Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patroit22 (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 21 January 2014 (→‎The existential threat to Wikipedia may be from within). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of initial discussion at User_talk:Jimbo Wales

archive of discussion which took place at User_talk:Jimbo Wales

Note to those just arriving at, or re-arriving at, this discussion: there seems to be emerging support and excitement for a proposal by Jehochman, below. Please engage with that now, rather than a blackout, as there also appears to be emerging consensus that a blackout is not right at this time for this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting this out here for preliminary discussions: The Day We Fight Back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:RS articles surface we should certainly write a WP:NPOV article on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is the plan to shut down Wikipedia again for a day?--MONGO 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that is what Jimbo means, regardless of anybody's opinion on government surveillance and related issues, they do not threaten Wikipedia directly enough, imo, for any action to be taken. Snowolf How can I help? 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. But aside from shutting down the website for a day, what other means of protest are both available and obvious enough to make our opinion obvious.--MONGO 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And how long do we "fight back" against the amount of data Google and others collect? Intothatdarkness 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...without that Google data collection...Wikipedia articles would not appear in a google search. Some collection is part of how your search engine provides data to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm..and their scanning of e-mail for targeted advertising purposes and other activities relate to Wikipedia articles how, exactly? It's not just searching...Google collects and uses far more than that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have essays or related articles ready in time: We can use the words "avoid" or "counter" while the word "fight" is problematic because of connection to wp:ANI WP:BATTLEground mentality, but there might also be conflicts with some users who like mass surveillance. I suggest a new essay "wp:Avoiding mass surveillance" but be prepared that everything new will be dragged to AfD or wp:MfD and allow extra time for people fighting against any progress to improve coverage. Meanwhile, it is good for people to remember those who have been arrested over false perceptions, and those celebrity sex tapes, with people a few months underage, have led to charges of child pornography where perhaps 19 is considered legal age. It is good to remind people to clear the browser's temporary files, to erase controversial work files, and beware of mobile phone zoom-lens cameras at an Internet cafe, or even in public restrooms. There are cameras and snooping everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another case where Wikipedia should avoid politicizing itself. I recall posting several times on this user talk page asking if Wikipedia were co-operating with "collection agencies" (pun intended) and was assured Wikipedia was not so doing. That is far different from the "action" being called for in a political manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SOPA connected to Wikipedia, but I don't think this connects enough for action. Seattle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another useless protest? Can we avoid politics and attention-grabbing gimmicks and just focus on building and improving the encyclopaedia? Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are enough internal issues here that should be addressed as it is. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three comments, based upon our SOPA experience:
First, because of our community consensus policy, Wikipedia cannot respond as fast as reddit.com or icanhas.cheezburger.com can. If we are going to participate, we need to hammer out the details now, not later.
Second, before Wikipedia got on board the SOPA protest, news sources kept speculating on us: "but will Wikipedia join the protest?" Wikipedia joining or not joining is a very big deal.
Third, we need to be really careful not to overuse the idea. Wikipedia protesting one thing in four years has a lot of impact. Wikipedia protesting four things in one year has far less impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond any other protest activities, the focus could be on "consciousness raising" as providing information which people might expect, about mass surveillance. Even with the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, Wikipedia was mentioned in discussing the "red carpet" as an obvious website to check for background information. -Wikid77 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that too. The mass surveillance articles can always use help. petrarchan47tc 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relative importance of this thing needs to be considered, though. It's true that if Snowden's revelations came along ten years from now, the potentially watered-down effect of Wikipedia's response would be a nonissue. But revelations such as these have no precedent in history, so the third point may have less validity than the first two. petrarchan47tc 21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden merely provided further confirmation of what many already knew.--MONGO 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He provided hard-core, undisputed evidence straight from the source which has enjoyed 8 months of nonstop, excellent media coverage and sparked indignation and action across the globe. Previous NSA whistleblowers and Congresspersons like Wyden were all but ignored, and have expressed deep gratitude that Snowden blew the lid off this story so that it can finally be addressed in open courts and by the general public. Remember, "We don't spy, not wittingly" was the NSA's accepted line prior to Snowden. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. And the UK's GCHQ is just as guilty. Eric Corbett 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Et al. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear..some countries with similar forms of government, outlooks and language have been working cooperatively behind the scenes...big shock! Thank goodness Snowden blew the lid off all these things or else we would have all been in total darkness as to the nefarious activities of big brother.--MONGO 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that this has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step…in the march to a real debate,” Wyden said, and added that Snowden’s disclosures made it possible. “We wouldn’t have had that seven, eight weeks ago.” This fact was acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by other House members... during a... hearing with officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA. “Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would’ve never known what happened if he hadn’t told us,” said Representative Ted Poe." * petrarchan47tc 02:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “So, today I’m going to deliver another warning: If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it,” Wyden continued. “The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.” petrarchan47tc 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago it was proposed that we join with various multi-national corporations in taking a stand for Internet freedom, and I commented that we would be better aligning ourselves with other Internet non-profits. I still think that, but the aesthetics of the facebook banners they are proposing leave me a little cold. The Franklin quote: try telling that to Winston Churchill. And I'm particularly nonplussed by the image of of some guy (is it Rosanne's husband? have they run it by him?) who's so annoyed with the NSA he's about to kill his work colleagues. I know its just what some random people thought would grab people's attention, but it strikes a tone that's a bit too right-of-centre for my liking. Maybe Wikipedia should be part of this once they've had a re-think about what it is they want to convey. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a campaign about putting a banner on your site, not about shutting it down. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question we should be asking is what can we do to support people's right to read freely, without fear that their reading habits on Wikipedia will be used to harass them somehow. This would be a good time to remind people that "Freedom from fear" means freedom from being oppressed and targeted for harassment based on your Internet use. For those who think this is "no big deal," I'd suggest you take a look at "Top Secret America," a reputable, open-source book and website that came out way before Snowden, and get a handle on what we're talking about here. When serious thinkers in intelligence ethics are formulating arguments along the lines of, "Well that guy was a national level legislator, he should have known better that he's fair game for anything anyone can possibly dig up by hacking his digital trail and exposing it to the public ..."-- with social norms like that, what chance do the rest of us have to defend ourselves against smears, harassment or worse? Who's going to want to run for public office under those circumstances?
  • We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a TOR exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia bans TOR because admins can't easily catch sockpuppets if they use TOR. You see, Wikipedia and the NSA do have something in common (the NSA usually has to DOS tor users; direct spying on TOR directly being more difficult). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon's proposal specifically addresses this (read only). Guy, is that idea written up anywhere in more technical detail? – SJ + 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can write up detailed instructions or even provide an image of a virtual machine that is already set up, but I doubt that the WMF developers need either. I have found them to be extremely competent in the past.
To expand on what I wrote above, the TOR node I am describing would:
  • Talk to a strictly limited set of domains (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc). It would not have access (read or write) to any other domain.
  • Be blocked from editing Wikipedia or any associated project (Wiktionary, Wikinews) that we may decide to give access to.
  • It should have bandwidth throttling. Just being a TOR relay node that is unlikely to be controlled by the NSA has value; every new node increases the security of the network. That being said, we don't want to give the TOR traffic unlimited resources.
  • Just to be extra careful, we should block read access to any kind of executable file (.exe, Javascript etc.) to make it harder for a Wikipedia editor to compromise a TOR user's privacy See Tor (anonymity network)#Firefox / JavaScript anonymity attack on Freedom Hosting users.
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of readers will visit the Wikipedia home page when they're here, do we know this? petrarchan47tc 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do know the percentage as a steady rate, from pageviews of Main_page during the prior 2010 Winter Olympics (Feb. 2010 Main_page stats), as 5.1 million/day unchanged during the event (2014 average: 9.0 million/day). However, the Olympics will take space on the Main_page, as covered each day. Also, "viewing" does not mean reading the page, and so a Main_page banner might be needed to get attention on 11 Feb. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to say something, we'll almost certainly want to add a link to our statement near the top of every article for the day. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all...this is NOT a Wikipedia protest. Just because Jimbo brought this to our attention here does not mean he is sponsoring this or involved in any way. Guys...this has been out there for a while and Jimbo is not the first to share this. If you don't want to take a stand as a group because that is what our guidelines and policies state then don't...but those guidelines and policies ARE NOT TO CONTROL US AS A GROUP and/or whatever we want to support or protest as that group. Those policies and guidelines are meant to help us write articles not control us as a community.

