2
Bearbeitungen
Projekte/Wikimania 2018/Berichte: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Projekte/Wikimania 2018/Berichte (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 28. August 2018, 15:59 Uhr
, vor 5 Jahren→Loht (Stipendiat)
(→Pkraker (Stipendiat): Bericht hinzugefügt) |
|||
| Zeile 73: | Zeile 73: | ||
==== Loht (Stipendiat) ==== | ==== Loht (Stipendiat) ==== | ||
(nach absprache mit Claudia verfasse ich den Reisebericht in Englisch. Falls sich jemand internetational dafür interessiert, ersparen wir uns so die Übersetzung. | |||
===== Bericht von einer Einzelveranstaltung ===== | ===== Bericht von einer Einzelveranstaltung ===== | ||
... | My favourite session was [https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program/Wikimedia_vs._Disinformation Wikipedia vs Disinformation] from Dimitar Dimitov and Jan Gerlach. Besides being very entertaining and containing a copy of a confidential EU document, it presented a very informed perspective on one of the most hotly debated issues of our time: intermediary liability or platform regulation. We can find policy debates around this issue from India to the US and the EU. What is often lacking in those debates is an actual clear definition of the phenomenon. Fake news is the wrong term to have a meaningful discussion about an issue which incorporates at least two radical changes to our public discussion. First, the ease at which everybody can voice opinions online without gatekeepers or big investment in publishing infrastructure. Secondly, existing incentive structures for adverstisment based media publications to optimize quantity of readership instead of quality of content. Dimitar gave a very lively account of the EU expert working group on fake news, which was soon renamed to the expert group of Disinformation. Jan brilliantly summarized existing legislation around this issue, for example a proposed bill in France about disinformation campaigns during election periods which allows for judicial oversight. | ||
I believe platform regulation to be one of the most complicated and central issues in our time of the global digital rights debate. Particular as it relates to the centralisation of data flows in the information society we live in and the fifth dimension of warfare, or cyberware as some might call it. In this 5th dimension the US competes on a much more equal standing with oppressive countries like Russia, China or North Korea. Which is also fuelled by the fact that liberal democracies with free press and freedom of speech face a strategic disadvantage in disinformation campaigns over countries without these liberties. | |||
Therefore, I’m particularly grateful for this inspiring session and hope to continue discussion until and beyond the next Wikimania. | |||
<gallery> | |||
EU_fake_news.jpg|censored report of the EU Commission on "Fake News" | |||
</gallery> | |||
===== Was hat mir die Teilnahme an der Wikimania gebracht? ===== | ===== Was hat mir die Teilnahme an der Wikimania gebracht? ===== | ||
... | |||
This year’s Wikimania was my third event and by far the best of its kind. I think the conference benefits tremendously from the geographical diversity and Cape Town was a perfect pick in the history of the event. To foster understanding of the true nature of the global community we are, everybody needs to engage in direct communication with underrepresented communities at an eye level. | |||
One thing that struck me as odd was the support for Wikipedia Zero during the Opening Ceremony. Particularly in a year when the Foundation announced the fade out of this project it seemed like a criticism of this decision. I don’t know if this was the intention of the organisers, but notwithstanding the issue should have been picked up by other sessions to allow for an informed discussion, including the real figures of the past experiences with that project. If this is a discussion we want or need to have it should happen in the right framework that can lead to a coherent approach. | |||
My position on this issue is that Wikimania has a responsibility as one of the best pearls of the internet to uphold the open and free architecture of mankind’s greatest invention. It would be a short sighted strategy to undermine the very principles that allowed the projects success in the first place and thereby prevent the next great invention to be created based on the open platform the internet needs to be for everyone. Subsidising access via Zero-Rating programs like Facebook’s Free Basics or AT&T’s sponsored data act as a warning beacon for the dangers of vertical integration and digital colonialism. I’d suggest the real cost of access, internet experiences for users on poor network connections and other barriers to knowledge for diverse user groups as reference frames to guide such this debate. | |||
==== Raimund (Angestellter) ==== | ==== Raimund (Angestellter) ==== | ||