Talk:Response to 2017 ban in Turkey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thoughts on this[edit]

This of course would be geared towards the English press. Not sure if the Turkish community has already developed a response? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claim of final arbitration[edit]

The final arbitrator in such decisions is community consensus - Is this actually the case? What about terms of use and other policy local to the project? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I include those within the community consensus process. What do you think would be better wording? The main thing I want to emphasize is that it is not 1) a decision of a government 2) it is not the WMF that gets to decide what content we have (outside of very extreme situations of course) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title and authorship clarification[edit]

I assume, given the current title "Wikipedia Responds to Block by Turkey", that a clarification will be included that this is not an official response from the Wikimedia Foundation? Funcrunch (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not the WMF. Does this clarify sufficiently you think[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doc James: You and I know that Wikipedia is not the WMF, but the press (and more importantly, the readers of the press) might not understand that distinction. I think it would be best to specify explicitly that this is the statement only of the undersigned Wikipedia editors, as was done in response to the recent Burger King advertising incident. Funcrunch (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this[2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds better. Thanks - Funcrunch (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback from Turkish community[edit]

Have asked here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. It is obvious that it was penned by you, James, since the word "healthcare" is quite prominent. :)
Vito Genovese 20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems fine. A small note, I guess the statement complements rather than compliments the foundation's statement. I havetranslated the message to facilitate community input. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks and adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoS vs. FoE[edit]

Chiming in as a volunteer, I'd suggest that "freedom of speech" be replaced with "freedom of expression." FoS is a North American interpretation of FoE, which is the universal right recognized by the United Nations. FoE is more internationally accepted as a concept. Cheers. Maherkr (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Maherkr excellent suggestion. Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest that the WMF study the censorship on the Clinton Foundation page before it gets on its high horse (censorship of NY Times, Toronto Globe and Mail, the US State Department, Boston Review, Le Monde Diplomatique, Gender Action, The Washington Free Beacon, The Clinton Foundation (tax returns that support claims in the Washington Free Beacon), as well as several editors who have tried to make the Clinton coterie see reason concerning the censorship of reliable sources). I have reason to believe that the Turkish government is quite well aware of how consensus is gamed within the "community". While Turkey is certainly no example of FoS or FoE, neither is Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Maherkr / User:Katherine_(WMF) it might also be good to have a look at Wikipedia's own policy on free speech , regularly used to ban those who try to warn in good faith about censorship abuse. I'll copy this to your talk page as well so that others can participate in the discussion and so that perhaps you can have a better idea why reasonable people could hope the WMF will begin to understand the serious problem with censorship as a result of the shoe being on the other foot. I would also suggest that you take a look at the fact that has refused to temporarily full protect candidate's BLP pages as well as election-related pages as required by French law during the 48 hours preceding the election (first round & second round (to come)). (cf. Interférence Wikipédienne dans les élection présidentielles de 2017. I do so because I noticed that your blogpost did not mention a number of concerns expressed by the Turkish government (whose decision, incidentally, I do not support). SashiRolls (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Target Audience - General Public[edit]

Again, the distinction between the community of editors and WMF could be highlighted. The arbitration process comes off as sounding fickle. Maybe the bolded additions would help? "While we are happy to respond to concerns about our content by involved parties, those with a conflict of interest do not determine our content. Governments, corporations and even the Wikimedia Foundation do not dictate content. The final arbitrator in such decisions is generally, community consensus based on verifiable information. We support freedom of expression and access to information."--Lucas559 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added "based on verifiable information" thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the section starting "While we are happy to respond to concerns..." uses too much on-wiki language. It'll make sense to Wikimedians but uses concepts that will be unfamiliar to anyone who isn't a Wikimedian. I'd suggest we go with: Governments or corporations do not dictate our content. Our community of volunteers decides what to include based on indepdendent, sources. We support freedom of expression and access to information. Hope this is helpful, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Lucas559 and User:The Land I think it is important for us to acknowledge that their are proper ways to raise concerns about our content (besides turning us off in your respective country).
How about "While we are happy to respond to concerns about our content, governments or corporations do not determine our content. The final arbitrator in such decisions is generally, community consensus based on independent sources."
This is an opportunity to educate the wider world a little about how we work.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have linked community consensus to [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ DocJames,[edit]

it was quite according to my user page :-) cheers and thanks for the initiative -jkb- 23:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved this here[edit]

As this is fairly political. This link might not be the best at least initially. Have moved here for further discussion.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please hold the horses until the formal WMF statement[edit]

Please hold statements like this until the WMF has put out a statement with all the facts. There is little use in speculation. Lets ensure a coordinated response for maximum effect. Effeietsanders (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks User:Effeietsanders, yes that is the plan. WMF is supposed to publish tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WMF statement out here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inquiries from media[edit]

It is possible that Journalist would contact some prominent editors of Wikipedia on this issue. I suggest any inquiry from the media be directed to WMF communication's team and if they must speak on behalf of members of the Wikimedia movement, the community should be consulted. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article of concern to Turkish gov.[edit]

These appear to be the two articles

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly also:

Statements by ICTA are very unspecific:

* Despite all the efforts, the content that falsely claims Turkey's support for terrorist organizations was not removed from Wikipedia.
* This content was not allowed to be edited with accurate information.
* Since Wikipedia broadcasts in HTTPS protocol, it is technically impossible to filter by individual URL's to block only relevant content.
* Therefore, entire Wikipedia content had to be filtered.
* Wikipedia editors must do what is necessary for this and similar content.