I support this Jimmy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as noted above, we can expand (or highlight) the related background articles, beyond "mass surveillance" without actually protesting any specific issue. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong support. Let's not go black over this, but a banner and a tailored main page are fitting. It just wouldn't look right for all our closest allies to participate only to have Wikipedia remain silent on an issue of such gravity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could use the same mechanism we use to put Jimbo's smiling face on our fundraising banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for HectorMoffet's every word. petrarchan47tc 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for banner and main page educational words and pictures. Let the free encyclopedia spread the news. Jusdafax 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it were done naïvely, it would be tantamount to lifting all blocks and bans, a radical affirmation of the principle that anyone can edit. If edits from the Tor network could be clearly identified in the history, or if they all went through a review similar to pending changes, then edits by Tor users could get extra scrutiny. —rybec 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could only see supporting this if it was expanded to deal with the sort of surveillance conducted by Google and other tech companies on a daily basis. Otherwise it's just more politically-motivated electronic masturbation. Is Google's surveillance "good" because they do it in the name of advertising profits? If we're going to NPOV it we should include all these activities. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why non-governmental global surveillance isn't worth mentioning too. Although, to put it into perspective Google doesn't have prosecutors, prisons, an army, an air force, or armed drones. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jehochman proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - And as we are an encyclopedia with much in the way of information, I think should last a full week, not just a single day. Out goal, as noted above is to inform by sharing what others say. I think that this is something we can do well here. - jc37 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution - Ideally, this could be the beginning of a series of one-day featured topics on timely concepts from politics, as well as other fields like extrasolar planetary systems. But filling the entire Main Page, even for a day, means creating and polishing a lot of material. We have to make sure that we don't declare to the world we're going to do something big, then show them a sloppy job. We also have to make sure that the NPOV is not compromised, as this is not something that we can easily argue is strictly necessary for our continued operations. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A most excellent idea put forth by Jehochmah, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Jecochmah's idea of using our own articles in a protest stunt as total madness. A potential banner or similar on the issue must in no way be linked to Wikipedia's ordinary content unless is a very neutral manner to explain background. Using our own articles to argue a cause would totally damage our principle of neutrality. Iselilja (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, we would never change articles away from NPOV. What's proposed is to display a custom, one-day-only message at Main, and to have a banner of some type above articles. I suspect your objection still stands, but just wanted to clarify that our articletext is sacrosanct.HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not because it so much matters, if you could get it together in a few hours, but that seems doubtful, making it a considerable distraction for far too many resources (our editors' time) from article creation/curation, which given the size and difficulty of that vital task cannot actually afford such distraction. These libertarian/authoritarian issues are undoubtedly as ancient as the first time two people decided to live together but this project is not going to do much for it, except to create informational content that people demand/desire -- by hook, by crook, through persecution, and prosecution -- to read and pass along. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would completely contravene the no advertising, it doesn't matter if the articles were neutral, so were Gibralterpedia articles in DYK, and I know enough about that to know it caused uproar. We should not resort to backing any cause, (almost) no matter what. Matty.007 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's a well-thought-out proposal, will be fine as long as we stick to NPOV -A1candidate (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This is a political statement and we must not take political positions. It is antithetical to our mission. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that's it. It is not a vehicle to promote ANY political agenda, at all, no matter how nice or nasty it is. If the WMF wants to jump on the bandwagon for this campaign and they feel it is line with their goal to promote free knowledge, then fine, they can issue statements and do interviews etc., but they're encyclopedic projects must remain neutral. I opposed the SOPA action, and I will oppose this for the same reason: we must not stray from our original purpose to provide a compendium of neutral free knowledge into some kind of internet activist group. It's an insult to our donors, we promised them that we would not be like all the rest of the internet wikis with clear POV's (e.g. Conservapedia), and would be genuinely neutral on political matters. Please stop. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page Project

  • On the assumption that the proposal has already been supported, I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming likes for Jehochman's (IMO brilliant) compromise above. Please don't hesitate to add to the basic framework I created (and partly ctrl c, ctrl v'ed off the AFD pages) :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you realise just how massive and fractured the Wikipedia community actually is. If anyone who has every touched the edit button is required to have a say so all thousands of us can have an organised discourse on the topic, then I really don't think we'd ever get anywhere. This is a genuinely good idea and I see no reason why we can't just go with the flow rather than resort to overly-bureaucratic systems. In any case, I didn't actually declare the nomination supported. Instead I explained that I created a page (created prematurely because I think the proposal will go through anyway), so when it eventually does we'll already have a basic framework to work off of. But Ben Moore is right. We don't have much time at all to be flapping about.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for hyperbole, no one is suggesting "anyone who has every touched the edit button" need be consulted. Just e.g. a week-long straw poll or mini-RFC with a limited number of properly-developed options, per precedent. benmoore 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a good idea to put together a concrete example of what the page might look like. People will have a much easier time evaluating the proposal if they can look at something. We can prepare the page while concurrently having a centralized discussion to decide "go" or "no go". That way we aren't caught short of time. Lastly, I suggest Edward Snowden be considered for the featured article that day. We'll have to work hard to get it up to featured condition in time, if it's even possible. Love him or hate him, he's been a central character for this issue. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Maile-- I think everyone recognizes that a decision of this magnitude can't be made by insiders on Jimmy's talk page. As Jehochman says, we're informally just working out what it is we're proposing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree - those of us reading this page tend to be fond of "drama" that many others can do without. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. There's a difference between "drama" and a legitimate controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is plenty of Support for this, but I also think it should hopefully only help to try to garner a wider consensus from the community, and/or seek out consensus from members of the community that frequent the above-mentioned individual project pages for the various subsections of the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left comments there and propose we copy further discussion, including the survey below, to that page. – SJ + 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

