What's happened to Wikipedia today?

Try and Wikipedia something today and you'll be met with this statement:

'Imagine a World

Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.'

Here's the full text of their statement:

'What exactly is Wikipedia doing?

Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout will not be able to read the encyclopedia: instead, they will see messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, and encouraging them to share their views with their elected representatives, and via social media.

Why is this happening?

Nothing like this has ever happened before on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedians have chosen to black out the English Wikipedia for the first time ever, because we are concerned that SOPA and PIPA will severely inhibit people's access to online information. This is not a problem that will solely affect people in the United States: it will affect everyone around the world.

Why? SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won't be effective in their main goal (to stop copyright infringement), and will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

Do you care about infringement?

Yes. Wikipedians spend thousands of hours every week working tirelessly in reviewing and preventing infringing content. Their talk pages show tremendous care about protecting copyright and sophisticated study on the many nuances of what constitutes infringement as opposed to legitimate speech. Wikipedia is based on a model of free licenses. Every Wikipedian is a rights owner, licensing their work under free licenses. Infringement harms our mission; free licenses do not work with infringement. Wikipedia has a mission of sharing knowledge around the world, and that is not possible when the knowledge is tainted with infringement. So, yes, Wikipedians care deeply about protecting the rights of others and ensuring against infringement.

But this does not meean Wikipedians are willing to trample on free expression like SOPA and PIPA. The proposed legislation seeks to take down sites entirely, because courts and others simply don't have time to worry about the nuances of copyright law and free expression. That is what is troubling. When the remedies are bludgeons, when entire sites are taken down, when everyone assumes that all content is infringing because some is, we lose something important. We lose the nuances of copyright about which our community cares, we lose our values based on protecting free speech, we lose what we represent. The Internet cannot turn into a world where free expression is ignored to accomodate overly simple solutions that gratify powerful rightowners who spend lots of money to promote the regulation of expression. There are better ways, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to find the right approach to legitimate copyright enforcement without trampling on free expression. SOPA and PIPA don't represent these values, and for that reason we ask you to oppose these bills.

Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved, and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?

No, neither SOPA nor PIPA are dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. We are already seeing big media calling us names. In many jurisdictions around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties. We want the Internet to be free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?

SOPA and PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require U.S. sites to take on the heavy burden of actively policing third-party links for infringing content. And even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary, ambiguous, and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. Taking one bad provision out doesn't make the bills okay, and regardless, Internet experts agree they won't even be effective in their main goal: halting copyright infringement. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a really great post about some of the more dangerous SOPA and PIPA provisions.

What can users outside of the U.S. do to support this effort?

Readers who don't live in the United States can contact their local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar branch of government. Tell them that you oppose the draft U.S. SOPA and PIPA legislation, and all similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will have a global effect - websites outside of the U.S. would be impacted by legislation that hurts the free and open web. And, other jurisdictions are grappling with similar issues, and may choose paths similar to SOPA and PIPA.

Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page.

I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?

No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial self-interest. But you can know it's not that simple, because Wikipedia has no financial self-interest here: we are not trying to monetize your eyeballs or sell you products. We are protesting to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA solely because we think they will hurt the Internet, and your ability to access information. We are doing this for you.

In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?

We hope you continue to trust Wikipedia to be a neutral informational resource. We are staging this blackout because, although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence actually is not. For over a decade, Wikipedians have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Wikipedia's existence depends on a free, open and uncensored Internet. We are shutting Wikipedia down for you, our readers. We support your right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe people should be able to share information without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA (and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States) don’t advance the interests of the general public. That's why we're doing this.

What can I read to get more information?

Try these links:

• Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner
• Official Wikimedia Foundation press release
• Statement from the community affirming blackout
• Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the problems with SOPA/PIPA
• Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA'

Subtle language used on Wikipedia

Whilst researching my earlier piece about the Yes campaign's dropping of a black figure from leaflets sent to non-metropolitan areas I did a little light Wikipedia reading on Benjamin Zephaniah, whose poetry I do remember albeit not fondly and Tony Robinson who has done little of worth since Blackadder. In doing so I found this entry in Tony Robinson's entry:

'In March 2011, Robinson participated in the 'March for the Alternative' protests in Central London, which opposed the then Tory-led UK Government's spending cuts programme.'

'then Tory-led UK Government'? Somehow I think that entry may last have been edited by someone on the left of British politics. I have corrected the entry so it now reads:

'In March 2011, Robinson participated in the 'March for the Alternative' protests in Central London, which opposed the Conservative led Coalition UK Government's spending cuts programme'

For as I said in my Wikipedia edit:

'/* Politics and personal life */ replaced 'then Tory-led UK Government' with 'Conservative led Coalition UK Government' as government is current & so should not be reported in past tense, lead party in government is Conservative not Tory party'

Language is important and the Tory/Conservative difference is well known and explicable as is the use of the word 'then' to slant the entry.

