tyranny by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Finland, it is illegal to plead with audience to raise funds without a special permission issued by the Police Board.

    If that is even half true, that's just tyrannical. Think about it. That means even a church in Finland doing disaster relief cannot call together a congregational meeting and ask for funds without getting a "by your leave, sire" from a bunch of police bureaucrats.

    1. Re:Tyranny by pijokela · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the point is that you fill an application and get the permit to raise funds. All kinds of non-profit organizations get them all the time. If wikipedia had done that the Finnish police would be quite happy. The problem is that Wikimedia is registered in California and they obviously do not care about Finnish law and I have no idea of how the police think they can force a US organization to comply with the rules if all the servers and staff are outside Finland.

      The issue with the kickstarted texkbook was different because it was not a non-profit organisation. In Finland you need to crowdsourcing very carefully so that it is clear that you are selling a product and not raising money. Jolla did it with their phone so it can be done, but just using kickstarter as it is is illegal, because it is too much like charity for funding a regular company.

    2. Re:Tyranny by Anssi55 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is true.

      Actually, AFAIK (and according to googling) churches in Finland can't even get the permit as they don't satisfy the "yleishyödyllisyys" (general benefit for society) requirement to get the permit. They co-operate with separate associations/foundations exist for that purpose, though, e.g. Finn Church Aid.

      There is a change to the law being planned that would allow churches and universities to conduct fundraisers, but no big overhaul that would actually be needed for the out-of-date law...

      Unofficial English translation of the current Money Collection Act by the Ministry of the Interior]

      Getting a permit requires a corporation or association registered in Finland, so they actually can't give the permit to Wikimedia Foundation even if they applied for one. The permit is also not given to private individuals, so you can't e.g. have a Paypal donate button without violating the law.

    3. Re:Tyranny by gerddie · · Score: 2

      >Actually, [...] churches [...] don't satisfy the "yleishyödyllisyys" (general benefit for society) requirement [...]

      A keen observation.

    4. Re:Tyranny by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Forcing" may be a problem, but generally the principle is that a possibly illegal action "happens" where it takes effect, so if people in Finland read the donation requests, then the Finnish police has the right and duty to act on it.

      So worst case, the Finnish police could ask Finnish ISPs to prevent access to a website that breaks the law in Finland.

      NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen, then we end up with a web that is the lowest common denominator of all the tyrannical laws in the world. A website in Finland does not get to dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of Finland. Period.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    5. Re:Tyranny by Reemi · · Score: 2

      A website OUTSIDE a sovereign state does not get to dictate the laws WITHIN said state.

      Wikipedia, not any other organization has the right to do business on their terms just because they can hide themselves behind a server.

      Note, the Finnish police asked for clarification and if Wikipedia answers it will not accept payments from Finnish citizens then there is no problem. If they want to receive payments from them, they will have to follow the Finnish laws. Period.

    6. Re: Tyranny by toopok4k3 · · Score: 2

      Yes.

    7. Re:Tyranny by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In other words, Finnish police, like police all over the world, are ignorant morons.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Tyranny by zieroh · · Score: 2

      Or the websites don't care if tyrannical country x bans access and just ignores it, if you have not noticed China already does that en mass.

      Indeed they can. And if Finland wants to follow China's example, then we will have learned something valuable about Finland's government.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    9. Re:Tyranny by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

      churches in Finland can't even get the permit as they don't satisfy the "yleishyödyllisyys" (general benefit for society) requirement

      I no longer feel sorry for people who have to learn English.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    10. Re: Tyranny by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Correct. Believe it or not, there's a shitload of scammers that run various "collections". Registering with police requires you to provide purpose of the collection as well as contact information of people responsible if you actually do scam someone.

      Some people appear to think that if someone is less intelligent, or informed, or just plain more gullible than average, it's completely okay to scam them. Most of the reasonable people disagree.

    11. Re:Tyranny by jopsen · · Score: 2

      In Finland, it is illegal to plead with audience to raise funds without a special permission issued by the Police Board.

      If that is even half true, that's just tyrannical...

