The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia’s community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.
An amicus brief, also known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief, is a document filed by individuals or organizations who are not part of a lawsuit, but who have an interest in the outcome of the case and want to raise awareness about their concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation’s amicus brief calls upon the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.
“These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work,” said Stephen LaPorte, General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. “For over twenty years, a community of volunteers from around the world have designed, debated, and deployed a range of content moderation policies to ensure the information on Wikipedia is reliable and neutral. We urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of NetChoice to protect Wikipedia’s unique model of community-led governance, as well as the free expression rights of the encyclopedia’s dedicated editors.”
“The quality of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia depends entirely on the ability of volunteers to develop and enforce nuanced rules for well-sourced, encyclopedic content,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President of Global Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Without the discretion to make editorial decisions in line with established policies around verifiability and neutrality, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with opinions, conspiracies, and irrelevant information that would jeopardize the project’s reason for existing.”
Wikipedia is one of the most impressive collective creations of the modern world. One day corrupt politicians will ruin it. They’re one of the organizations I donate to every year in my futile hope they preserve it as long as possible. Articles like this just reinforces the need to vote for people who aren’t actually cartoon villains. May not vote for SC but we do for who appoints them.
I donate frequently also. It pains me that people poke fun at Wikimedia or Jimmy Wales for their constant fundraising. It’s such a ubiquitous tool, it’s a miracle that it’s free.
They have so much money that all of their expenses are covered by interest though.
Source? That doesn’t match up with their published numbers, so I’m skeptical. Post up a source if you’re going to make such an absurd claim.
Their endowment is around $100MM USD, as of 2021, which is nowhere near enough to cover their operating costs just from interest. Unless they’re somehow obtaining 112% interest…
Revenue: $162.9 million (2021)
Expenses: $111.8 million (2021)
Endowment: $100 million (2021)
Source(s) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
So you could argue that they got plenty of donations in 2021, I suppose. But that’s a very different claim.
More likely, though, you’re just talking out of your ass and have no idea how finances work.
The expenses isn’t just to run Wikipedia, it’s for additional things like making a service to sell for enterprise use. The point (from my understanding at least) of an endowment is for whatever that owns it to basically live off of it in the worst case scenario. They also exclude the endowment from their net assets and annual revenue.
There are lemmy posts about this and I’m sure they explain it better then me, but from what I have read, in my opinion, donations to them seem less beneficial than a lot of things. Especially with their advertising that they need donations so much when they make millions every year.
The “cost estimate” for running Wikipedia, which that article just asserts as gospel, is a “a casual 2013 estimate by Erik Möller, its VP of engineering and product development at the time.” So a very OLD and uninformed guess by someone who wasnt directly involved in finance. To me, that makes this read like a sensationalized hit piece, not credible journalism.
Here is a lemmy comment detailing it. Maybe I am ass at explaining this. I am also not trying to be like “spend your money elsewhere” but just trying to make sure you are aware their donation drives aren’t desperate as they seem.
Point remains. Those expenses are for other projects as well not directly related to Wikipedia. There is no public information of actual cost to running / supporting just the Wikipedia, so that was probably the best source they could find. There are a ton of news articles about this and you can look them up if you want better sources. The end here is that your donating $ to a company that makes a millions in profit every year without the donations.
Yeah but since they donate they can sit on a high horse and look down on those of us that don’t unquestioningly hand over our meagre earnings.
And if that were true I wouldn’t care. I know plenty of people who have their expenses paid and I would love for them to make more money.
It’s ridiculous that this comment got downvoted so harshly. Wikimedia currently has 250 million $ in assets. They also spend >100 million each year, and for the life of me I can’t imagine where that money could have gone, certainly not on the servers and improving the UX (the recent redesign was totally useless, as far as I could notice). Wikipedia by itself certainly could be funded just from the interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
deleted by creator
It’s entirely possible to get it out of their reach. It needs to be pushed out to the point of the Pirate Bay.
It’s just begging for their primary mechanism to be decentralized. They could severely reduce their operating expenses if they went to community hosting.
DHT, chunks of it hosted everywhere. New content and corrections come down as deltas. There are already copies of it on IPFS that are relatively robust, as robust as IPFS can be anyway.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
In a nutshell, yeah that’s pretty much it.