Protecting the liberal shibboleths

Take a read of Wikipedia's article on the Community Reinvestment Act and ask yourself if the section headed 'Controversies and criticisms' seems fair and balanced or somewhat skewed towards defending the controversial Act?

Gaza - something doesn't add up

The BBC amongst others is very keen to tell us that: 'Construction materials are banned from entering Gaza by Israel, which says they could be used for military purposes by Hamas.' as they tell us how much concrete is being carried in the 'aid convoys'.

That's odd as Ma'an News 'the main source of independent news from Palestine' reported on 18 May the following:

'Gaza's first Olympic-standard swimming pool was inaugurated at the As-Sadaka club during a ceremony on Tuesday held by the Islamic Society.

Gaza government ministers, members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, leaders of Islamic and national governing bodies, as well as club members and athletes were among those at the opening ceremony, where Secretary-General of the Islamic Society Nasim Yaseen thanked the donors who helped realize the project.'

How much concrete was required to build this Olympic size pool? If building materials are indeed banned how did the building materials get to Gaza? Of course the truth is somewhat at variance with Hamas claims. Israel does let building materials into Gaza indeed in one week in May I read that Israel 'allowed 6 trucks loaded with 250 tons of cement, one truck loaded with 5 tons of iron and 15 trucks loaded with gravels to enter Gaza for building projects operated and executed by UNRWA.' And that's the point Israel allows building materials into Gaza so long as they know the materials are not to be used to build reinforced bunkers from which Hamas activists will be able to continue to fire rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals. One figure that staggered me was that

'Since the ceasefire, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel - That's almost a ton of aid for every man woman and child in Gaza.'

The BBC and other media claim that Israel has sealed Gaza off from the outside world. This is a map of Gaza form the BBC website...
Note that both Gaza and Israel are clearly marked. What is not marked is the other country that borders Gaza to its South-West, Egypt. Egypt has a 11km border with Gaza through which as much aid or even trade could pass as Egypt wants. The BBC often claim that Israel 'controls' the crossings into Gaza. If Egypt wanted t open its border to Gaza it could do so but it does nopt want to. The Egyptians know what sort of government is in power in Gaza and what they want to achieve. Hamas and its colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood want to see the destruction of Israel but their view of Egypt's future is not one that the Egyptian government approve of.

For an interesting view of the history of Gaza can I recommend Wikipedia's entry. There you will discover the truth behind claims of prior Palestinian statehood, Egypt's treatment of Gaza and how Gaza's protests against occupation are only ever aimed at Israel not Egypt. However it is this extract that aught my eye:

'The Palestinian Authority rule of the Gaza Strip and West Bank under the leadership of Arafat suffered from serious mismanagement and corruption scandals. For example, exorbitant bribes were demanded for allowing goods to pass in and out of the Gaza Strip, while heads of the Preventive Security Service apparatus profited from their involvement in the gravel import and cement and construction industries, such as the Great Arab Company for Investment and Development, the al-Motawaset Company, and the al-Sheik Zayid construction project.'

Gone and so soon forgotten?

Wikipedia have deleted the page devoted to 'Brownism' because

'Article has existed since April 2007 and is uncited, no such thing exists. Delete, no content of any value to merge.'

Just about sums Gordon Brown doesn't it - 'no content of any value'.

Alastair Campbell

I had the grave misfortune to hear Alastair Campbell being interviewed by the vile Victoria Derbyshire on 5Live this morning. Alastair Campbell was ostensibly being interviewed about why Tony Blair would make the best President of the EU. However Alastair Campbell seemed most keen to explain why David Cameron, William Hague and the Conservative Party were out of touch, not capable of forming a government and so on and on and on. Standard Labour/BBC propaganda and not really worth commenting on, but then I had a look at Alastair Campbell's Wikipedia entry to check a date and saw that the entry on the Iraq War consisted of just this bland text:

"In early 2003 he advised on presentation aspects of the "Iraq Dossier". Later in 2003, commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" He resigned in August 2003 during the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly."

Not a mention of the controversy over the dodgy dossier or even a link to the Iraq Dossier page on the same site.

How odd...

Word of the week

According to Wikipedia Diegesis:

"Diegesis is

1. the (fictional) world in which the situations and events narrated occur; and
2. telling, recounting, as opposed to showing, enacting.[1]

In diegesis the narrator tells the story. The narrator presents to the audience or the implied readers the actions, and perhaps thoughts, of the characters."


