Ads 468x60px

giovedì 6 ottobre 2011

No alla legge bavaglio! Say NO to Wiretapping Bill!

Non credo ci sia molto da aggiungere.

That's what's happening to Italian Wikipedia.

And this is a comment from that page which perfectly summerizes the situation.

"I am from Italy, and I can explain exactly what this Bill is all about.
Let’s say somebody writes something I don’t like on a website, any website. Well, in that case, if this bill is approved, I can make the admins of that website remove that statement within 48 hours. Law would impose that to them; and not only they would need to remove that thing, but they would have to replace it with whatever the “offended” person suggest, giving it the same visibility, graphics and importance as the old statement. All this in 48 hours, by law.
So I think italian Wikipedia is simply saying “If things will go that way, the basic purpose of wikipedia could not be achieved: wikipedia would not be free anymore, so we are just giving it up, hoping that things will not turn that way. Especially because wikipedia has its own system for solving these problems, and it’s working really good.”
So I don’t think they’re using Wikipedia for a political purpose, but just to say that if the bill gets approved, wikipedia would not be useful anymore, so it would have to die."

And an example from another person:

"Let’s suppose that I will be sued and condemned for a crime. “Andrea has been condemned for this crime” This is a true verifiable undeniable statement, nothing malicious, just a verified proposition (as Chomsky would put it).
With the old Law I can sue someone if they publish something personal or untrue or malicious, but not for the plain truth.
With the new law I can sue and have the phrase removed, just because I personally don’t won’t that anyone should write anything about me on the web (wikipedia included).

Not only that: I should claim that the previous, that I PERSONALLY find unpleasant (but can be undeniable true) proposition will not only be removed but also substitued with something of my choice with the same visibility. So not only I can remove “Andrea has been condamned for this crime” (even if is a true verifiable statement) but also I can force to write “Andrea is a very kind man that has been unjustly condemned by this unfair law for this uncommitted crime”.
This is against the same concept of wikipedia and even against the concept of objectivity and the existence of a truth itself!"

2 commenti:

  1. I think the worst things are:
    1 - you should remove/substitute EVEN TRUE infos, just because they could be ruin the image of someone
    2 - you should NO noticing to your readers about modifications
    3 - there are no impartial parts in this
    And this is inaccettable, not for wikipedia, but for ANYONE who writes on internet, A-N-Y-O-N-E, even me, you, a journalist, a little girl, ANYONE!
    Is this democracy? Is this a free country? I should replace my comment? Kiss my ass, Berlusconi!

  2. @gnoma

    Fai bene sia a precisare che a sfogarti: finché possiamo... :(


Adoro leggere i vostri commenti e faccio sempre del mio meglio per rispondere a tutti! Vi chiedo la cortesia di non lasciare link/spam, se volete che legga qualcosa la mia email è a vostra disposizione! :)

Your comments made my day and I always try to reply as much as possible! Please refrain from spamming or link dropping, if you want me to visit your website send me an email! :)