  • You can call spirits from the vasty deep; but will they come? It's all fine and dandy to schedule a day of Main Page features, but you'd better organize a brigade of editors to get that content ready for prime time.
  • NPOV. We have to ensure that we are featuring the topic in response to the day, not decreeing an official POV - that means a pro-spy dissent is possible, and if we're not careful, it might overshadow our own. Don't start a war you're not committed to win.
    Or simply "pro-big-brother" / "pro-surveillance". There are definitely prominent speakers, writers, and political groups who support this in different parts of the world; not just spy organizations. Similar discussions arise arounbd national IDs. You can also have entirely public and transparent surveillance / data-gathering / data-mining.
  • Are they notable enough? As much as I like the direction of their mind, I find [1] underwhelming. Apart from the nifty artwork with the subtle black flag motif, it looks like something I could hack together myself. Are we sure this event is big enough to make a big deal out of? There's nothing worse than "demonstrating" a lack of support.
    I have heard a lot about this but only from people in the organizations listed. I'm not sure yet how much of a public presence it will have; this is fair to ask. On the other hand, a solid thematic main page on something that's topical in a given month/year would be pretty great, and this seems like both a good candidate and something that many people affected know little about. (thank you, low-signal mass media :-! ) – SJ +
    Reddit has announced they're doing it, so it's going to be a big deal. But more to the point, we're the sixth most-visited website on the planet earth: we don't have to worry about throwing a party and no one showing up-- we ARE the party. If we do it, it will definitely be a big deal.--HectorMoffet (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


My feeling is that there is a way to expand this idea into a long series of perhaps weekly "featured topics" that provide fair and timely highlights to a wide range of political and other social issues, and that by doing so we can combine political activism (i.e. by making people think, which people on all sides should think benefits their own side) but also preserve and enhance Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 – SJ + 23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Day We Fight Back (article)

I'm working to get The Day We Fight Back to readable prose size so it can be submitted as a DYK. Any help with that is appreciated. Ross HillTalk to me! 21:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Day We Fight Back is now at readable prose length, and I believe satisfies all the other requirements for a DYK article. Should someone do a review? The DYK fact is in the DYK section on WP:The Day We Fight Back. Ross HillTalk to me! 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to "On this day" per suggestions. Ross HillTalk to me! 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thinking strategically about the "Fighting Back"

I think phrase "The Day We Fight Back" will be a hard sell to our community. Wikipedia doesn't 'fight', it doesn't normally 'take sides'-- mostly, it educates.

I would propose instead we call Wikipedia's effort "Surveillance Awareness Day" or "Surveillance Awareness initiative", or some other variant.

Obviously, still held on Feb 11 and still explicitly connected to the EFF/Reddit actions. Just a tweak in the wording.

As we look towards presenting this to the community, I can imagine some people skeptical of "fighting back" against surveillance. I have a harder time imagining that people will object to a special day where we make our readers aware of an issue the community deems important. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to make it our own. Wikipedia has a unique presence on the web with our commitment to NPOV. An encyclopedia could participate in a way not done by any other media source/groups. I like "Surveillance Awareness Day". petrarchan47tc 05:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


International content needed

The current drafts are all very US-centric. Although the US's global surveillance role is certainly unique, we can't ignore global surveillance by other government and non-governmental entities.

Can anyone nominate content about other regimes/entities and their on-going abuses of mass surveillance? --HectorMoffet (talk)


Not yet Featured quality content

  1. This is not enough time to get an article up to FA status.
  2. Heck, it is not enough time to assuredly get an article through FAC with 100% certainty in that time period, for an article of already high quality that doesn't need any more work or improvements.
  3. It's not feasible and a waste of time to focus on articles that aren't already WP:FA quality for TFA for an event that is less than one month away.
  4. Strongly suggest the TFA portion of this discussion be limited to current WP:FAs.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt speaks wisdom. We can't WP:IAR on Featured Article status. Let's focus on featuring articles that already have featured status or are extremely likely to get to FA before Feb 1. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a menu of options

The guidelines for Feb 11 must be determined by consensus. Until that consensus is formed, we must prepare for all contingencies.

With that in mind, please review the draft Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back/Options. If your own proposed guidelines for Feb 11 are not represented, please add them! There are lots of ways to do this, and we want to find the best way. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coin

Statement by Coin

My thought process (due to the limited amount of time we have to get this thing off the ground): I was thinking of utilising the already available content rather than rush to drag a lot of new stuff to FA level. Also, on another note, remember to not make the references too literal. We do not want an NSA attack page. Let's try to be creative with our choices for content, convering a wide range of issues across many different time periods and locations. Why have a picture of the NSA headquaters when you can include a striking historical image that represents what can happen when civil liberties are not upheld? Why clog the DYK space with references to NSA, when you can have a reference to a perhaps-obscure espionage story that will enlighten and entertain readers? Similarly, anything we do cover needs to remain un-editorialised. For example, IMO:

  • ... That the first global wide area network was built beginning in 1981, for the ECHELON surveillance system? checkY
  • ... That in 1988 a Lockheed employee revealed the ECHELON surveillance network when she "blew the whistle" on interception of a US senator's telephone calls? ☒N

Second Coin's statement. We are in brainstorming phase-- the greater the diversity ideas we generate, the better our finished product will be. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the red cross for the second item, is the expression "she 'blew the whistle' on" deemed too editorial, or is there another reason? How about "she told Congress about" (slightly inaccurage: she initially told one member of the Congress, who then started an investigation)? —rybec 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this from the main page about this project to the talk page here. It was quite distracting sitting there at the top of the page. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In the news

Proposal: This section be kept how it usually is in order to keep Wikipedia's audience up to date with the Olympics and other world events. The Day We Fight Back can conceivably have an entry too.--Coin945 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this section should run normally. We can't plan for what's going to be "in the news". --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I realize that you seek to reframe the proposed event as one conveying the message "It's important to be aware of surveillance. Read these articles so you can make an informed decision about where you stand." But that won't be anyone's takeaway.
As I said, even if our special main page content is 100% neutral, presenting it in coordination with the "The Day We Fight Back" constitutes an endorsement of the underlying cause (and not merely an implicit one, as it was explicitly devised as a means of supporting the protest). —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use an FA that has already been previously used at TFA?

I don't think we should use an FA that has previously appeared at WP:TFA.

There is an easy way to see what has already appeared at TFA:

  1. Place this code on your .css subpage: 
    .has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }
  2. Go to the page WP:FA
  3. Then you will see that FAs that were already on the Main Page once before, appear in a green color.
  4. We cannot use those FAs highlighted in green.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is, unless there is strong consensus that we could select an FA that has already appeared before at TFA. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


For a themed day, I feel like we should probably use the Best featured article, rather than the Best featured article that hasn't already ever been used on mainpage". This might be a case to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
We need a strong consensus to do any of these, of course, so we'll find out what consensus will support. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that sounds reasonable, I can get on board with that. Hopefully we can soon get a strong consensus for this idea. — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really appreciate your feedback on the FAs-- I feel like once we have a couple ones that aren't controversial among us, we can use them as a 'for example' and then start soliciting wider input. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I provided some suggestions of FAs that have not yet been TFA... — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody thinks I'm going to suggest a special exception to TFA so that we can get a TV series featured because we like its POV, that's just not going to happen. If there's any IARing to be done here, it should be to get one of the main articles on NSA surveillance through the FAC process in a finite amount of time. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essay: How global surveillance affects Wikipedia

Is there anyway we can link this essay with this project? -A1candidate (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 1 in 6 journos self-censor now, as well as any details we have about spy agencies' interest in Wikipedia readers and editors, seem like essential additions to this project, although I'm not sure how it could be incorporated. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we willing to include signals intelligence successes?

