Via Sue Gardner's Blog:
 
 Below is the text of a talk I delivered Monday at the 2013 MIT-Knight Civic Media Conference in Boston. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, Icelandic member of Parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir and I spoke on the theme of “Insiders/Outsiders: what is the right approach to change.”
 
Below is the text of a talk I delivered Monday at the 2013 MIT-Knight Civic Media Conference in Boston. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, Icelandic member of Parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir and I spoke on the theme of “Insiders/Outsiders: what is the right approach to change.”
Unlike many of the people in this room, I’m not an academic or a  public policy expert and so I won’t be bringing you statistics or  analysis or theories today. I run a big website. I’m also a journalist.  If we consider ourselves to be in a war for the free and open internet, I  am here to tell you some stories from the trenches.
Wikipedia is pretty much the consummate insider-outsider: the #5  most-popular site in the entire world, read by a half a billion people  every month, yet written by utterly ordinary people with no special  power or authority at all. If they have credentials, they park them at  the door.
Wikipedia is a tremendous success story. It launched in 2001 and took  off very quickly: by 2006 it had surpassed all the other news and  information sites in terms of popularity. Today it’s a behemoth. And  people love to point to it as an example of everything great about the  internet. There’s only one problem with that. Wikipedia is pretty much  alone. It’s NOT the general rule: it’s the exception that proves the  rule.
Wikipedia is operated by a non-profit. In Silicon Valley, people  often find that astonishing – they ask me why Jimmy Wales “left so much  money on the table,” and whether he regrets doing it. (Answer: no.)  Sometimes people ask me why we don’t just put ads on the site, and  whether we are against advertising, against for-profit companies,  against capitalism.
We say no. Our view is that the internet should have balance, much  like the offline world. A city has restaurants and shops and banks as  well as schools and libraries and parks. Wikipedia is like a park. It’s a  public space, accessible and used by everybody.
But where are the other parks?
- Wikipedia is the only donor-supported site in the top 50
- Wikipedia and Mozilla are the only two nonprofits in the top 25(*)
- The average person spends practically all their time online on the  sites of for-profit companies, the vast majority of them American.  (Caveat: mainland China.)
This worries me. The internet is evolving into a private-sector space  that is primarily accountable to corporate shareholders rather than  citizens. It’s constantly trying to sell you stuff. It does whatever it  wants with your personal information. And as it begins to be regulated  or to regulate itself, it often happens in a clumsy and harmful way,  hurting the internet’s ability to function for the benefit of the  public. That for example was the story of SOPA.
My first war story happened soon after I joined the Wikimedia Foundation. It’s about censorship in the United Kingdom.
The internet industry is, of course, generally hoping to remain  unregulated. In the UK a coalition of ISPs have formed an association  called the Internet Watch Foundation, which is essentially a group of  retired police officers, paid by the ISPs to investigate complaints of  child pornography online. In 2008, that group got a complaint about an  image on Wikipedia of an album cover from 1976(**) – an album called  “Virgin Killer”, by a German heavy metal band called the Scorpions. The  album cover image is a young girl, nude, which has been treated with an  effect that makes it look like she’s looking at you through a pane of  glass that has been shattered by a bullet. It’s deliberately provocative  – it’s heavy metal.
The Internet Watch Foundation decided this was child porn, and  attempted to block it from the view of UK internet users. In doing that,  they accidentally made it impossible for anybody to edit Wikipedia from  inside the UK.
People went nuts. There was a lot of press coverage, both inside the  UK and internationally. The Wikimedia Foundation spoke to the press, and  individual Wikipedia editors in the UK spoke to the press and blogged  and tweeted and so on. And after a few days the IWF reversed its  decision.
Two interesting things:
- When they reversed their decision, they explicitly said that they  still believed the image was child porn, but that the public outcry was  too much for them. They backed down because they couldn’t win a PR war  against fans of the number five website in the world. If we had been  Joe’s Album Art History Wiki, it’s clear the decision would not have  been reversed.
- Importantly and invisibly, while this story was playing out, and was  being written about by journalists internationally, at the Wikimedia  Foundation we noticed Amazon had quietly pulled the Virgin Killer album  from its site. It still sold a version of the album that had a different  cover, but it no longer sold the version with the image that was being  challenged. Amazon didn’t call us to ask what was going on, or to offer  us help. They didn’t even silently watch and wait. They pulled the album  off their shelves — not just in the UK but worldwide.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Amazon. I spend a significant portion of  my disposable income at Amazon every year, and I am grateful that it’s  made my life easier and given me choices I didn’t have before it  existed. Amazon is fantastic. But it’s also true that Amazon’s job is  not to protect the public interest – it’s to advance the interests of  Amazon.
