Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/News and notes

It's interesting that the WMF is planning on making their pro-Western bias clear on what counts as a "terrorist entity"; given they're likely going to treat US/EU with deference compared to other countries. Aside from the nebulous definition of terrorism w/r/t entities such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Hamas  or the entirety of the United States Armed Forces, Western countries also love invoking "national security" or "terrorism" to justify censorship. Have we not forgotten the time when the French government didn't like our page on the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station and coerced an admin into taking it down on the French Wikipedia? Perhaps soon the German government will issue a takedown of our page on the People's Defense Units because their flag is a banned symbol in Germany. The fact a country is in the EU or is the US does not guarantee said country will not abuse their powers we've granted them here. Wikipedia is well-known brand name and the negotiating power of the Wikimedia Foundation is strong. We have successfully stared down European governments before when they were acting unreasonably and we should do so again when necessary. One also wonders how these new rules will be enforced against the sizable WikiCommunist contingent here on the English Wikipedia. Many formerly-Soviet EU countries consider communism to be violent extremism and ban communists from public life. All Marxist-Leninists agree that a violent revolution is needed to establish communism. It will be entertaining to see how these new rules are enforced in practice against this group; given how many of them have advanced permissions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One is left to wonder what methods will be used to sort through the conflicting censorship requests of various nations, many of which reciprocally consider each other's actions to be terrorism – will the Indian or Pakistani governments be given precedence in deleting sections from Kashmir conflict? I assume that some additional framework will be necessary, and that the people responsible will do their best, but it's hard to have faith in a process where transparency and community oversight are not present. Hopefully, some clarification can be obtained on the subject. jp×g 00:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @JPxG you might be interested in reading this which goes into questions you've raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good link, and I think the idea of having community liaisons is quite smart. Having seen what the WMF has done against various threats to our projects' freedom in the past, I am hopeful that this can be handled judiciously. It may indeed be the case that the WMF has little in the way of appetizing options on this kind of stuff, if the choice is between complying with demands and being imprisoned or shot. Hopefully, the world we live in does not go any further in that direction. jp×g 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that governments will start holding editors hostage just to see their requests fulfilled. Firestar464 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The French government already did over a decade ago to Remi Mathis, coercing him into deleting an article that they didn't like on the French Wikipedia. The extrajudicial censorship failed because the WMF stood up for the Wikimedia movement's values and a Swiss admin ended up reinstating the page; the French government having never even bothered to get a court order.
 * Of course, now the French government can just ask politely to delete whatever pages they don't like and we will have to comply. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it will be far from entertaining to see how these new rules are enforced. My guess is that the Wikimedia Foundation receives few, or even zero, requests for terrorist content takedowns over the next year and what ones it does receive will be uncontroversial in nature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jimbo Wales Your thoughts? Firestar464 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We need more transparency. The fact that the takedowns and/or reasons may not be public is apalling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just not reading carefully enough, but what exactly is "Terrorist Content" supposed to mean? What does this actually refer and apply to? Are the WMF worried ISIS is going to start posting propaganda on our website? Or are they referring to article content which discusses terrorist actions? The first seems unlikely, and the second, if that's what this is, just sounds like a whitewashing procedure for censorship. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have heard that ISIS propaganda is indeed something Trust & Safety is dealing with in the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias (note the recent "Disinformation" hires at the WMF asking for Arabic and Farsi speakers, among others). It's not really surprising, as ISIS' online operations have been very sophisticated – so why wouldn't they be using Wikipedia. Andreas JN 466 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given some of the comments on the topic, I'm going to have to highlight that when I talked to Jacob (Vice-general counsel) over this topic (around the time of the fr/de discussions), it was abundantly, excruciatingly clear that the WMF did not want to have any say in changing content and even less so when the community might disagree with it. There's no margin in it for them. So I'm confident that based on the policy and their own preferences that they'll only be doing it when literally obliged to and only not publicly post it when again, literally legally obliged to. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nosebagbear Do we know what particular legal acts, from what jurisdictions, would involve such gag orders? What guarantee do we have that the report won't say "we can't tell you what was removed, if anything, and why (except that it was a legal request from an unspecified authority)". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus I believe there was a de-wiki case where there was a gag order (it may have been fr-wiki, it may have been both) - injunctions issued by the judge, where it was viewed as counterproductive to the case of removing information to then tell everyone around it. Now, as far as I know those weren't terrorism cases, more biographical info cases. Equivalent terrorism cases are most likely where, again, a judge felt that the information being publicly known (even if not actually in a wikipedia article) was counter to the goal of stopping it being in a wikipedia article.
 * In regards to your second - I'm pretty confident they'd be able to say that something was removed, but everything else definitely could be the case. My dislike for private handling is known, but here I'm stating that I'm confident that the Foundation would only do that if it was forced into a legal corner and would also dispute it to the degree possible (at least the secrecy aspect). I don't always have faith that a private WMF action is a good one (or necessary), but in this aspect, I do. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a result of TERREG (the Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online), which basically allows law enforcement authorities in the EU (not necessarily judges, can be the police) the power to take down anything they don't like on the internet with a 1 hour warning. See https://wikimedia.brussels/antiterrorists-in-a-bike-shed-policy-and-politics-of-terreg/ for more information on one of the latest incarnations. We're going to see more and more politically motivated removals, and unlike with Roskomnadzor or Turkey the WMF will not be able to just carry on. Nemo 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am excited for Poland to wade into the "Polish death camp" controversy and for Hungary to make an argument that gay rights is violent extremism. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why can't the WMF just tell a European state to just buzz off when they try to censor content? Do they have substantial assets in the EU? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are agreements in place between the EU and its member states and the US, and it is likely that there will be more to come. So WMF may have to tell the US government to buzz off. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