In context, whilst watching "Hot Fuzz" again last night, I looked the film up on Wikipedia and read this passage:
"At times the music is diagetic in nature. For example when Timothy Dalton's character Skinner drives by the fatal collision scene of Blower and Draper (who had appeared on stage the previous evening as Romeo and Juliet), the Dire Straits song "Romeo and Juliet" is heard on Skinner's radio. In another scene, involving the burning of George Merchant, Skinner drives by with his radio playing "Fire" by Arthur Brown."

More BBC bias

There is a new word sweeping the blogosphere and starting to impinge on the consciousness of the MSM, that word is "Wikigate". In case you are new to this concept, I will explain; Wikigate concerns the politically biased editing of Wikipedia entries by organisations or people working within organisations. If you do not frequent the blogosphere then the first you may have heard about this in the UK would probably have been from this page on the BBC web site. This page within the technology subsection of the news area started by concentrating on claims that the CIA had been editing Wikipedia entries on the Iranian President and others. The page has now been amended to include claims that others have been doing the same, including: the Vatican, the Democratic Party in the US and Microsoft. One example this page does not include is that of the organisation that was the first to be accused this week of amending entries - the BBC.

Take a look at this page from the Wikiscanner website, it shows the ip addresses used by the BBC and you can dig into the Wikipedia edits made from these addresses. Now we know that the BBC is unbiased and reflects the full spectrum of the British people so these edits must have been to correct factual errors only, mustn't they? Don't be daft...
Here is one edit made from a BBC computer, the changing of George Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker".
Here is another changing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter".
Here is another where changes were made to Tony Blair's entry to make it seem as though his heart problems were brought on by drinking "vodka" rather than "coffee" and by exercising too much in the "bedroom" rather than the "gym".
Here is one that shows the level of BBC journalism off beautifully; a long diatribe against Islamophobia containing such phrases as "last year during the 7/7 attacks all muslims in britain were under threat. the media managed to hang a hook on them and whenever they refer to terrorists its allways Muslim terorists" and the beautifully crafted "just like how the press make up stuff about celebrities, they also make up shit about muslims. just because 4 people decided to something because of their own personal beliefs does not mean all muslims beleive the same way"; don't forget, it's our licence fee paying for these entries, do read the rest of that "edit" it's a real insight into the BBC mindset.
Here are some edits to the Wikipedia entry on the Balen report that tones down the original.
Here is one regarding the expulsion of Syrian Jews, changing "The Jews slowly left Syria after years of torture at the hands of former president Hafez Al-Assad and his government{{fact}}. Most were not allowed to leave and had to pay government officials to get out, or risk their lives by sneaking across the borders." to "Many Jews left Syria after agreement with the US in the 1990s allowed them to immigrate to Israel, although important Jewish communities still thrive in Damascus and Aleppo. Jews in Israel maintain ties to their homeland". Another insight into the BBC mind-set there.
Here is just the addition of a "?" after "Economic competence" on the page concerning the Conservative party.
Here is an addition to the entry on Tariq Aziz regarding George Bush's Christianity.
Here is an addition to the page on the Jewish National Fund which adds "Palestinians regard it as a key element of what they call Israel's 'apartheid' character in that its existence prevents non-Jewish use of the land it controls." and other claims of apartheid to the entry - I wonder if any claims regarding the apartheid nature of Saudi Arabia where non Muslims have no rights to religious assembly etc. have ever been made by someone at the BBC.
Here is a nasty one that tries to depersonalise Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by a Palestinian terrorist organisation in 1994, by changing references to "Gilad" to "Shalit" or "he".

There are more to be found and I will try and put a list up when I have the time to collate one, some are major, some are minor but they are all posted from a left wing, anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-USA, anti-Israel stance. For an unbiased organisation their employees do seem to all post from one political point of view.

As a nice bureaucratic organisation, the BBC do have a policy on "the responsibilities of all staff when using the email and Internet. The main principle is to safeguard the BBC network and its data." You can read it along with links to the "Obligations for Users policy" here.

The BBC has "form" in it's political bias, watch this video regarding a poster comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler being on the wall of a BBC news room.

The bias is relentless and the licence paying public are now catching up with the blogosphere and are realising and resenting what is being promoted in their name and with their money, more strident protests may not be far off.

UPDATE:
The BBC have added a rather weaselly recognition of their part in Wikigate, right at the end of the original article is this sentence - "BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages."
Come, come BBC - some examples would be nice; there are some within this article, please use them.

UPDATE:
Take a look at the News Sniffer records of the changes to the BBC page on Wikigate as time has passed. A lovely change occurs between version 1 and version 2 which shows how the BBC are still smarting from George Bush's victory in the 2000 election. Version 1 includes this sentence "One in particular is Diebold, the company that supplied electronic voting machines for the controversial US election in 2000.", version 2 drops the attitude and reads "One in particular is Diebold, a company which supplies electronic voting machines in the US.".

A query on News Sniffer, why does this page show a highlighted sentence in each version when they are the same?