I'm concerned that this proposal is implicitly advocating a particular viewpoint even if it does not do so explicitly (e.g. by calling the campaign "The Day We Fight Back"). The proposed links seem to overwhelmingly represent articles that highlight the dangers of overreach by intelligence agencies. There is very little representation of articles that highlight the successful use of signals intelligence or the geopolitical context that led to the development of signals intelligence capabilities. If the goal is to raise awareness of issues regarding surveillance so that our readers can form educated opinions, then we should also willing to highlight articles that highlight both sides of the story. To do otherwise would be contrary to our core values.GabrielF (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific topics to consider:

  1. Bletchley Park, Magic (cryptography) and other articles related to allied signals intelligence during World War II
  2. Venona Project, the NSA's successful effort to break Soviet codes, which revealed that a number of senior government officials and people involved in the Manhattan Project were Soviet agents (including Harry Dexter White and Julius Rosenberg)
  3. Stuxnet, Operation Olympic Games and other efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program

Yes, why not? We should highlight all sides of the issue. Our goal is to educate the public so that people can decide for themselves what sort of surveillance they would allow their government to do. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) When I first learned of this project, the topic had been chosen as "mass spying and privacy'. Now it's been changed to "global surveillance". My own preference would be for the topic to be only mass surveillance, excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers. Everyone's being surveilled now, not just soldiers and ambassadors; the current title of the project implies that we'll be asking for a soap-box to encourage people to think about that.
I agree that we haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance. Perhaps we haven't looked thoroughly enough. Someone had proposed saying "Did you know...that due to increased security measures instituted post-9/11, many terrorist plots have been uncovered and foiled?" but we didn't find sources to support the statement. I did find National_Security_Agency#Official_responses which says

On July 31 NSA Deputy Director John Inglis conceded to the Senate that these intercepts had not been vital in stopping any terrorist attacks, but were "close" to vital in identifying and convicting four San Diego men for sending US$8,930 to Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia.

I was going to get around to mentioning this success, but it would seem like damning with faint praise, wouldn't it?
If there are noteworthy, documented examples of mass surveillance successes (or whatever the topic ends up as) but we don't include them in the material we propose to present, consensus is likely to be against us. —rybec 03:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers" constitutes Begging the question. OF COURSE you "haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance" when you exclude from consideration all surveillance that serves a national security objective! The whole "debate" is over the extent to which incidental in-country surveillance is acceptable. There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge. Evidence of surveillance that has as its objective furthering the domestic political agenda of the party in power is evidence of a scandal, not evidence that provokes any "debate." If one's going to argue for moral equivalency between western democracies and their targets (China, Russia, al-Qaeda, etc) then of course it is far more difficult if not impossible to justify the NSA's activity.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Stuxnet/Olympic Games example, added after my comment, was sabotage. I don't know of any use of mass surveillance or SIGINT in its production. Also as far as I know, the breaking of the Japanese Purple code did not involve mass surveillance. If you know otherwise, adding it to Magic_(cryptography) or the Stuxnet article would be helpful.
I didn't mean to beg the question, rather I made the assumption that governments do not typically use mass surveillance to learn about other governments or their armies. An exception I hadn't thought of is spy satellites. If you have other counterexamples, they are on-topic and welcome.
If you disagree with the choice of privacy and mass surveillance as the topic, feel free to suggest a different topic. If you have examples related to either the current topic or your preferred topic, feel free to provide them. In programmes such as DISHFIRE, PRISM and Golden Shield, it's interception of other governments' communications that appears to be incidental.

There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge.

Perhaps you meant "can" rather than "can't"? Regardless, feel free to provide justification for mass surveillance. —rybec 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone agrees that government surveillance that can't be so justified is illegitimate, morally if not legally. Surveillance that CAN be so justified MAY be legitimate, some civil liberties extremists can be expected to still object. re "justification for mass surveillance", this is not the "debate". The debate is on a point of fact, namely, just how extensive is "mass surveillance" in the United States of Americans and is that extent acceptable? There is an enormous qualitative difference between some ginormous mindless database noting the number I dialed and human eyes or ears looking at or listening to what I am doing. The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media. I go into detail on the Dual_EC_DRBG Talk page as to how overblown the allegation is that that cryptography standard was deliberately undermined by the NSA. I have edited the Russ Tice article to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories. It's one of the things that has propelled the success of RT (formerly Russia Today). Obama himself has noted that "The sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light." That's not a moral argument, that's disputing the extent to which the reporting has served the public's understanding. What if Obama is right here and there is less conspiracy here than is popularly believed? Does Wikipedia stand for knowledge or for conspiracy mongering?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did Mr. Obama provide any specific, factual examples of how Mr. Snowden's documents are false or misleading? Have there been denials that Xkeyscore, PRISM, DISHFIRE etc. exist? Didn't Mr. Obama give a speech on 17 January, promising to make changes to some of the mass surveillance programmes? That would seem to be rather at odds with the notion that they are mere conspiracy theories. If he's begun giving such speeches, I do look forward to the one about the extraterrestrials at Area 51. —rybec 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sensationalized, breathless reporting on the (occasionally misinterpreted) documents that has been misleading. Again, the issue is NOT whether Xkeyscore, PRISM, DISHFIRE etc. EXIST, the issue is whether jumping from that fact to "the U.S. government is engaging in mass surveillance" with all the pejorative associations that could potentially imply is misleading. The conspiracy theory is you thinking someone at NSA has ever looked at what you've done on the internet and had a conscious thought about it. If you don't think that, does this issue warrant trying to use the Main Page to push some sort of liberation agenda? You keep using those words, PRISM and DISHFIRE etc., I do not think it means what you think it means.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that PRISM means collection and storage of people's Internet activity and DISHFIRE means collection and storage of SMS. Whether someone has specifically looked at mine or yours, I don't know. If no one looks, or will ever look, at the messages, then what is the purpose of their collection and retention? If, as you seem to believe, the activity is benign today, who can say that future use of this data will continue to be benign? What if there's a change of government? What if it's put to criminal use? Consider the ease with which Manning and Snowden copied documents; others may have done the same without going to the press. —rybec 05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to be able to look back and identify what a targeted individual did before he was targeted. You can't fill out the back story if there's no database to query. Why I don't I care about that? Because I don't plan on becoming a target by blowing up a Federal Building or engaging in espionage on behalf of a foreign government! Yeah, I COULD be targeted anyway, but the same could apply to personal information given to the IRS. There COULD be a dictatorship that emerges that engages in "criminal" executions of innocent political dissidents. But there also COULD be a military conflict where the militaries of western democracies suffer significant losses because of hamstrung counter-espionage capabilities (see the Jan 19 NYT story noting that "Mr. Snowden stole about 1.7 million intelligence files that concern vital operations of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force"). If the government is targeting the wrong people, that some database somewhere has the last 10 numbers everyone called is the least of the country's concern, since targeted surveillance is real surveillance with real victims and of far greater concern than any other surveillance issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman says "Why not?", I might go even further to say "Yes, definitely". GabrielF's essential question is "Are we going to be balanced, or one-sided?" I think we definitely need some balance, though I don't know precisely what form it should take. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone and status of the proposal

So, we now how enough content to create a Mockup of Content for Feb 11. It's an entirely arbitrary mockup, choosing content that seems leat controversial among the proposers we've had here so far, in my completely arbitrary and unimportant opinion. Obviously, actual content is chosen by consensus-- so it's just a mockup.