--Atlasowa (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, Here is the reason why Wikipedia is blocked/censored from Turkey. Yaman Akdeniz and Kerem Altıparmak appealed against the decision today. They named only english Wikipedia articles, but blocked all languages including turkish Wikipedia! --Atlasowa (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your link is to a tweet, which features an image of a document in Turkish. Cans someone provide a translation of that document, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an interview with Yaman Akdeniz about the block and his appeal:

Sounds like WMF is appealing too. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The appeal has now been rejected. Here are a few news articles about this in major languages:
Vito Genovese 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Vito Genovese thanks for the update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

App store for Kiwix[edit]

User:Vito Genovese do you know if the app store for Kiwix is working in Turkey? It is here[4] They use https aswell, so if the governement wants to limit access this way they will need to take the whole thing down from my understanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on this, I think it is widely available, James. As far as I know, is the only domain being affected from the block. After all, there is virtually no way of blocking the emerging mirrors altogether. The idea behind the block is to punish Wikipedia, as opposed to preventing people based in Turkey from reading these articles. That's TR logic for you.
Vito Genovese 13:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanding Audience Reach[edit]

I am an American who noticed this petition on an Italian Wikipedia page and signed it. I think that this petition would be much more successful if it had an expanded reach, notably if it were incorporated as an announcement on English-speaking pages as well. Has this been considered and turned down for any reason? I am very curious about the specificity of this petition to Italian users. Thanks! Primaltare (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Primaltare this statement was drafted when the initial news broke. The Italian Wikipedia community has done much to promote its existence.
The degree of support we are seeing has really blown me away. I am not sure if the EN WP community would be willing to host such a statement as a site notice or not. Meta does not handle the signing of signatures at a faster rate than we are seeing already. Would need to look at a different tool maybe.
I think what we need to do next is push this statement out to the media. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signature list in translations[edit]

The signature list doesn't get updated if someone is signing in the translated versions, there are still just 1937 signatures in the list, and they don't get more. OK, they are impossible to edit, so no major hiccup will occur, but can't the list be exempted from translations and just included somehow on the translated pages in whole? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sänger (talk) 11:05, 7. Mai 2017 (UTC)

User:Sänger just figuring out how this translation tool works myself. I guess one needs to be a translation admin to turn it on initially.
But I agree no translation of the signatures is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been fixed now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something went terribly wrong with this. It seems, we are not really good equipped for campaigns like this, we should perhaps use something like de:Campact instead. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useless signatures[edit]

You can collect as many signatures as you want. No official in Turkey gives a damn about them. If Wikipedia really wanted to open access to knowledge in Turkey they would delete the paragraphs which called Turkey a terrorist state. Wikipedia will remain blocked in Turkey as long as those contested articles contain the same political propaganda campaign.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you point to the paragraph in which Wikipedia called Turkey "a terrorist state"?
All that I can find is "Turkey's Erdogan Labels Israel a 'Terrorist State"[5]
"The United States is a Leading Terrorist State" in a reference by Chompsky [6]
"Pakistan, then ruled by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to be declared as a terrorist state, if Sharif did not remove him from the post of the ISI chief"[7]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this statement is more to raise awareness regarding methods to still get access to Wikipedia despite the block. This is something that is needed not only for Turkish people, but those in a number of other countries were access to information is being limited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doc James, the article en:State-sponsored terrorism is enough. There are many unverified paragraphs and accusations to Turkey there. (The sources are weak, and unreliable too) If it was Wikipedia'a goal to be get access to Turkish visitors, it would remove contested material (or stop access to those articles from Turkey) and get unbanned, rather than useless signature mobilizations. I think Wikipedia is trying to get involved in politics against the Turkish government, rather than to give knowledge to millions to Turks.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remind you that Wikipedia did NOT even send a representative to Turkey to ask the reason of the ban. That should tell you something.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you go voluntarily to a country, that has incarcerated far over hundred journalist for doing their work? It should indeed tell you something about the state of democracy in Turkey. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J.Wales was in Turkey after the ban. He just visited the country. Wikipedia refuses to send a representative for meeting.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jimbo was disinvited from the event in Turkey, was he there nevertheless? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes he went to Turkey anyway, but he refuses to send a Wikipedia representative there.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matter of fact, there are currently 17 Countries mentioned in that article, mine included (with highly questionable elements, too), and only Turkey thought they were object of... "defamation". They thought perhaps that they couldn't use the ordinary tools (the same "edit" button you all clicked here) to correct an article which is open to everybody's contribution, and that the same concepts (you are discussing about sources here, why not in the article's talk page?) couldn't be expressed where useful; so the Government decided to make it directly impossible to correct the article in the place in which there could have been the most informed sources at all: Turkey. As a consequence, now Turkish people, who honestly never cared about the article before, or who cared about it so much that there isn't a single counted word in the talk page before the ban (here is the only event on the topic, 8 years ago), cannot help any more even if they suddenly discovered today they have an interest in giving the World a correct information.
Additionally, someone from that area of the Planet, loudly declared that Wikipedia supports terrorism. Well, Wikipedia is not against and not in favor of any Government, while it is against any kind of terrorism, because we are here for neutrality, which is grounds for peace and civility among Nations. Speaking of terrorism, this is an unacceptable offense when directed against people volunteering for neutrality. A State is free to eventually declare war on anybody, as far as we are concerned, and with any method. We have less than nothing to do with that, our business is only about knowledge and we do not accept being accused of acting politically: politics and politicians are temporary by definition, knowledge stays there for everyone to come. This is what all these signatures mean, and we do hope that their meaning can be understood in Turkey too.
In order to avoid spreading wrong suggestions, Wikimedia immediately appealed, then a Turkish Court quickly rejected the appeal. Turkish people still cannot give their contributions to the argument. But we don't really mind too much about recentist issues, there are instead centuries and centuries of Turkish history and Culture about which very little is known abroad, and this is what really matters about that part of the World. Today, the concrete result of the ban is that Wikipedians have been severely offended, while Turkish history and Culture will keep on being written by foreigners; like they always have been when there weren't instruments like Wikipedia that could allow Turkish people to have their say. Oh, that was smart, really smart... --g (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, here's the correct link for Wikimedia's immediate appeal --g (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaningless initiative[edit]

