Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

Section 230

This is a rather positive end to the dumpster fire aka 2020. But I have a question: many people here are apparently worried that Trump's repeal of Section 230 will negatively affect Wikipedia. But if I recall correctly, Biden also wants to repeal Section 230. Is anyone worried that Biden may also negatively affect Wikipedia if he repeals the law? 45.251.33.98 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is definitely reason to be concerned about Biden's position in this matter as well. In January 2020, during the primaries, he called for Section 230 to be "revoked, immediately", which on the face of it isn't a much more thoughtful stance than Trump's. But I think the difference is that once he is in office, people expect Biden to leave this kind of campaign-time ranting behind him, and to be much better than Trump at listening to experts and taking potential negative consequences of his actions into account. In any case, presidents can't repeal Section 230, only Congress can.

Still, presidents have lots of other levers affecting internet and communications policy, such as the FCC. As summarized by Protocol.com earlier this year, there is concern about "Biden's fervent support of SOPA-PIPA, two Hollywood-backed anti-piracy laws that the industry [and Wikipedia] protested in 2012. 'Biden has always been viewed as sort of Hollywood's guy on tech and telecom policy,' [a] Democratic campaign veteran said. Biden's deputy campaign manager for communications strategy, Kate Bedingfield [now designated White House Communications Director], was a former vice president of communications with the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group that counts Disney, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner as members." Techdirt also reminded us that "while [Biden] was a Senator, he was a reliable vote on whatever terrible copyright bill Hollywood pushed for, and then in the White House he was, again, a giant proponent of Hollywood's agenda. He convened a 'piracy summit' that was only representatives of legacy industries -- with no one representing internet companies, independent artists who use the internet, or any of the many artist and consumer groups out there." I guess one needs to hope that he has evolved a bit on these matters, like he has on his past tough-on-crime and anti-LGBTQ policymaking.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Billionth edit

I've just made some tweaks to the billionth edit blurb. MediaWiki proper wasn't used until July 2002. Graham87 06:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Is that article edits, or edits in all namespaces (user and talk pages, etc)? AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits in all namespaces. Graham87 12:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also file uploads, I think, see Special:Diff/997082405 for example. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Section 230, CASE Act, & the Digital Services Act

It's looking more & more that instead of separate countries, or even finite groups of countries (such as the EU) establishing differing laws about free speech, we need an international treaty concerning copyright, defamation, & hate speech for online fora. This is approaching the unworkable situation described by one medieval commentator: one could have three people sharing the same room in an inn who are governed by three entirely different sets of laws. Too many online communities are international in nature, which inevitably causes problems for all involved. I don't know if this will result in a good thing -- by guaranteeing some minimum expectations of freedom of speech -- or a bad thing -- by enforcing the worst practices of any country upon all of the others. Nevertheless, the need for a level ground is clearly needed, & hopefully we average netizens can be involved & protect our natural rights before the corporations impose terms that benefit only them. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There are international treaties governing copyright. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 19 covers free speech: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. So, what now? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In the context of copyright, one more thing is the never-ending issue of freedom of panorama. While there's 50% chance of FOP introduction in countries like ours and South Africa (Wikimedia South Africa's subpage detailing track progress of the Copyright Amendment Bill), I have a gut feeling that there might be a reversal of FOP statuses in several countries. For instance, the conclusion in this Art Law Centre of Australia article on public sculptures seems to advocate the removal of FOP for 3D works in Australia because "sculptors in Australia should not be treated differently to other visual artists." This, however, may kill thousands of CC/PD-licensed images of Australian 3D public art at Commons and may collaterally damage many enwiki articles on Australian 3D public art (forcing these to use "non free images"). I don't have any latest news on FOP from EU and other regions and areas. Theoretically a global FOP is possible, but very unlikely for this year, this decade, or the next decades to come. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition: not to mention the restrictions to FOP made by the Central American countries of Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua during 2000s, each restricting FOP to "personal use only" (see also c:Commons:FOP Costa Rica, c:Commons:FOP Honduras, and c:Commons:FOP Nicaragua). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Delayed appropriations

The article says "Failure to override the veto would delay $740 billion in defense appropriations, so would also be very difficult." Note that the bill that was vetoed is an authorizations bill, not an appropriations bill. The President signed the omnibus appropriations and COVID bill, including appropriations for the Department of Defense, on December 27, 2020. So the veto of the authorization bill does not delay the defense appropriations. —Salton Finneger (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I inferred a couple of words not there: "Failure to override the veto would delay [expenditure of] $740 billion in defense appropriations..." which I think is closer to correct. Overseas contingencies are already authorized, so the totally correct statement would be "Failure to override the veto would delay [expenditure of much of] $740 billion in defense appropriations...", which is probably puzzling to "lay" readers, and I'm not sure it's better to write it that way. - Bri.public (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be sure everybody knows now, the NDAA veto was overridden by the Senate at long last today, so there is no pressure to remove the Section 230 protections right now. This may of course come up later again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)