Another story.
In 2011, there was a Wikipedia conference in Mumbai at which Jimmy  Wales spoke as well as our Board member Bishakha Datta, and a few of our  staff. To our considerable surprise, a popular Indian political party  picketed outside our conference and demanded that the police arrest us.  They were doing that because the map of India displayed on Wikipedia  shows the country’s borders as per the United Nations – with the borders  with China and Pakistan “disputed” – and not as per the map defined by  the government of India. It is only legal, in India, to publish a map  showing India’s borders as they are defined and understood by the  government of India.
As you can imagine, the protest made us exceedingly anxious. We knew  that although India is a democracy with a commitment to free speech,  that commitment is variable and laws and community standards inside  India are somewhat volatile. And so we retained a bunch of lawyers. We  spent weeks researching the legal and PR issues. Where we could, we took  a variety of small non-controversial steps to protect ourselves. And  ultimately we got lucky, and the issue seemed to fizzle out.
What we did not do was change the map of India displayed on  Wikipedia. Partly because we can’t – that’s a Wikipedia community  decision – but also because we shouldn’t. It’s perfectly reasonable to  publish a map of India with the UN borders.
What was interesting here, as we researched our position, was what  everybody else does. It seems that inside India, every major player  except Wikipedia displays the map of India with the borders as defined  by the Indian government. If you’re in India, that’s what Google shows  you. When the Economist magazine prints a map of India, I was told by  our lawyer, the version of the magazine they sell inside India shows a  map different from the version in the magazine they sell elsewhere.(***)
It’s also worth noting that the Wikimedia Foundation has a legal team  and a PR team, and Wikipedia is a popular site, much-loved by its  readers. Not everyone has those resources. Of those that do, most are  private and for-profit. Again, some of those players are doing great  things. But on the whole, over time, they will put profits before public  service. That’s their job and their obligation.
Governments, in my experience, aren’t helping. Mostly they’re just  befuddled, but even if they knew what to do, there’s no reason to  believe they’d do it. Too often they’re corporate captives. We saw it  with SOPA. Today they listen too much to the entertainment industry –  the copyright owners. Tomorrow, maybe they’ll be listening too much to  giant technology companies. Either way, the voices of ordinary people  will only rarely be heard, and I have difficulty believing that more or  better civic engagement will fix that anytime soon. I agree with Larry  Lessig: structural problems – fundraising, gerrymandering – have made  for a powerful incumbency with skewed incentives.
And so, as a soldier in the trenches, my message to this conference is caution and concern.
Aside from Wikipedia, there is no large, popular space being carved  out for the public good. There are a billion tiny experiments, some of  them great. But we should be honest: we are not gaining ground. Our  schools, our libraries, our parks – they are very, very small and they  may or may not sustain. We certainly have no information-sharing  participatory Garden of Eden, the promise of the internet that we all  originally believed in. Though we are not lost, we are losing.
I say this because it’s easy to come together for a conference like  this and get excited about awesome experiments and interesting  breakthroughs. It’s worth doing! We want to celebrate success! But if  you’ve read 
Tim Wu‘s 
Master Switch, if you’re reading 
Robert McChesney‘s 
Digital Disconnect, you know that the insiders are winning. We are not.
The internet needs serious help if it is to remain free and open, a  powerful contributor to the public good. That’s what I’m hoping you’ll  discuss over the course of this conference. How to create an ecosystem  of parks and libraries and schools online … that supports participation,  dialogue, sharing.
Thank you.
(*Turns out I was wrong about this. Mozilla is #60 globally  according to comScore Media Metrix, the industry standard for web  audience measurement. Therefore, I should actually have said Wikipedia,  at #5, is the *only* non-profit in the top 25.)
(**When I delivered the talk I said 2009 and 1979. I’d been misremembering: it was 2008 and 1976.)
(***Since delivering this talk, Tilman Bayer at the Wikimedia Foundation pointed me towards this BBC article,  in which the Economist accuses the Indian government of hostile  censorship after it forced the magazine to place a blank white sticker  over a map of Kashmir in the 30,000 copies of the May 2011 Economist  that were distributed in India.)