As long as Wikipedia remains an expression of preconceptions and prejudices, with an Anglo-American cultural, historical and political bias in every sensitive article, there is no valid reason to contest the Turkish government's decision. -- 17:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC) (from Italy)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's goal is simply to reflect the best avaliable sources. Because the Turkish government disagrees with a couple of sentence of well referenced content on EN WP, I my opinion, this is a poor reason to block the entire site.
Expecially when the government has not even told us what passages they find concerning or poorly supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can't be only casual if "the best available sources" always coincide with those from western countries, including media, whose assertions on recent sensitive arguments are always regarded as impartial and trustworthy. Edits made by users from non-Western countries and that do not coincide with the dominant trend in the West on sensitive topics, such as politics, are always deleted and users banned. The dominant idea in Wikipedia is still that we are "the free world" and the others are free only if they agree with us.-- 20:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know which specific content the Turkish government does not agree with? If they were to provide us details we would look at it and at least make sure it is accurately paraphrased and attributed to a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the Turkish Government is free to take any decision they like, as long as they keep themselves within their national borders. They are not anyone, instead, to tell Wikipedia what and which elements should be included in the knowledge or not. For sure, they are really no one to ask for such a bargain: "you can stay if you do what I tell you". This service is about knowledge, it's not about - say - taxes, which might perhaps be an argument they can deal with more comfortably. If they want to learn the difference, they can take a look at some encyclopedia, and not necessarily ours. This is all about knowledge and about the freedom of our NEUTRAL contents. In the meanwhile, no political entity is entitled to impose with edicts what Wikipedia's contents should be, by any mean. Never ever knowledge can be "validated" by a political entity. Nowhere in this Earth. If censorship is a tool they need to use, we might ideally disagree but there it ends, it's their law, they are a sovereign State: Turkish citizens will have their say, not us. But when you try to make a bargain out of it, with manners that an inattentive person could accidentally mistake for a blackmailing attempt, even if I know they would have never been so rude and boorish with us, better to know that knowledge is not for sale; not in Wikipedia, at least. We would have sold it before, in case, for a better price and to finer customers; but we didn't.
And about the "Western vision", never ever before there had been an informative source in the Western World giving voice, so much voice, to all the Cultures of the world like Wikipedia did. On the contrary: Wikipedia aims to give space, voice, attention, to any Culture in which groups of human beings recognize themselves. Nowhere in Asia anyone gives space to the African Cultures, for instance, nowhere outside the Western World there are projects open to the free information about any mentality in more than 250 different languages (and we are working on translation tools to reduce distances among Cultures). This is because Wikipedia is materially based in the Western World, but it doesn't belong to a particular area, Culture or sensitiveness. Here, indeed, today, we are worried and concerned about freedom in the European State which undoubtedly is the farthest from the Western average mentality. The difference is that Wikipedia would like to include the Turkish Culture in the sum of all human knowledge; but we need that our Turkish friends are free to help us in letting the whole World know about all the important things of Turkey that we don't know yet. Silence is never a good start for any kind of business; by now we are not exchanging anything at any level any more with Turkey, whatever the Meridian we're in. --g (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can not read the Turkish press, so I can't say which is the specific content that is contested by the Turkish government, but here are some examples of controversial content in Syrian_Civil_War:
"Turkey has been accused of fighting against Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, including intelligence collaborations with ISIL in some cases." Source: Al-Monitor (USA).
"As of 2015, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are openly backing the Army of Conquest, an umbrella rebel group that reportedly includes an al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front and another Salafi coalition known as Ahrar ash-Sham, and Faylaq Al-Sham, a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebel groups." Sources: Yahoo-news (USA), The Indipendent (UK), Al-Ahram (Egypt).
And the best of the best:
"The conclusion of a highly classified assessment carried out by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2013 was that Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms program in support of moderate rebels, who no longer existed, into an indiscriminate program to provide technical and logistical support for all elements of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State". Source: London Review of Books (UK), citing "very reliable" sources: DIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff (USA).
In the same article no mention is made about connections among Western countries and terrorist organizations, although the belief is widespread in this regard.-- 01:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very diplomatic language[edit]