I’ve said this before. They are targeting the wrong layer!
They want to force websites to be neutral while allowing the internet providers to block and shape traffic however they want.
Force ISPs to allow access to all websites - good
Force ISPs to allow anyone to host a website at home - good
Force AWS to allow anyone to pay for and host websites on their infrastructure - probably good, but we’re approaching the line
Force websites to host content they don’t want to host - bad
It’s almost like they’re just wrong about everything.
It’s not about being right or wrong, they know what they’re doing. Quit giving them the benefit of the doubt.
They want to derail discourse so they can apply their politically expedient talking points without competition or questioning.
Wrong as in wrong-headed. They want to make everything worse.
I wish they would move their base of operations to a country with a more stable government and just ignore weird laws like this.
These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work
If that quote it accurate, then it doesn’t matter where Wikipedia itself is based.
Honestly moving to the EU is probably their best bet. But laws respecting speech are not nearly as liberal.
But laws respecting speech are not nearly as liberal.
Then I’m not sure if it would be their best bet … Wikipedia relies on free speech on many levels.
Seems like a better bet than the USA at least.
Does Sealand offer servers?
Which one?
Are there more than one?
New Zealand, Zealand province.
Zealand is not the same as Sealand. Notice how the first letter is an “S” and not a “Z”?
I’m guessing my comment was too advanced then, of course they’re different.
Which is why your comment wasn’t advanced, but nonsensical.
Unless you mean like “aDvaNCeD”, in which case, uh, sure.
They should just show up to Clarence Thomas’ house with a suitcase of money and get some Argentinian old guy to call up Roberts claiming to be the Pope and tell him how to vote.
Can Wikipedia simply not allow users from Texas or Florida? I.e. not operate in that jurisdiction?
Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all. This is a problem that should be fixed with legislation and not artificial blocking. We shouldn’t punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.
We shouldn’t punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.
I’m a Texan and over 7 mil didn’t vote in the last gubernatorial election. Block us. It’ll piss off high school and college students royally and they’re the blocks we need voting.
Cheers for this (and my condolences), as much as it sucks to block Texas, it’d be much worse to let Texas ruin Wikipedia for the rest of the world.
History has taught us restricting access to knowledge never goes well. It will piss some people off, sure. Enough to make a difference? Can’t say, most people are indifferent. As long as they get AN answer, that’s all they care about. Not necessarily the correct one.
What would happen, if they ignored the laws and did not geoblock Texas and Florida, just say they don’t operate there, but not restrict the users and still operate the way they operated until now?
Fines I would assume. Lawsuits even.
How does that work?
Like, let’s say I’m born in Oregon, I live my whole life in Oregon, I get to vote for national representative and Oregon representatives. I set up a server in Oregon, my server responds to electronic requests that it receives from an Oregon company which I connect to with a wire that goes through Oregon.
Then I get sued for breaking Texas laws. At what point did I become subject to Texas law?
At best, at best, you could say that I’m doing “interstate commerce” which is governed by the federal government, not state law.
If I remember correctly, at least some of Wikipedia’s servers are in Florida. So Florida would definitely be able to take action against them.
But, like when they would say in their EULA, that people from Texas and Florida are not allowed, then by using the service would be breaking of EULA and the wikipedia foundation could theoretically say that they’re not operating there and it’s the users fault. Like could someone still sue them then?
You can’t just put illegal discrimination in your EULA and expect it to be legally binding for the user. Also, you don’t even have to sign a EULA to use Wikipedia. It’s an open dictionary, not a proprietary app from a for-profit company.
I don’t believe “location you currently are” is a protected class.
Removed by mod
Why can’t you restrict usage if you don’t comply with local laws? Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then? Or some US news network restricting access from the EU?
Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then?
They can’t. The EU is constantly fining them and suing them for not complying with EU law.
some US news network restricting access from the EU?
The EU law says that they can’t force cookies on EU residents. It doesn’t say that they can’t accomplish that by geoblocking.
As for Wikipedia, maybe they’re legally allowed to block all of Texas and Florida, maybe they’re not.
Regardless, such a move would be the opposite of the mission and function of Wikipedia: to be a free source for unbiased information available to everyone.
