Maybe I'm being dense, but I couldn't gather from the notice the scope of the Italian law: Servers hosted in Italy? Publishers of said content irrespective of where it is hosted? Authors of said content? Would the website be blacklisted if it (loosely speaking the people behind it) do not cooperate with the law? Does Italy even have an internet blacklist?
This came to the attention on the foundation wide discussion list earlier today (I think this is the first time the foundation were aware of it too...) & I've been digging into it.
The law they are protesting basically says as follows:
- Any party can post a notice to the owner/publisher of a website or blog etc. telling them to correct information (and provide the new information they require) and this must be done within 48 hours or a fine can be imposed.
Obviously it is a silly law. Italian Wikipedians are arguing that it is risky for them because it leaves them open to receiving these notices and having fines imposed; and so they have shut down (on their own initiative) it.wiki.
There is a lot of FUD flying around... but as best I can make out:
- There is nothing in these new laws to actually blacklist of close down Wikipedia for non-compliance
- There doesn't appear to be a way to use the law to target editors individually (although as with many laws it's really hard to make it "fit" into how Wikipedia is structured..).
The same law exists in France, as far as I can tell; I happen to have encountered that due to signing up for a hosting provider (gandi.net) originally based in France, which noted that particular law in their terms.
I can see how such laws could seem like a good idea to someone completely unfamiliar with how the Internet operates ("Someone is wrong on the Internet!"). As it stands, it sounds like a good reason to never host anything in Italy or France that talks about other people in any way.
If the scope of it is as described I can't see how anyone s would think its a good idea, even if they support the general principle behind defamation laws and assume the internet works the same way as any other form of publishing. Unless they happened to be a public figure constantly in the press for consorting with prostitutes etcetera, of course.
If its scope is as described in the Wikipedia article it's akin to forcing newspapers to follow up every front page Berlusconi expose with a front page statement from Berlusconi that it didn't happen. Would the Italian public stand for that?
If you have a source about the French part I am really very interested. There is a similar law but it requires a judgment of a court of justice, it is a law about public slander and it usually only requires that the "attacked" party is given the ability to answer in the same medium.
France refers to it as the "Right of Reply", and as far as I can tell it requires no legal judgment to occur first. The "LCEN" ("Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique", law on confidence in the digital economy) extends this to online communications. Anyone designated in online communication can send a reply within 3 months and force the publication of their reply in the same location as the original designation.
Who even has the ability to delist it.wp? Does the Italian Arbcom have the power to remove the wiki? I would have thought that only the Foundation itself could have made this call. It appears they've redirected every page (even those that don't exist) to the notice. This would seem to require a hell of a lot greater access than any mere editor would be afforded.
The language Wikipedia's a fairly autonomous (which is good, FWIW, except when it goes wrong) with the Foundation trusting them to follow the core community ideals
As to how they did this; MediaWiki has a Commons.js that is editable by admins. They stuck some JS in to redirect every page to their statement. The content is all there; just "hidden". Turning off JS will allow browsing the site (I think).
EDIT: you'll also need to find a way to remove this piece of css: .portlet, #column-one, #firstHeading, #bodyContent, #footer, #catlinks, #siteNotice, #siteSub, #contentSub {
display: none;
}
Jimmy Wales just described it (in a Facebook post) as "Wikipedia Italy is on strike against an idiotic proposed law". While Jimmy Wales is no longer synonymous with Wikipedia governance, his implicit endorsement of the strike is definitely Something.
Though people are fighting on the mailing list and calling for all the Italian sysops be desysopped.
The US neither has nor is presently debating any copyright laws which impose (or threaten to impose) a debilitating burden on the Wikipedia editing process and its content.