"We are disappointed and surprised" is the core of the statement. Not as if we expressed outrage or demanded anything, like the way for instance Amnesty International usually drafts their letters. Is there something untold that we expect from Turkish authorities in return for being so cautious, and is it realistic? Oliv0 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the hope is to give negotiations a chance, plus increase awareness of alternative ways to access Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content page[edit]

I think the phrasing of the content page has to be revised. -- 15:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To what? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't tell you because your hypocritical system doesn't let me publish my advice, which didn't contain any offensive words or a harsh tone at all. You forced me to change what I was writing, so I ended up with that one sentence. -- 20:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't see my signature. Is something wrong? Jmvkrecords (Intra talk) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

User:Jmvkrecords Here is you edit[8] You used three "~" and than 5 "~" That is why.

" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doc James #~~~, Canada, ~~~~~ is a signature with a country between my username and date. What's rare with? Normally, result of that is:
  1. Jmvkrecords (Intra talk), Canada, 16:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried again, and now it works. First time software do that... Jmvkrecords (Intra talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Great to see you got it working. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5,000+ signatories[edit]

I'm seeing 5,000+ signatures, making the page longer to read and slower to load. How do we handle this? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... most of the signatories are from Italy. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] You don't like italian signatories? I just signed to show my support to Turkey and, well, to freedom of information, and I was going to spread the word to my friends, but... I don't get what the problem is.
By the way, I wanted to report a possible error in the list, the numbers stop at 3400+ and start from 1 again. I think the issue is the "wikipediano" line...
My apologies. I shouldn't have implied that I dislike Italian signatories. I'll elaborate more: I initially thought that many Turks would sign the petition. My remark was just an expression of my surprise. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is blocked in Turkey so hard to sign. It is amazing to see such support from Italy :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Viva Italia! --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is that an italian banner, and how do we do it on english? Slowking4 (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. We could definitely propose a banner on EN WP. Bit of discussion here. This page however cannot really handle signatures at any faster of a rate because of technical limitations of the software. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed the reason why so many people from Italy signed it is that there is a banner on top of the Italian Wikipedia about this. That's also how I found out about this and I would bet 99% of the signatories followed the same path. An average user would never land on this page instead. I think it is crucial to maximize outreach to include this banner in as many Wikipedia language versions as possible. The Italian experience shows the huge outreach potential that it has.--Desyman (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

after 5,000 names, the majority of those who signed it from Italy is now clearly made of readers (but you can appreciate it on your own, a user would use the wikisignature, not a plain one). Yes, the banner we put in sitenotice is quite evident, and is effective in calling people to adhere; we do have a particular attention for censorship arguments, even if our users (and maybe our readers too) don't like too much petitioning, so I'm reading this reaction as the fruit of a really shared feeling and an always dormant worry. Besides, Google is showing the beginning of the banner in its results on WP pages, this could be of help.
Needless to say, I'm glad that someone started this initiative, but my support (and, I believe, other users' support) has nothing to do with other Wikimedia contemporary issues. We are here for the block, that's all. Thanks to all those who are helping and/or supporting, whatever they are doing, whatever they are planning to do in Wikimedia.
About the tech issue, I'd guess that when you reserve a subpage for signing, and you have a bot regularly moving blocks of signatures (say blocks of 200 each) to one or more other subpages, and then you include all, this IMHO could help very simply to handle it still easily and still in MediaWiki. --g (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canvassing meatpuppets to protest a bad block[edit]

Some would call this canvassing in an effort to overturn a crappy block / AfD. The UTRS clerk would reject it in an instant before it even reached Arbcom. Until WP does some serious introspection on the cabals / wikimafia roaming "the projects", the only point of such a letter is political grandstanding (aren't there elections on at the moment?). Don't drink the Kool-Aid by signing Doc James' petition. Try to convince WP to address its censorship problems, rather than encouraging it to violate its own rules of debate to show off its political soft power muscle. SashiRolls (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am aware nobody reads the (untranslated) talk page. For 5600 average daily clicks on the Italian translation, 330 people click on the English talk page. SashiRolls (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, User:SashiRolls. I see Turkish and Italian versions of the "Canvassing" guideline. Nonetheless, for, per en:Wikipedia:GUIDES, we can use "common sense" and make some exceptions because the English "Canvassing" page is a guideline. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooh... found Italian and Turkish versions of "Policies and guidelines", but they seem trim or something compared to the English version. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting... I think on it's filed under spam. Thanks for pointing out this surge in signatures above George Ho. I hadn't noticed what was being done. If we really think about it, using "common sense", I suppose the people being convinced of something are those IPs who sign without knowing much of anything about the sausage factory. Oh well, such is life. If there were any trustee candidates reading the page, they might be able to bring these sorts of concerns right up to the board about foundations, governments, lobbies (and cranks of course) editing WP. Not sure Turkey has time for all that policing of the MUD right now what with 3m refugees needing shelter. But they did offer to open a branch office, I seem to recall reading. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome, SashiRolls. :) Somehow, Wikimedia lacks its Turkish chapter, but then again, the banning would make the chapter founding very unlikely in the future. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing RFCs on Turkish Wikipedia[edit]