I think it may be time to start actively widening the circle of those involved, starting with relevant wikiprojects. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think it's time for you to look for a fallback position. It's not that opposing surveillance isn't a great cause, but so is Wikipedia, and bending every rule to hack together a Main Page like that is just not a good idea. It smells like POV, yet it doesn't communicate our POV - what we want is the opposite of that. At WP:The Day We Fight Back/Options I pointed out that FISA Improvements Act (presently a sentence in Political positions of Dianne Feinstein and USA Freedom Act (presently a sentence in Edward Snowden) have not yet even been started. And days later, they still haven't been started -- even though they are two of very few things directly mentioned in the "The Day We Fight Back" website! Face it - we do not have the level of involvement and support we need to take the grandest lectern in the world and parade around for a day. What we can do is try to work within the rules, as they are sometimes bent - we can fish in those contentious waters off Gibraltar and try to feature a set of DYKs for the day. Right now I'm not even sure we'll get people to write ten or fifteen DYKs though. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of support or involvement doesn't disturb me at this point-- virtually no one has heard about this yet, and the worst that can happen is the community chooses the status quo, which of course would be a fine option if that's where consensus lies.
Planning for the status quo is easy, and after that, the next easiest option to be able to provide the option to show a mainpage-like message and that has reasonably enough relevant NPOV content in it.
But more options will follow, and perhaps one will be worth implementing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WNT's excellent advice, Petro and I have created USA Freedom Act. It's still start-class, please improve it! --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day/Arbitrary Mockup 1 is using an FA that already has appeared at TFA. Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner? — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, please immediately feel free to replace the FA section of the Arbitrary mockup with a section that you'd be more comfortable with. The mockup was arbitrary, just to show "where we're at".
"Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner?"?? Do we have strong community consensus for any of this!? hehe. However strictly or loosely we adhere to WP:TFAR, we're clearly departing from the status quo in a way that every editor should have a say in.
So I've been trying to create a 'menu of options' that we can present, and not surprisingly, the easiest option to produce is one that involves using a page that was already at TFA once in 2007.
If sticking to the "No repeats" rule is important to you, we'll just be sure to include that as an option. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a stab at doing writeup and blurb for Afroyim v. Rusk, a FA which has NOT been to TFA before. Please feel free to improve it and it you like it better, use it on the Arbitrary Mockup. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review

I'm trying to make the List of notable people under FVEY surveillance a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project. As time is running short, is someone willing to help me to do a peer review? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

-A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ColonelHenry, we're proposing a significant change to what the Feb 11 page looks like, and we'll need to get a consensus to do that. There are good reasons to object to a proposal, but it doesn't illuminate just to re-iterate this would be different than status quo. Hehe-- we know it's different, that's why it's a proposal.
We are definitely shooting for shooting for top-quality content that is Verifiable and written from a NPOV. But WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant. NOTADVOCACY is a good objection, NOTONTUESDAY isn't.  :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I see nothing that is close to NPOV on this proposal. Have you no shame in taking Wikipedia in this direction?Patroit22 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we fail to propose content that is written from a NPOV, then the proposal will fail to achieve consensus. We're not "taking Wikipedia" anywhere-- we're just brainstorming options to be considered by the Wikipedia community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC);[reply]

Hector-Get your point but Wikipedia Community reaches consensus on many issues based on personal or political viewpoint and not factual information. The internet and most digital systems were created in a way that it did not ensure privacy.Patroit22 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On using Featured Articles that has previously appeared at TFA on our Feb 11 content

There is an ongoing debate about this. (Discussion moved from project page to talk)

These articles were already at TFA once before. — ☒NCirt (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to propose an article, even if it was already at TFA. checkY --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strenuously opposed to the idea of occasional "theme days" like this, but it seems that they should disrupt the flow as little as possible. Why break rules like this when it's not even necessary? ☒N GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because we can't know which options the community will support ahead of time. So we're generating the widest possible menu of options for them. Just cause we give them the option to select a repeat for Feb 11 doesn't mean they'll actually decide to do so. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple - whatever comes out of this proposal, as the TFA coordinator I will not be running any FA for a second (or in Obama's case, third) time as TFA. BencherliteTalk 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]
As TFA coordinator, you don't have the authority to run a FA for a second time, so you speak wisdom. The community as a whole, however, may choose to display a re-run, assuming we got sufficient consensus for it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as TFA coordinator, I think you'll find that not only I do have that authority but I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA, for better or for worse. (You will never get a community consensus to run a TFA twice for a reason such as this either, and you would do well to listen to the views of Cirt and GeeJo even if you think you can ignore me.) I'm certainly not going to be exercising the exceptional power to run TFAs twice for any of these suggestions on 11th Feb so please save your limited editing time for coming up with something more useful, like actually finishing a proposal so that the community can shoot it down in flames. BencherliteTalk 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA If you believe this, then I see why you would oppose any proposal that argued content should be determined by Community Consensus in some circumstances. I can tell this proposal really angers you, and I'm sorry. Lots of people I respected asked me to help work on it, and I won't be upset in the slightest if nothing comes of it. But I am gravely upset that the mere discussion of such a proposal is so troubling to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to this at HectorMoffet's talk page, if anyone is interested. BencherliteTalk 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important question

Bench asked me,"Why are you ignoring the established method for the community to discuss TFA appearances - WP:TFAR?"

The answer is I don't think Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day is something we can seriously do as if it's "just like april fools". We've never used that url in this way before, and I don't think it's somethin a few insiders should decide, whether they be at TFAR or UT:Jimmy Wales.

So, despite stylistic similarities, I don't even really see the custom content we'd display as an actual "main page" in the traditional, status quo sense of the word. It's custom content, created to send a custom message, timed to coincide with with a outright protest run by our allies. We need to alert our readers this isn't a status quo regular page. Indeed, we may not even STORE the custom content at "Main"-- it might be stored somewhere else entirely.

So we keep all our options available. In the event the proposal does get support, who is to say how much weight the supporters will give to the suggestion that we not use a re-run in the Feb 11 content?

Either way, this thing has NOTBUREAUCRACY all over it. I understand people who are objecting on the grounds of NOTADVOCATE, but I don't get the objection about "normal mainpage rules don't allow re-runs" or "normal mainpage rules don't allow lists on tuesday". Normal mainpages don't coincide with online protests-- this isn't a normal mainpage!