May we please have an inline conversion of "₽5,000,000" (Rubles?) to Euros and US Dollars? 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:ACB3:C300:5CAA:BB93 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion! Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The headline is horrible Secretlondon (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, all! Thank you for your interest. A lot of the concerns expressed here are discussed on the Legal department's Meta-Wiki FAQ. Namely, these new procedures are aimed at establishing more clear processes in line with developing global trends on addressing terrorist content, including the EU’s TERREG.

These processes provide an outline for handling valid government requests to take down extremist content, not an expansion into the Foundation engaging in content moderation. Please take note of question 4 in the above-linked FAQ; "the Foundation's role is limited to reviewing and complying with valid legal removal orders from designated government authorities," and "if the Foundation is of the view that the removal order has been issued in error, it shall take necessary actions to challenge the orders before the relevant authority.”

The legal team would conduct a legal review for all the removal orders, factoring in the nature and context under which it is published. During the examination, if it is found that the request attempts to abuse the protocol for inappropriate censorship and/or the content falls under relevant exceptions (such as academic, informative and research purposes), they will take appropriate measures to challenge it. It's also pertinent to note that this process is for requests warranting immediate action, and unless required under the removal order, the annual transparency report will provide information about actions taken in response to terror content removal requests.

The Foundation’s legal team will be hosting community office hours to address any concerns about the protocol. I’ll follow up with the details regarding the sessions in the coming days.

I hope this helps clarify some of the concerns here. Thank you for your time, RAdimer-WMF (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to speak here on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. One quick thing: Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/FAQ_On_Countering_Terrorist_and_Violent_Extremist_Content_on_Wikimedia_Projects#12 refers to material related to DMCA compliance (transparently logged here on Commons and here on Foundation), but does not provide links to where "here" is. Do you happen to have those links handy and, if not, would you be willing to ask the WMF Legal people to include the links in their FAQ? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up! I've asked what the intended links were, though doing some clicking around there is Category:DMCA on foundationwiki and this DMCA page on Commons. Hopefully we can get that FAQ updated soon! RAdimer-WMF (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, see also the Global Advocacy Conversation Hours on Disinformation: Andreas  JN 466 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the office hours: see the Diff calendar. RAdimer-WMF (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)