Now that there are Turkey's ban on Wikipedia and the petition to appeal the ban, what about the ongoing RFCs about Turkish Wikipedia?

--George Ho (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh, every cloud has its silver lining. Turkish-language Wikipedia was always Turkish fascist/nationalist-riddled turd, but the real problems arose from overspill onto the EL Wikipeda. Now that extremists from Turkey can no longer edit the English-language Wikipedia, things are more peaceful on Turkish-related articles. I may even have a go at rewording Ataturk's hagiography! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signature List, where to find it?[edit]

Hi all, been trying to keep order in the Signature list for days now... a lot of work! There are still trolls writing nonsense, how can their signature be deleted? I don't have access to the older signatures.

Example 1: 4649. Ajeje Brazorf, Venezia, Italia, 9 maggio 2017 "Ajeje Brazorf" is a fictional character used by actor/comedian "Aldo Baglio", of the very known italian Trio "Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo".

Example 2: 4657. PORC***!!!!!!!, staminchiaduamurry69, befanaanatale..., 69/69/696969696969696969696969696969696969696969 "Porc***", italian word, means "Goddamn".

Thanx for an answer. Greets, L U P O, Switzerland

(sorry, I'm purging the word; in we revdel it since it is harsh blasphemy - no censorship, but there's no need to have it repeated here) --g (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry Gianfrà... in 2017 still believing in a god... this is the real blasphemy for the whole humanity! Anyway, i hope you'll get it one day... L U P O) ((oh, so you censored it here, where i did examples to delete, but not in the signature list?))
For how extensively this has been viewed and how many people have signed up, some level of disruptive editing is expected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doc, no one of you 2 gave me an answer :P Anyway, i did my best trying to keep the list clean. L U P O
Sorry. Yes the question is how do we fix the old signatures.
The page you are looking for is this one Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey/SignaturesArchive User:LUPO7676 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet Archive and blocked Wikis[edit]

What about deploying Internet Archive (and other archive initiatives) to all external links, not only dead ones, for Wikipedia's that have been or are in danger of being blocked. This would allow access to citations Wikipedia is built on. Presumably much of this content is vulnerable to blocks, since it is what they are trying to block (underlying content). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Green Cardamom We appear to be on Internet Archive already. For example [9]. The links are even browsable :-) Search does not work though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Doc James, that is true though I was thinking of something else. For example the Turkish Wikipedia has 2 million citations (newspapers, journals etc). A regime that is blocking Wikipedia is also likely blocking many of those cites Wikipedia links to. Consider why the regime is blocking Wiki (its content) and where that content comes from (external link sources). The solution is to make sure every external link on Wikipedia also has an archive link by default. The French Wiki does this already. The English wiki has tools to do it. I don't mean all external links archived at Wayback (this already being done), but placing that archive link into the wikitext such as the |archiveurl field regardless if the link is dead yet under the assumption it could be blocked for native viewers and thus remain accessible via archives. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I have been thinking that something like this would be useful. Am going to be discussing the possibility with some programmer people during Wikimania in Montreal this year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incubated versions of Wikiversity and Wikivoyage[edit]

I took advantage of the recent events and then posted a notice to Turkish Wikipedia about the Wikiversity and Wikivoyage counterparts, which are still incubated and proposed. Hopefully, if activity of those incubated projects increases, that should help balance Turkish Wikipedia and ease tensions between the Turkish government and Wikipedia. I won't anticipate high expectations about Wikiversity. Korean Wikiversity was the last Wikiversity created in 2013; Beta Wikiversity is proposed to be closed since 2013. However, I can give Turkish Wikiversity a chance if the Turkish community has some interests in it. Same for Turkish Wikivoyage; Finnish Wikivoyage was created in November of last year. --George Ho (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple idea[edit]

It's very interesting that Wikipedia prefers being inaccessable to a country of 80 million people because of 2 disputed articles with no neutrality and no credible sources.