We may do it, we may not-- but I can't fathom reruns or "no lists on tuesday" being decisive in the minds of too many people. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

concern about role of non-proposers

Bencherlite expressed opposition to the proposal and advised you to focus on ideas that actually stand a chance of being implemented instead of wasting time and effort on those that don't. You responded with the following:

"So that answers your question about why I don't value your opinion on the proposal at this stage-- you oppose it here and there, you oppose it anywhere--- so why in the world would we look to you for crafting the proposal?"
[full exchange]

Does that sound familiar to you? It sure does to me, right down to the Green Eggs and Ham reference. After apologizing to me for disregarding my input, you've once again stated (this time even more explicitly) that you don't value the opinion of someone who doesn't support the proposal. I find this quite disheartening. —David Levy 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sincerely sorry whenever I unintentionally upset someone. But I do not think it is controversial to give preference to the proposers of a proposal when writing a proposal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Groupthink.
You're dismissing helpful advice from experienced Wikipedians, whom you perceive as outsiders because we've challenged your beliefs and assumptions. —David Levy 03:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've added the subheading "concern about role of non-proposers". That you've sorted the discussion's participants into two camps ("proposers" and "non-proposers", i.e. "with you" and "against you") is a major part of the problem. —David Levy 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David, you aren't "against me"-- you're raising a very valid concern-- WP:NOTADVOCATE. You imagine I have some agenda, but I really don't. I think the community should be asked about the idea of doing something special for Feb 11, and I don't know what the "right" answer is beyond that. I didn't come up with this idea, I just wanted to help with it. The one thing I do know is that this proposal is a departure from mainpage status quo policy. So the objection that this proposal deviates from "business as usual" holds no weight-- the whole proposal is predicated on the idea that Feb 11 will be "special". We either generate a consensus to change things on Feb 11 or we don't-- but we don't slip it into the traditional main page processes as if it's business as usual. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be conflating separate issues. Yes, I have WP:NOTADVOCATE-related concerns, but I'm not referring to them above. This isn't about what we're arguing; it's about your out-of-hand dismissal.
Some of us, despite opposing the proposal, sincerely seek to assist in the effort to assemble a proposal and present it to the community at large. We do have a preferred outcome, but it doesn't negate the importance of gauging consensus.
You might respect our opposition (which you acknowledge stems from valid concerns), but because we're "non-proposers", you "don't value [our] opinions[s]" on how to shape the proposal (which you've summarily disregarded).
When someone tries to explain that an idea is unrealistic or ill-advised, you interpret this as a claim that it's impossible to implement. You continually defend your approach by pointing out that a "special" main page can contain any content under the sun (leaving nothing off-limits from being thrown into the mix), thereby ignoring advice on why it would be more constructive to focus on changes that the proposal's advocates might have some non-negligible chance of bringing about before the clock ticks down. "You're a non-proposer, so stand back and let us work" (scare quotes) is not a helpful attitude. We're all Wikipedians here. —David Levy 10:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're really getting somewhere. I hear you.
I've been very concerned about people LIMITING options that will be presented to the community. But what I'm hearing from you is that we need to cultivate options that will be more palatable to the broader community as a whole.
I would sincerely, not in a flippant way, but deeply sincerely, encourage you to start your own proposal for a way to deal with Feb 11. I say sincerely, it's very possible you would do a better job than me on putting all this together.
Make a fork and show me how it's done. And again-- I firmly believe you really can show me how it's done! :) .
I'm all about lots of options so the community can make the best possible choice. I bet your option, accepted or not, would help the process greatly. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know from past experience that forking a proposal is one of the best ways to ensure that consensus isn't reached, especially when time is of the essence. Collaboration is the only viable approach.
And as we've discussed, I don't want us to run any special content on February 11, so if I were to outline my preferred course of action, it would amount to nothing more than the status quo. Obviously, that view is incompatible with the general concept (irrespective of the precise direction that the proposal takes), and I certainly don't suggest that it be reflected here. I'm simply asking you to recognize the distinction between opposition and constructive criticism. Those of us who oppose the idea are in no position to serve as advocates for its implementation, but that doesn't mean that our opinions have no value whatsoever. —David Levy 11:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please, don't even get out the tape measures, there's no need. We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one, nor is it in our best interest to do so. If we somehow managed to talk them into it and hit them with a hodgepodge of marginally privacy/government related articles with a common POV theme tying together the Main Page (as in the mockup) all we're going to do is tick off a lot of people and damage Wikipedia's reputation. However, if articles are written and available, it won't matter what day of the year it is, they'll always be out there educating people. Never forget that Wikipedia itself is already a good cause. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of getting "Today's Featured Article", don't forget that you have somewhere else you can be featured from -- the site of "The Day We Fight Back". If you can line up some people to hack together a portal for the day, you can have your own Main Page and stock it however you like, get it linked to and from their site, and try to get it out to go viral on the social networks. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one" -- we certainly don't have a consensus, and indeed the consensus may well be for the status quo-- and that'd be fine. But we definitely have time to reach consensus. If we get that far, sitewide discussion should take a week at most. It may all be a waste of time, but I've learned alot, so have some others.
I think people assume my work here is predicated on the presumption that proposal succeed. It isn't-- I'm perfectly happy to see it rejected if that's what should happen. We're asking the community a question, all answers are okay from my point of view. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is very rare for them to even start to close an RFC in less than 30 days, and an opposed policy change would be put to one. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above my pay grade-- I'm just here to offer the options. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30 days is just convention for minimum length as most RfCs aren't time-critical—I think the blackout discussion and polling took place over 3 or 4 days. Still, I and others have recommended starting the discussion sooner rather than later. benmoore 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And let's keep in mind that the blackout essentially entailed flipping a switch. Presenting special content is much more complicated. —David Levy 13:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is. Now, let's take DYK for instance. First we would need a centralized discussion on whether the main page content should be changed as part of a protest/awareness day. If so, we would need a discussion on whether some of the ordinary DYK rules should be changed (for instance the requirement that articles shall be new or recently five-fold expanded); then after these two discussions, we would need time to evaluate individual nominations for core policies; including neutrality issues and proper sourcing both for the articles and the suggested hooks. I think you pretty much need to start the centralized discussion right today, if you shall have any chances at all to get this done to February, 11.Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we can get two panels of seven DYKs each by February 1 fair and square, going by every rule in the book, provided we have a dozen or more people willing to participate. And doing that - adding articles about 14 mass surveillance related topics to the encyclopedia - that is what really matters. The 11th is going to come and go and things will be the same, but if we make those 14 articles for every person interested to read, that stays. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am willing to help write articles on a pretty full-time basis for the next few weeks. (Beginning an informal count.) petrarchan47tc 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backup plan

If the main page can't be changed, can we create a separate page for our content instead? -A1candidate (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work