I feel like they should see the consequences of their actions. The politicians might learn that the public won’t put up with this shit, rather than have it forced upon them by a higher court so they can continue to play the victim card.
Not everyone in Florida and Texas voted for the fascists and not everyone who wanted to vote against them were able to.
Punishing those who are not complicit is injust, not to mention excellent campaign fodder for the fascists.
I understand your point. My intention isn’t so much to “punish” as to have them see the consequences of their policies. Which should drive a sane voting public against them once they really see first hand the consequences. If SCOTUS or someone hands down a ruling to counter them, then they just play the victim card, and their supporters are emboldened.
Again, not all sane Texans and Floridians are afforded the rights and opportunities needed to vote or otherwise get their voice heard.
If anything, geoblocking those states would only serve to deprive those not savvy enough to deploy a VPN and that’s a group that’s already more likely to be fooled by the demagogues and dishonest media outlets that would paint Wikipedia as the villains.
In other words, geoblocking the fascist-occupied territories would only serve to harden the support of the fascists while inconveniencing many and accomplishing nothing positive.
I agree 💯 that there needs to be consequences for the tyrannical actions of fascists, but geoblocking isn’t it.
Honestly… I get your point and I know people in Texas that don’t agree with Texas politics. However, the largest party in the county is the party of “I don’t vote.” If you actually manage to wake up 10%… 20%… 30%… of those people, plus all the Republican voters that didn’t want it, plus all the Democrats that didn’t want it and/or got lazy with their state votes… Well we might actually see major change in representation from Texas.
“If you don’t like being bombed, get your neighbors to stop supporting Hamas.”
Collective punishment.
That is an offensive comparison. I’m not touching that, there’s no “winning” in the discussion you’ve set up for either of us.
deleted by creator
the largest party in the county is the party of “I don’t vote.” If you actually manage to wake up 10%… 20%… 30%… of those people
Which part of “not able to” don’t you get? Calling disenfranchised people asleep is victim blaming that doesn’t give them the right and ability to vote back.
Oh bull shit. There are way more apathetic people that don’t vote because they don’t want to (because they don’t think it matters or don’t care) than people that are actually not able to vote.
If your “disenfranchisement” in particular boils down to “both sides … my vote doesn’t matter” I have 0 sympathy for you. It very clearly does matter.
Removed by mod
Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all.
Not if they are just blocking editors/authors, not regular viewers.
That would conflict with the proposed law. They want to be able to write what they want, not see what already exists.
Goddammit, now I’m going to have to donate, arent i
Do it. One of the best things the Internet ever enabled.
Fine. Anyone else?
these fascist laws are fucking insane. we need to stop these state governments now!
I feel like those laws would affect all social media platforms and directly go against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
I think people would be surprised just how often the Wikipedia mods have to remind people that the government or court of any nation does not affect the facts of an event or change the reporting of media.
There’s a cesspool of a changes thread for the Gujarat Massacre page because every BJP supporter showed up deleting entire swaths of paragraphs because the Supreme Court of India cleared Modi of any involvement, so obviously that means he’s innocent and the event in question never happened.
Gosh this seems so relevant to the Wikipedia highway discussion. Maybe there cannot be flexibility in their rules when they are facing this type of threat.
Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.
These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work
I don’t understand this. Content on wikipedia isn’t removed based on the viewpoints or opinions of users.
Doesn’t matter. The laws are so unconstitutionally broad that it allows an attack on anyone who disagrees with the work in question. Even if it’s historical. So those experts that edit or create articles can be harassed.
I haven’t read the Florida law, but I can’t see how the Texas law could be interpreted to permit action be brought against a user of a website under a set of circumstances.
Edit: I’m saying I can’t see how, not arguing it doesn’t.
Honestly Overbanning is such a problem that I actually support these laws
Fuck wikipedia. They shouldn’t get to be the only place for information.
They’re not.
Also, fuck you.
Can you expand on why you think they are that? I’m dumb and not understanding.
“prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question”
That sounds like subjective and obviously biased opinions, which obviously should be removed?I’d really like to understand why you think Wikipedia should fuck off. It might be subpar, but there still exist dictionaries, journalism and a lot of other places on the internet than Wikipedia.
As I recall, Wikipedia is not an accepted source in academia, but it’s fantastic for everyday use.