Turkish courts decided they will not permit internet broadcasts which says Turkey is supporting ISIS or whatever. (Like it or not, this kind of information is manipulated fake mass des-information for them and it's in their law to protect their public against it)

My idea is Wikipedia should comply with Turkish law and display a banner for these articles to computers with Turkey IP, if Wikipedia really wants to get unblocked there. (If Wikipedia has a political agenda, it should keep starting more petitions, the block will not be lifted even if it collects 1 trillion signatures) cheers --Vedat yenerer (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Vedat yenerer I have been trying to figure out what parts of those pages (the exact sentences) the Turkish government has a problem with. Do you know? While they claim to have told "Wikipedia" I do not see any comments on the talk page of either article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the exact sentences Turkish government has problem with. Probably the two articles as a whole. --Vedat yenerer (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to address a "problem" they do not articulate is not really possible. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc James (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 May 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the real problem is with the "edit" button, or with how one should use it: that button is there to correct the articles and to discuss in their talk pages about how to write them. Anyone can use it, anyone can take part in the building of consensus. We have kids editing on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be too much complicated for adults who can tell what is good and bad on the internet. Where did it happen that someone was not allowed to edit the "controversial" articles? There is no evidence that anyone had protested for anything and/or wasn't allowed to correct (if this was the case) the articles. Some of the official claims, indeed, might need a better shaping: perhaps there is a linguistic issue we should consider, which would explain some "strange" expressions and actions.
Wikipedia already complies with hundreds of national laws, in hundreds of Countries, to serve billions of people, not only 80M in a single local jurisdiction. We would also be eager to comply with Turkish law too, though; no one - i.e. - had ever asked Wikipedians to analyze Turkish copyright law, but they did it, even if honestly it wasn't a true priority or a critical need, it only comes useful for us once in a blue moon, but nevertheless the rule is there just the same, and is respected. (And those few lines are the most you can find in the web about the subject). So, whenever possible, compliance is what we look for, at nearly any extent, for Turkey too. But not when this becomes a matter of negotiation about politically-validated contents.
And about a sort of "national banner", no, in Wikipedia we do not discriminate our users and readers depending on their nationality: we love them all, we respect them all. This is why, with signatures and protests, we are sending a message of love and respect to our Turkish Colleagues and readers. There is really nothing more that we can do, and that we are allowed to do by Wikipedia's policies; and that we actually want to do. Anything beyond this point would effectively be politics, and this is for other entities, not for Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only possible solution would be that Turkish people take part in the common work on the articles, following the general rules, making all together a good article out of that pages; and this is now impossible. It's a bad stop in the communication with a lot of people, yes, but we already experienced it with Countries 20 times bigger than this one and we survived. Time will tell us when we will start to work together again; no one but time. --g (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local law[edit]

These super-biased articles contain tonnes of false information, allegations and highly disputed information. The Turkish courts decided these two articles are against Turkish law. There is nothing to discuss. Comply with local laws and don't display those two articles if the visitor IP is from Turkey.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay yes people repeat over and over what the Turkish government has said via the news. They have however NOT told Wikipedia. And they have NOT said what parts of these articles they find concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't suggest to edit the articles. I'm saying something else. I say these pages should be blackout if the visitor entry IP is from Turkey.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should Turkey be deprived of the sum of the whole knowledge? Just because the Erdonator doesn't like the truth but just his own fake Version, we don't have to cave in. We are not the lackeys of non-free societies. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blacking out content is not a good precedent to set. Every country would than start requesting this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Countries is a very general word. The courts of countries (in which Wikipedia wants to operate) clearly stated that you breach laws there It seems Wikipedia sees itself above the law. If you don't comply with law of countries you operate, of course you will get blocked. --Vedat yenerer (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Turkish law contradicts international law, we will follow the latter rather than the former. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spreading biased manipulative mass-information can be illegal in certain countries to protect public interest. I have read those two articles and they are based on accusations and misinformation. There is no "international law" on this subject as you say. Freedom of speech doesn't give you to write any allegation/rumor for people/entities on newspapers/websites with big audience as you want. "International law" doesn't give you the right to do this either. It's up to each country to enforce it. I can see you will remain blocked for a long time with your attitude.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Vedat yenerer can you state which lines of text in those articles you feel the Turkish government does not like? That is the question we are waiting for the answer to.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The paragraphs where the allegations are, that Turkey supports Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you quote the exact wording? And state which article you are looking at. Also do you see any formal documentation either on or off WP that makes the claim that that is the issue? Or is this just an assumption on your part? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear User:Vedat yenerer, people in Turkey will live happily all after and enjoy the Wikipedia once Erdogan is gone. It is a matter of time, and in the end the good side wins. By the way, freedom of speech and of the press gives exactly this right to say and write what others might not want to hear and read. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean "Former United States Ambassador to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone claimed that Turkey had directly supported and worked with Ahrar al-Sham and al-Qaeda's wing in Syria for a period of time thinking that they could work with extremist Islamist groups and push them to become more moderate at the same time, an attempt which failed. He said that that he tried to persuade the Turkish government to close its borders to the groups, but to no avail.[157]" Personally I am not seeing what is wrong with this? Many countries work with terrorist groups when interests align. The US more or less created al-Qaeda to fight the Russians. That Turkey would try to collaborate on common interests is not surprising. Collaborating does not mean "unquestioning support" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. It's still a rumor, you know, because he is a "former" ambassador without carrying the title. You cannot "prove" it (maybe it's true maybe not.) That's like saying ex-FDA official says Burger King has rat poison and you create an article "burgers with rat poison" .. Burger King would sue you then.. You know what I mean.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are just paraphrasing the Telegraph. Are they also blocked in Turkey? We at WP just paraphrase others positions and do not contain original material. If we paraphrased a notable opinion that Burger King contain "rat poison" and attributed it, no Burger King could not sue us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know we're thinking of the users, but what about the law?[edit]