Thank you all for your dedication to this project. I understand that some of the existing Wikipedia processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project. I recommend working within existing processes, rather than requesting exceptions. For instance, we should find a suitable featured article and nicely ask that it be featured. We should not ask the FA director to suspend the usual rules. Likewise, for DYK, we should have a list of articles that could be created or expanded, do the work within the 5 day period and submit them. If we are going to ask any special favors, they would be to coordinate the timing of appearances, nothing more. I hope this advice helps to reduce frictions. Jehochman Talk 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this advice by Jehochman. Good thoughts. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the existing Wikipedia processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project" because they are resistant to using Wikipedia as a political vehicle! May I suggest finding your own website for engaging in activism ("Libertarianopedia?") instead of hijacking this one?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I hear someone talking about hijacking a page, it makes me suspect that they think they are the pilot. See WP:OWNERSHIP. My philosophy is to find out what the consensus is and follow it, whether I agree or not. We went though this "using Wikipedia as a political vehicle" argument with SOPA. The consensus is that we should use Wikipedia as a political vehicle if the issue is a threat to Wikipedia. Sopa was a threat, and so is this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but can we prove it? Can we point to one person, even in China or Russia, who has been taken down the police station and beaten because he looked at our article on methamphetamine or Falun Gong or gay rights? How do we show the surveillance really is affecting Wikipedia? That's what we ought to feature. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is File:KS8-001.jpg, one of the NSA documents leaked by Snowden (top secret FWIW). It shows the Wikipedia logo alongside those of a few other Web sites. The slide tells us the NSA is "interested in" readers/editors of Wikipedia. It strongly implies that traffic to and from Wikipedia is being intercepted. If that's what's going on, the privacy of people's activities here is being compromised. The privacy policy is silent on the matter of third parties "listening in" but it's worth bringing to people's attention, even if just for a day or so. —rybec 02:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A slide containing logos of popular websites, used to illustrate the things that "a typical user does on the Internet"? That's the big evidence?
Can you cite reliable sources stating that this "tells us the NSA is 'interested in' readers/editors of Wikipedia" and "strongly implies that traffic to and from Wikipedia is being intercepted", or is this original research? —David Levy 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image's description has a link to the article in which it appeared. I've made a mock-up main page that includes the slide; it's at Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Arbitrary_Mockup_3. —rybec 04:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can point out where Wikipedia (or even the word "wiki") is mentioned in the article. —David Levy 08:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone would provide something better than that leaked powerpoint picture ... I'll start a new section below. Wnt (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Wikimedia Foundation received legal advice (from attorneys) that SOPA and PIPA directly threatened Wikipedia's ability to operate. What comparable evidence of a threat to Wikipedia exists in this instance?
Secondly, while both are forms of political advocacy, a material distinction exists between an indiscriminate blackout (which insulates the actual encyclopedic content from the protest) and the selective compilation and presentation of relevant articles (which accomplishes the opposite). —David Levy 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have a point there -- nonetheless there are things like WP:WikiProject Square Enix, a project dedicated to one particular company that gets one of its video games featured as TFA, like clockwork, every six months since the early 2000s. There was also a flap about a Gibraltar project that did the same. We want to be pure, but we don't have to be any purer than Wikipedia itself. If you want to propose a general reform that rules out Square Enix releases on the Main Page I'll definitely give it consideration. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring specifically to political advocacy.
An editor or group of editors is welcome to focus on a particular subject area (be it Square Enix video games, mass surveillance, or anything else). No matter how often we showcase the fruits of their labor on the main page, we don't handpick content as a means of informing the world that Wikipedia supports a related cause. That's what's been proposed.
The Gibraltarpedia controversy stemmed from allegations that Roger Bamkin (a Wikipedia editor and Wikimedia UK trustee) accepted consultancy fees from Gibraltar's government in exchange for using Wikipedia (including the DYK section) to promote the territory. I regard "surveillance awareness day" as a greater conflict of interest. In the case of Gibraltarpedia, the worst-case scenario is that someone got paid to ensure that content otherwise meeting Wikipedia's normal standards appeared (with questionable benefit to Gibraltar's tourism drive). In this case, we have a concerted effort to use Wikipedia's main page (and the encyclopedic material contained therein) as part of an organized protest. —David Levy 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. Wikipedia has not concealed its strong disapproval for paid editing. But there's absolutely nothing that has ever prohibited anyone from starting an article about a law, politician, social phenomenon or event that they either like and want people to know about, or dislike and want to warn people about, so long as they do it according to the basic principle of providing neutral encyclopedic coverage. The real lesson from the Gibraltar story is that even after the first complaints, they still had the right to run DYKs day after day, week after week, because they have the same access to the process as anybody else. Wnt (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. Wikipedia has not concealed its strong disapproval for paid editing. But there's absolutely nothing that has ever prohibited anyone from starting an article about a law, politician, social phenomenon or event that they either like and want people to know about, or dislike and want to warn people about, so long as they do it according to the basic principle of providing neutral encyclopedic coverage.
You appear to have misread my reply, in which I stated that "an editor or group of editors is welcome to focus on a particular subject area (be it Square Enix video games, mass surveillance, or anything else)." —David Levy 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, this is at its genesis your idea, we've mostly been brainstorming what your idea might look like. I've been operating under the assumption that Feb 11 would be an Ignore All Rules day after presenting such a proposal to the entire community. Now that you've clarified, you should probably do a rewrite of the proposal lede, perhaps do a title change. Then you or someone else needs to take the lead on the proposal process. I'm still happy to help, but I'm definitely not the person who could interface with the main page community-- I didn't know any of their rules before this proposal, I still don't know most of them, I've never planned for their rules to apply, and I've said as much. Any involvement I have going forward will probably bias them against the proposed content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing about POV is that there are a few illegitimate ways of advancing it, such as biasing articles and posting lengthy diatribes to their Talk pages. But there are also many legitimate ways to express it, like contributing image uploads from a demonstration, nominating an article, photo, or other media to feature, working on the article to make it featureable quality, starting an article about a notable topic and requesting a DYK, creating a WikiProject, creating a Portal, creating relevant See Also and infobox links to direct viewers between related topics, and creating/putting userboxes on your user page. Wikipedia reconciles the need to allow people to inform others about what they think is important with the need to develop neutral and comprehensive articles that present all sides of the story. Trust me, you're not sunk. The point of a demonstration is to demonstrate something. Demonstrating that you can throw away the rules of the encyclopedia to re-feature an article about Gerald Ford isn't proving much useful at all. Demonstrating that you can get together a group of people and write quality reviews of a dozen or more articles from scratch, in a few weeks, for the whole world to be able to consult for many years afterward, would be impressive. That's honestly how I see it. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editconflict, (to WNT) Well, we certainly have time to get a dozen articles created for DYK-- but who is going to decide whether it's okay to include them on Feb 11? My thinking had previously gone (1) We need to consult the whole community for a change like this, and (2) If the whole community is consulted, they are not bound by Mainpage rules. If we don't present to the whole community, who decides it's okay to schedule them on Feb 11? A half-dozen mainpage insiders? I don't know how cool I would be with them making such a change of such magnitude. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the end of T:TDYK. There's a "special occasion holding area" for DYKs that are accepted. It's not new policy, so there shouldn't be any great trouble with it. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but has "special occasion" ever been used in this way before? This isn't like the olympics, this is timed to coincide with an online protest. As I told the guy who owns TFA yesterday-- I don't think they have the authority to do a change like this on their own. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics, The Day We Fight Back, what's the difference? It's two groups ostensibly in the public interest, ours a whole lot more than theirs. Sure, the Olympics has more money, but that shouldn't be a policy distinction. Besides, even if they did try to deny you the special occasion status granted to others, that would only generate support and sympathy, so you win either way. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd count that as a "win", I worry I'd count that as them correctly recognizing the limitations of status quo consensus for main page content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't recognize a material distinction between timing main page items to coincide with a popular event and timing main page items to coincide with an organized protest, for the express purpose of supporting political advocacy?
The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal: Treat this like a "special occasion". Numerous examples of DYK "special occasions" were cited, with zero serving such a purpose. —David Levy 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

So, I don't know how to proceed, and I have updated the page to reflect this. In light of the excellent feedback above, the current page is no longer a proposal in my eyes, merely a draft of one.

