Slashdot Mirror


Four Wikipedias To 'Black Out' Over EU Copyright Directive (wikimediafoundation.org)

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."

49 comments

  1. SOPA Part 2 by xack · · Score: 1

    The last big blackout on Wikipedia was when SOPA occurred. I think the effectiveness of Wikipedia going down every time something political incident occurs will make it lose it's effectiveness and the copyrighters will just make their own encyclopedia. Wikipedia will still make you an unperson for the crime of being "not notable".

    1. Re:SOPA Part 2 by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Are you implying the notability standard is a higher bar on copyright encyclopedias that Wikipedia?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:SOPA Part 2 by fibonacci8 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    3. Re:SOPA Part 2 by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      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".

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re: SOPA Part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R.I.p that guy who stole from MIT Aaron schawz

    5. Re:SOPA Part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That blackout was over seven years ago. More than enough time to feel important. There won't be a pacing problem.

    6. Re:SOPA Part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying the notability standard is a higher bar on copyright encyclopedias that Wikipedia?

      No, not among the idiots of Slashdork, where the Hitchhiker Guide to the Universe will be referenced by the number 42 but never remembered as a website which preceded Wickedpedos. TL;DR: Fuck off and die. Then visit H2G2, you ignorant pleb.

      Once upon a time the information source where anyone could edit resided in a delitionist free paradise where original "research" was welcomed and "an ode to odour" was placed along side the most relevant information of the times -- because storage of bits was dirt cheap. Sadly, all the "nerds" forgot what being a nerd meant, and actually just accepted whatever bullshit the established placed in their feeding bowl as food.

      What is higher notability? A knock knock joke, or all of Wikipedia? I henceforth move the deletionists destroy their own empire.

    7. Re:SOPA Part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Alpha Centauri

    8. Re:SOPA Part 2 by fazig · · Score: 1

      It would be sooo much more effective if google and facebook did this. Even if it only was for a single day. After all, these will be the companies who are affected by the new laws the most.
      Unfortunately they don't seem to value fighting copyright reforms as highly as the profit generated by a single day of regular usage.

  2. The more the EU passes regulations by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more people all over the EU will notice such draconian EU laws.
    The EU should embrace freedoms and innovation.
    Not add to more EU gov censorship and tax.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re: The more the EU passes regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people may notice them but have no power to do anything about them. Oh yes, they can elect their representatives I hear you say, but when your representative decide they can just ignore you because your pet cause is not that relevant in the big picture, and they know you have to vote for them again because the other party cares even less, what are you going to do? Face it, Big Money and Big Government have won.

    2. Re: The more the EU passes regulations by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:The more the EU passes regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fishing for some positive karma, eh?

      Look at post like this one: https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13602942&cid=58297726 where you become an apologist for Russia and pretend that when the West does it Slashdot tells us that it is a good thing. And yet, you yourself comment here, where it is criticized.
      You're so full of shit.

  3. owners, too? by digitect · · Score: 0

    What about all the authors of the information these few editors are denying voice by taking Wikipedia hostage for a day? Seems like just another ego-satisfying romp by the powerful few.

    --
    There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    1. Re: owners, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can write the day after/

    2. Re:owners, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the editors are denying the public access for a day regardless of the amount of people who either need to access it that day, or disagree with them, etc.

      They seem to think they own the resource.

    3. Re:owners, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Just like the Stackoverflow suite of sites. I hate the "power elite" on those sites so much.

    4. Re:owners, too? by aberglas · · Score: 3

      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.

    5. Re:owners, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know.... there's mirrors, right? Like, a lot of them. Sometimes it's all you can find in search results.

      Are they all going down for the day?

      Let me know after the apocalypse is over.

    6. Re:owners, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can run go to English Wikipedia click 'Translate' in your browser

    7. Re:owners, too? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:owners, too? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Of course we do. Do you think this kind of blackout has the approval of all the people who contributed to wikipedia ?

  4. Great if it kills Wiki BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will make google results much more useful without the spamming of wikipedia pages in everything.

    1. Re:Great if it kills Wiki BS by helpfulcorn · · Score: 2

      Still better than pinterest stinking up everything, especially image results. If I see a Wikipedia link then I know I'm getting something useful when I click it, if I see something for pinterest I can basically guarentee that it won't take me to where to the information I'm interested in. Google Image Search results, click a pinterest image and 9 times out of 10 it won't be on that page and in fact will be almost impossible to find. Pinterest just needs to be straight up banned from Google until they link to the actual content they claim.

  5. Sadly it will do fuck all good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they give in on this(which they won't) it will just come back again.