Before you eat me for breakfast and spit out the bones at lunch, listen to me one moment, please! I am aware of the massive outpouring of support for people in Turkey, who have lost their Wikipedia service because of their dictator President being an ass. But, should we as an organisation, really be telling Turkish people how to circumvent their laws, regardless how much we hate them?

Will the WMF help fund the legal costs of any Turkish citizen caught violating a governmental ban on access? Because my understanding is it's now illegal to access Wikipedia in Turkey, in much the same way as it is to subvert the Great Firewall of China.

Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It Wikipedia content occurs on another website does that make that website illegal too? Does that mean they have banned Google, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter? In fact they would almost need to ban all the Internet . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good point you make, Doc James. I don't understand fully how it is that Turkish law works, but I would imagine if a website was illegal, wouldn't it mean that anyone mirroring this content would, by definition, become banned too? IANAL, so I can't answer it, but it must have been covered somewhere. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that would require blocking much of the internet... So what are you thoughts on helping those who have the entire internet blocked by their government? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should help where we can do it, Doc James. But we certainly shouldn't be advising people to a) break the law, and b) telling them how to! I think if someone gets caught for following our advice, we should help them. And I assume for one, you refer to the DPRK for blocking the entire internet. We haven't told them how to subvert their laws though, have we? Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Access to information / knowledge is IMO a basic human right. It is part of the en:Sustainable Development Goals specifically en:Sustainable_Development_Goals#Goal_4:_Quality_Education Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are people within our movement working to get offline access to WP both in North Korea and in Cuba. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for "respecting the law", law enforcement actions can be illegal too, it just takes time and effort to reverse them. I'm not sure we're currently encouraging any illegal action on the users' behalf: is it criminal to access banned content in Turkey? Do people get arrested for that? The specific action referred to here is usually "sold" by the Turkish authorities as being a mere sanction against a bad foreign entity. Nemo 06:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017[edit]

  1. Luciano Bericchia, Bergamo, Italy - 16/05/2017

Luciano 62 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done it for you. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing the ability to sign[edit]

We have passed 10,000 signatures. Obviously people care very deeply about this issue. Wondering others thoughts on closing the petition to signatures and working to increase media attention regarding it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, we can gain more, especially from more Italians. ;) How many more signatures does it need to be more effective. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt 10k or 10 millions signatures would make it "more effective", especially if coming from people the recipients don't care about. --Nemo 06:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw a bunch of signatures removed and not yet archived or something. Here you go: Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/Miloo.amila. Right now, it looks like 7000+. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind the closure. A proposal to post a global centralnotice is made. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- One said there that the sig page should be closed ASAP, though the tone seems disgruntled by one of attempts to get the Foundation politically involved. --George Ho (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Layout of signatures[edit]

The layout of signatures is to be settled.--RoccaPennuzza (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done, thank you :-) --g (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] now blocked[edit]

Since May 18th, has also become inaccessible for at least the users of TTNET, the ISP with the most clients in Turkey. We suspect an IP ban has been implemented, somehow affecting both WP and WM, but not our other domains. subdomains such as Blog, WMTR, Commons, and Meta are currently inaccessible for non-VPN users in Turkey, with some exceptions apparently. The same ban has also decreased the siteview stats of trwiki further (for instance, I didn't have to use a VPN service (but a DNS configuration) until 2 days ago). I am still waiting for an update for this tool, but considering the ban was implemented mid-day, I suspect the stats for yesterday will be considerably worse (see this for the pre-block stats).

Vito Genovese 06:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was some decrease indeed. For sure it's not getting better: --Nemo 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know this, Fixuture. --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reviewed the history of this page Response to 2017 ban in Turkey/Sig and found an enormous number of signatures were removed by at least one incident of page blanking vandalism and many incidents of accidental overwriting errors by new users, see my two edits here: [10] [11].