I'm going to step away for a day or two, and see if anyone else wants to propose something under this name. If someone else steps up to fill the vacuum, it's their proposal. If no one does, we can mark this as a historic and call it a day, knowing we've enjoyed a fun session of learning and brainstorming. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Endgame Timeline

This is a proposal for what we will do on February 7-11 only.

Separate sections for "should we do this" and "details of what we should do"

Because of time pressure, I suggest that we separate the discussion.

In one section we will discuss whether we want to implement this proposal (arguments, straw polls, evidence of need or lack thereof, etc). No discussing of the details of what we are going to do in this section.

In another section, we will discuss the details of what we want to do as if we had 100% consensus to go ahead. No discussing of whether we should do anything at all in this section.

During this time we will also also decide on exactly who will evaluate the RfC to come and exactly who will do the final work and publish it.

All proposals done by 23:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

All proposals done by 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

At this precise time, we freeze the proposal, collapse the "what we want to do" talk section and within minutes post a 7-day RfC. Normally an RfC gets at least 30 days, so prepublicizing will be important. The "should we do this" section stays active.

Final decision at 23:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

At this precise time, the RfC closes and, (if there is a consensus) the actual work of creating the page begins.

Go live at 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

During this time we can discuss the reaction in the press, what other websites are doing, etc.

Shut down at 00:01 12 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point we will open a "lessons learned" discussion.

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Three days for the RfC is way too short. There has been and still is enough time for this to allow at the very least a week. Of course, since this proposed day is not "the day we fight back" in disguise but something that simply happens to use the same day (right?), there is no good reason why this can't be held on a later date, with a full 30-day RfC first. Obviously, if this is out of the question and it has to happen on "the day we fight back", then don't pretend to fool anyone and rename the page and make the POV clear from the start. But in either case, a 3-day RfC is simply too short. Fram (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At what time shall the individual entries, for instance DYK nominations, be reviewed by independent reviewers for overall quality; including that they conform to neutrality, proper sourcing etc ? Experience shows that there are relatively often some (often minor) issues with DYK nominations that takes a little time to sort out. There is special emphasis on neutrality and accuracy of the hook facts which needs careful evalutations by reviewers and promoters. Iselilja (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Intelligence, WikiProject Intelligence Agency

I've just started playing with Portal:Intelligence. To be honest, I never really played with portals much before, but I think I've made a good start. The other thing is that if people are still interested and we can get a half dozen or dozen people to join and restart WP:WikiProject Intelligence Agency, that would make a good base of operations. Opinions? Wnt (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both great ideas! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existential threat to Wikipedia

Of all the things that I can think of to justify concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance: ProjectPM. Barrett Brown, a journalist who dug into a number of secret government operations, is presently facing 15 years for linking to an archive of leaked documents from the 2012 Stratfor email leak, which turned out to include some credit card numbers. ProjectPM is a wiki, indeed, even a MediaWiki wiki. Now the issue is a bit muddied because Brown made a few over-the-top statements and there's at least the potential the government is going to come out and claim he had some more direct role. And of course, we know he was gone after because he had his own wiki and group of volunteers, published news articles - he had a higher 'profile' and was more 'at risk' than mundane wiki drones. Nonetheless, the situation as it stands is that there is a claim in that case that if you edit a wiki and you link to a site, that you are responsible for whether any document on the site might be something frowned on by authorities. That is not something any Wikipedian should accept. Wnt (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge that the situation is "muddled" (and that Barrett Brown's role isn't entirely clear), but you cite his prosecution "to justify concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance" (by taking part in an organized protest against the actions of government agencies). Why? Because Brown used a MediaWiki wiki to propagate information, thereby making him one of us?
I'll take this a step further. Let's suppose that a Wikipedian were prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed in connection with edits to Wikipedia. In the presence of substantial doubt as to the charges' validity, it would be appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to issue a public statement on the matter and for other members of the community to engage in advocacy aimed at righting the perceived wrong. It would not, however, be appropriate for Wikipedia itself to engage in advocacy by modifying encyclopedic content (including Main Page) to side with the hypothetical editor, thereby violating the first two of the five pillars.
Legal prosecution, much of it arguably unjust, occurs every day. As an encyclopedia, we document notable controversies, but we don't take sides. WP:NPOV is nonnegotiable, even when a kindred spirit is involved. That's when we need to be especially diligent in our efforts to avoid bias. —David Levy 08:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting to throw out NPOV. Nor am I saying that Wikipedia should unthinkingly hold the man up as a hero (whether he is or not). What I'm saying is that this particular charge against him, in this case, should be a matter of direct interest on which it may be appropriate for Wikipedia to comment as an organization. I recognize that the manner of this comment may not be to engage in gung-ho support for this protest; however, this protest is in response to the persecution of User:Aaronsw, another of our editors, for accessing too many articles from a university. How close do we let the government come to saying "We'll put you in jail forever for looking stuff up" and "We'll put you in jail forever for citing your sources" before we recognize that Wikipedia is indeed directly threatened? Wnt (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting to throw out NPOV.
Agreed. You're only suggesting that we set aside the principle when this stands to benefit causes with which we agree or persons with whom we empathize.
What I'm saying is that this particular charge against him, in this case, should be a matter of direct interest on which it may be appropriate for Wikipedia to comment as an organization.
The Wikimedia Foundation can issue a statement. Wikipedia (when operational as an encyclopedia) explicitly and unambiguously isn't a platform for social/political commentary.
I recognize that the manner of this comment may not be to engage in gung-ho support for this protest;
You stated that you advocate "concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance".
however, this protest is in response to the persecution of User:Aaronsw, another of our editors,
And when a subject relates to Wikipedia, exceptional care is needed to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Conversely, you want us to actually engage in favoritism.
for accessing too many articles from a university.
I regard the situation as tragic and disgusting, but you know perfectly well that the above is a gross oversimplification.
How close do we let the government come to saying "We'll put you in jail forever for looking stuff up" and "We'll put you in jail forever for citing your sources" before we recognize that Wikipedia is indeed directly threatened?
Hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device, but not when it strays so far from reality that the resemblance thereto is lost. —David Levy 15:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between breaking Wikipedia's standards in favor of a particular protest, and using Wikipedia's standards to help oppose surveillance in general through better education. And there is a difference between POV-pushing to make an article show only your side of the story, and using POV as an inspiration to focus more enthusiasm on upgrading the encyclopedia. Wikipedia may be neutral, but it also documents only those things that some editor found important. In the process of directing the energy of something like "surveillance awareness day", we refine raw partisanship into academic interest, which is manifested by an understanding of the importance of actually knowing the subject matter, which flowers in the understanding that one cannot be an advocate for either side without having extensive knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of both, at which point one is ready to devise new and more effective ideas. To advance your POV, you must be neutral, not because that is Wikipedia policy, but because that is how dialectic operates. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating protests is a feckless venture. Please stick to NPOV principles and leave this proposal behind.Patroit22 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day&oldid=591732539"