      How so?
      I'm sure it is fairly easy to get a permit, it's probably just a standard form you fill out and file... I imagin prevents a lot of scam artists, honestly, that's good.. Obviously, wikipedia isn't being attacked or targeted, the police is just asking for compliance with local law by filling out a form.
      Oh, and I suspect that most non-profits in Finland have a standing permit to raise funds...
      In many countries it also illegal for poor people to beg for money on the street, not unreasonable in countries that provides welfare benefits you can live of without any problems.

      This, sounds like outcry over nothing...

    12. Re:Tyranny by Reemi · · Score: 2

      Wiki is doing business in Finland, they provide information services to Finnish citizens by providing access to their website.

      It is irrelevant if the Finns pay for it or not (payment can be made in different ways, money, bit-coins, advertisement, information gathering etc). Furthermore, being a non-profit organization doesn't mean you are not doing business.

      Don't get me wrong, I think Wikipedia should be allowed to collect money in Finland but only within the Finnish law.

    13. Re:Tyranny by westlake · · Score: 2

      NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen....

      We are talking about a charitable solicitation in the Finnish language for contributions to support the Finnish-language Wikipedia.

      It doesn't surprise me that the government of Finland would expect to have a say in that. There are about five million Finnish speakers, almost all resident in Finland. Finland must certainly does have the authority to block payments made through bank accounts, credit cards, etc., in Finland.

    14. Re:Tyranny by Whibla · · Score: 2

      The analogy can be made to work however...

      Imagine a pamphlet, printed in a country that's not Finland, that includes, like many do, a back cover soliciting for donations for some worthy cause. I mention to my Finnish friend an article I happened to read in aforementioned pamphlet, and they say to me "That sounds fascinating, I'd be very interested in reading that article. Can you send it to me?*". So I pop the pamphlet in an envelope, and post it to them. So now a Fin, in Finland, is in possession of something soliciting funds, from an organisation that has not applied for permission to solicit funds within Finland. Uh oh!

      Are you suggesting that the organisation that wrote the pamphlet should be held liable for any fines levied by the Finnish courts? Perhaps instead the person who mailed the pamphlet should be held liable, even though they have nothing to do with the organisation doing the soliciting? If neither of these is the case, in what way is this situation different to what is being discussed?

      *If it helps you might like to think of this request as akin to the http get request to load the web page in your browser.

  3. A story to watch... by Smivs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...from Start to Finnish.

    --
    Smivs on the intertubes!
  4. Cut the "fuck beta" crap already by jones_supa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People, shut the fuck up already. I hate the beta as much as the next guy, but we have seen enough of these "fuck beta" comments at this point. They do not change the situation right now in any meaningful way. You just make yourself look like an obsessed clown.

  5. Re:Not with a bang, but with a Beta. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    What company directs 25% of its users to a partially-working, not-ready-for-production website?

    Should the government have a monopoly on that?

  6. Stupid waste of taxpayer money by hydrofix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Finnish taxpayer I am utterly frustrated by this. It seems like the work of an overly-enthusiastic police official. The Wikipedia fundraiser makes it very explicit that the funds are being collected by a non-profit organization incorporated in California, and subject only to their local laws. Although the fundraiser would be illegal in Finland as-is (Finnish law requires applying for a fundraising permit to discourage fraud), the police and the courts in Finland clearly lack jurisdiction against a U.S. non-profit. The police resources, which they claim to be very scarce due to recent cuts in public sector spending, would be much better spend investigating actual fraud and other crime, where the police and the courts actually have jurisdiction and means to prevent and stop the crime and bring the perpetrators to justice.

  7. Re:They could not get a permit even i they wanted by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm also sure the law is used to punish entities that they don't approve of.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Re:/. is a community by Soulskill · · Score: 2

    It was a poor choice of wording, I agree. But believe me, there's no confusion that the community drives the site. When we're talking about fixes/changes/new features for the site, the commenters and submitters are foremost on our minds. We call you folks Makers.

  9. Re:what about linking to comments? by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Linking to comments will definitely be re-implemented. It's something that was already on our to-do list before expanding the beta test.