  6. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statement you just made is copyrighted by me since 420 bc.
    You will be hearing from my lawyers any day now, unless my mob of angry men finds you first.

    Have a good day.

  7. 24 hours??? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:24 hours??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-profit Wikipedia ought to be exempt from the new copyright laws.
      By shutting their services down, they are in fact showing one of their political biases. They're not subtle about this at all. Doesn't matter that I agree with them on this particular issue, it's still a political bias.

  8. Yeah, like it will have any effect by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Nationalist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Brexshit 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about all the authors of the information these few editors are denying voice by taking Wikipedia hostage for a day? Seems like just another ego-satisfying romp by the powerful few.

    That sounds a lot like Brexit to me, a minority of neo-fascists holding a whole country hostage

  11. Won't change anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU authorities do not care about Wikipedia, they have no use or interest in it, and they would love to see it go away by itself without the need for further laws on what is allowed on the internet - which will eventually happen anyway.

  12. I like the new law by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

    The only people that seem to be opposed to the new copyright law is Google, because they make money off of copyright infringement on YouTube. I have yet to find any aspect of the law I find "chilling". Perhaps someone here can illuminate me?

    1. Re:I like the new law by Anonymous Coward · · 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/...

  13. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adblock allowed me to get around that pesky bullshit last time they pulled that shit here, because they did not actually take the site down, they just covered it with a banner. Just click to block ads, select the frame with the bullshit bar, then click BLOCK.

    Solved.

  14. You're wrong by Anubis350 · · Score: 2
    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:You're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of curiosity, since I checked every single hyperlink in that article and at least some hyperlinks in the articles it linked to.
      Is there any link to the actual document they're referring to?

  15. Found through Wikipedia, of course! by Picodon · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia's article about the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has useful information and pointers, such as the procedure file, itself pointing (in section "documentation gateway") to many documents, including:
      - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading (PDF in top right corner of frame)
      - Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading

    1. Re:Found through Wikipedia, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the effort. Unfortunately those are very old text and do not include any information about the final text that the EFF article talks about.

      Don't get me wrong, EFF is a reputable source. But before I start sharing that link I have to do my due diligence and check their source materials.
      So far this is the most up to date version of the proposal that I can find myself: http://data.consilium.europa.e...
      I found this on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/sear... a source that is as official as it can get. However the document is from 2019-02-20 which is over a month old and might be outdated.

    2. Re: Found through Wikipedia, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not have to do any research on your own. All you have to do is to accept without question the deliberations of the European Parliament and the decisions of the European Commission. That is your duty as an EU citizen. Anything else is treason.

    3. Re: Found through Wikipedia, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHuxley, is that you?

      Like the EFF article states EU directives are not EU law. They first have to be ratified by each individual member state into their national laws. The lockout of the German Wikipedia has been covered by mainstream media there. And curiously a lot of them are critical of the directives as well. Which makes me wonder who even wants it to happen, since German MEPs eventually caved in.
      Anyway you can be assured that not everyone is going to like these. People will go out and protest on the streets. And outside of France this will probably be a bit more effective.
      There will be further opposition. And as Hungary proves, opposition from inside of the EU can work. You can still do your own things and the EU will do little about it. Only when Orban insulted his coalition partners directly they are now thinking about throwing him out of their coalition. But even if they do he will still be able to reap all the EU benefits while doing his own thing.
      Although quite ironically I think that Orban will welcome this directive as it can help him to tighten down the grip on his country. He also loves Macron's idea to crack down on "fake news".

  16. Still a great institution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the EU is still a wonderful institution, isn't it, NPCs?

  17. What is the big deal for wikipedia ? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

    I do not really get what is the real problem for wikipedia with this directive, when you take into account the WP:COPYVIO policy which about any wikipedia editor knows about.

    1. Re:What is the big deal for wikipedia ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article 11
      Protection of press publications concerning online uses

      1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.

      The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.

      The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.

      It typed that by hand, so excuse if you find a couple of typos. Look up the original here: http://data.consilium.europa.e... page 63.

      I understand a bit of legalese and can only say that this is a god awful ambiguous mess.
      For example what do they mean with: "The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking"?

      What protections are they exactly talking about? The only thing that reads like a protection is the first paragraph is the 2nd sentence. Which could mean that Wikipedia wouldn't simply be allowed to use hyperlink references to their sources without asking the sources for permission first. It sounds too stupid to be true, especially since all previous draft explicitly stated hyperlinking itself was exempt. But who can be sure without further clarification from the Council?
      So what did they mean here? If they followed convention for legal texts they would have had to define exactly what the mean by "protections" here by either using the same term in the subparagraph above or by direct text reference.