I think future petitions need to look at alternative approaches to how to appropriately collect and store signatures from the Wikipedia community, for example mw:Extension:Petition could be enabled on Meta. An editable wiki page is obviously at the heart of how such a petition should be designed, but I don't think anybody expected the sheer number of responses this has received and how many it was receiving in the timeframe of each single day. That being said, in the future, we need to be scalable, and a petition could not really be considered representative of our collective opinion if ~3,500 signatures could be potentially removed by the actions (in good faith or bad faith) by just anyone. Naturally like any other part of our projects, it is important for all users to have the freedom to modify but the respect of our editing principles not to do so. But losing people's contributions from errors resulting from edit conflicts of tens of Wikimedia visitors editing the page at a single time, just seems to indicate that a wiki page is ill-equipped for the task, with principles aside. Just my thoughts. Seb26 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup agree completely. This was why I was suggesting closing down the petition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I would like to close this petition. Any opinions on it?--RoccaPennuzza (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good start would be to recover from the history the signatures removed by mistake. The second step would be to not transclude the list of signatures, so that the page doesn't take 10 seconds to load even on a fast connection. --Nemo 20:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good evening friends how can i create a Wikipedia account in turkey after it has been blocked here? i mean i'm forced to use a proxy so i can browse the site and when i tried to create an account it didn't work cuase i'm using proxy. please help--AhrimanAmmaneh (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:AhrimanAmmaneh you are editing with an account right now? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Doc James i created this account last night on wikimedia, you see i'm syrian and live in turkey and i want to create an account on the Arabic Wikipedia, i just seems impossible, i have been try a lot lately.--AhrimanAmmaneh (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AhrimanAmmaneh: You should be able to login with the account you're using right now onto the Arabic Wikipedia. Since you've created an account, you shouldn't need to create another one. Gestrid (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter status[edit]

FYI --Nemo 15:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News from Turkey’s Constitutional Court[edit]

Turkey’s Constitutional Court ruled against the ban on access to Wikipedia, saying that it violates rights and freedoms. The decision was taken on Dec. 26 by the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court. But it is not clear when access to the Wikipedia in Turkey would be restored. The news was discussed on the Wikimedia-l list, thread "Wikipedia is going to be available in turkey again ".
Below is a summary of votes against the blockade of Wikipedia in Turkey. The votes were counted to the named country ("Country" column), if the name of the country was clearly stated in the entry, and they were not counted even if the nickname was known to me (in my case from the plwiki) - I'm sorry about that, but due to the huge number of entries I wasn't able to do it, anyway it would not be neutral, but polonocentric.
Summary source is here.

No. Country Entries % Remarks
1 Italy 13300 84,859 Such a huge number was caused by a banner placed on itwiki after Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey.
2 Switzerland 129 0,810
3 UK 96 0,613
4 Germany 89 0,568
5 France 74 0,472
6 USA 65 0,415
7 Spain 44 0,281
8 Belgium 25 0,160
9 Netherlands 25 0,160
10 Argentina 21 0,134
11 Ukraine 17 0,108
12 Brazil 16 0,102
13 Australia 15 0,096
14 Japan 15 0,096
15 Poland 14 0,089
16 Romania 13 0,083
17 Austria 12 0,077
18 Canada 12 0,077
19 San Marino 12 0,077
20 Brasil 11 0,070
21 Denmark 11 0,070
22 Norway 10 0,064
23 Portugal 10 0,064
24 Luxembourg 9 0,057
25 Russia 9 0,057
26 Sweden 9 0,057
27 Colombia 8 0,051
28 Greece 8 0,051
29 Israel 8 0,051
30 México 8 0,051
31 Croatia 7 0,045
32 Czech Republic 7 0,045
33 Albania 6 0,038
34 China 6 0,038
35 Ireland 6 0,038
36 Mexico 6 0,038
37 Slovenia 6 0,038
38 Venezuela 6 0,038
39 Serbia 5 0,032
40 Uruguay 5 0,032
41 Azerbaijan 4 0,026
42 Finland 4 0,026
43 Hungary 4 0,026
44 India 4 0,026
45 Iran 4 0,026
46 New Zealand 4 0,026
47 Peru 4 0,026
48 Bielorussia 3 0,019
49 Chile 3 0,019
50 Latvia 3 0,019
51 Malta 3 0,019
52 Armenia 2 0,013
53 Bulgaria 2 0,013
54 Burundi 2 0,013
55 Costa Rica 2 0,013
56 Egypt 2 0,013
57 Estonia 2 0,013
58 Gran Canaria 2 0,013
59 Hong Kong 2 0,013
60 Irlanda 2 0,013
61 Myanmar (Burma) 2 0,013
62 Panamá 2 0,013
63 Singapore 2 0,013
64 Turkey 2 0,013
65 Algeria 1 0,006
66 Bangladesh 1 0,006
67 Bolivia 1 0,006
68 Crimea 1 0,006
69 Dutch West Indies 1 0,006
70 Ecuador 1 0,006
71 Guatemala 1 0,006
72 Indonesia 1 0,006
73 Jordan 1 0,006
74 Kenya 1 0,006
75 Kurdistan 1 0,006
76 Kuwait 1 0,006
77 Lithuania 1 0,006
78 Maldives 1 0,006
79 Marocco 1 0,006
80 Montenegro 1 0,006
81 Mozambique 1 0,006
82 Pakistan 1 0,006
83 Palestrina 1 0,006
84 Qatar 1 0,006
85 Republic of Korea 1 0,006
86 Slovakia 1 0,006
87 Swizerland 1 0,006
88 Thailand 1 0,006
89 Tunisia 1 0,006
90 UAE 1 0,006
91 <unknown> 1426 9,098
= TOTAL 15673 100,000

Ency (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]