Jump to content

Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day/Brainstorming phase

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It remains an open question whether the custom content for Feb 11 would literally be located at Mainpage or whether it would be stored on a page of its own.

For one possible example of this might look like, see the Arbitrary Mockup #1.
To view lots of items at once, see Arbitrary Mockup #2

You can help!

Proposed content for on Feb 11 (Stored either at /wiki/Main_Page or elsewhere)

[edit]

Today's article(s) for Feb 11

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Featured articles

Most participants seem to agree that "Today's Article(s)" should be Featured Articles, or articles about to become Featured Articles.

Question: Will we have enough time to improve an article to FA status in time for February, or should we just go for one of the already-FA options?

FA takes a long time-- we might "discover" a Good Article that is very close to FA, but we can't manufacture a FA in 2-3 weeks. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page

Seal of the US Supreme Court

Afroyim v. Rusk is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a Polish-born man who had voted in an Israeli election after having become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but the Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.

The Afroyim decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of dual (or multiple) citizenship in United States law. The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization—were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.

Thaddeus Stevens (April 4, 1792 – August 11, 1868) was a member of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania and one of the leaders of the Radical Republican faction of the Republican Party during the 1860s. A fierce opponent of slavery and discrimination against African-Americans, Stevens sought to secure their rights during Reconstruction, in opposition to President Andrew Johnson.

Stevens was born in rural Vermont, in poverty, and with a club foot, giving him a limp he kept his entire life. He was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, where he became a strong advocate of free public education.

He was elected to Congress in 1848, where he spoke out against the Compromise of 1850 which allowed for some of the territories recently gained from Mexico to become slave states. As the debates continued, he stated, "This word 'compromise' when applied to human rights and constitutional rights I abhor. We are not asked, but commanded, to compromise away the Constitution."

Elected to Congress again in 1858, Stevens argued that slavery should not survive the war; he was frustrated by the slowness of President Abraham Lincoln to support his position. Stevens came to believe that not only should slavery be abolished, but that African-Americans should be given a stake in the South's future through the confiscation of land from planters to be distributed to the freedmen. His plans went too far for the Moderate Republicans, and were not enacted.
Although I just wrote this, I suspect it may be a tad too pointed, but trying to provide lots of options. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
Normal Main Pages do not contain Featured Articles that have previously appeared on the mainpage. Inclusion of a page that has previously appeared is extremely controversial with multiple editors.
With Blurbs

Series creator David Simon

The Wire is an American television drama set and produced in Baltimore, Maryland. Created by writer/producer and former police reporter David Simon (pictured). The Wire premiered on June 2, 2002, with 60 episodes airing over the course of six seasons. The plot of the first season centers on the ongoing struggles between police units and drug-dealing gangs on the west side of the city, and is told from both points of view. Subsequent seasons focused on other facets of the city, exploring themes of surveillance and institutional dysfunction. Simon has said that despite its presentation as a crime drama, the show is "really about the American city, and about how we live together. It's about how institutions have an effect on individuals. Whether one is a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge or a lawyer, all are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution to which they are committed." Despite only receiving average ratings and never winning major television awards, The Wire has been described by many critics and fans as one of the greatest TV dramas of all time. The show is recognized for its realistic portrayal of urban life, its literary ambitions, and its deep exploration of social and political themes. (Full article...)
I like this one for a couple reasons. Firstly, it's very neutral and doesn't imply any "position" on surveillance. The title is instantly relevant, and the blurb discusses complex societal issues without simple answers, clear heroes or clear villains. It's not explicitly about the NSA and reminds us that surveillance isn't just limited to one agency. Additionally, it will provide balance, reminding us surveillance can be legitimately used by law enforcement. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is a 2007 non-fiction book by Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lewis discusses key free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). The book's title is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (pictured) in United States v. Schwimmer, who wrote: "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The book was positively received by The New York Times, Harvard Magazine, Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews. Jeremy Waldron criticized the work in The New York Review of Books and elaborated on this in The Harm in Hate Speech (2012). This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full article...)
This seems promising, so long as it doesn't come across as an endorsement. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ROT13 replaces each letter by its partner 13 characters further along the alphabet
ROT13 replaces each letter by its partner 13 characters further along the alphabet
ROT13 is a simple Caesar cipher for obscuring text by replacing each letter with the letter thirteen places down the alphabet. A becomes N, B becomes O and so on. The algorithm is used in online forums as a means of hiding joke punchlines, puzzle solutions, movie and story spoilers and offensive materials from the casual glance. ROT13 has been described as the "Usenet equivalent of a magazine printing the answer to a quiz upside down." ROT13 originated in Usenet Internet discussions in the early 1980s, and has become a de facto standard. As a Caesar cipher, ROT13 provides no real cryptographic security and is not used for such; in fact it is often used as the canonical example of weak encryption. Because ROT13 scrambles only letters, more complex schemes have been proposed to handle numbers and punctuation, or arbitrary binary data. (more...)

A Caesar cipher with a shift of 3

In cryptography, a Caesar cipher is one of the simplest and most well-known classical encryption techniques. It is a type of substitution cipher in which each letter in the plaintext is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions further down the alphabet. For example, with a shift of 3, A would be replaced by D, B would become E, and so on. The method is named after Julius Caesar, who used it to communicate with his generals. The encryption step performed by a Caesar cipher is often incorporated as part of more complex schemes, such as the Vigenère cipher, and still has modern application in the ROT13 system. As for all single alphabet substitution ciphers, the Caesar cipher is easily broken and in practice offers no communication security. (more...)
Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon (1913–94) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. He graduated from Whittier College in 1934 and Duke University School of Law in 1937, returning to California to practice law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon ran again for president and was elected. He initially escalated the Vietnam War, but ended US involvement in 1973. Nixon's visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was re-elected by a landslide in 1972. A series of revelations in the Watergate scandal cost Nixon much of his political support in his second term, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an elder statesman, authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. (Full article...)

Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford

Gerald Ford was the 40th Vice President and the 38th President of the United States. He was elected House Minority Leader in 1963 and served in the House until 1973. When Spiro Agnew resigned, Ford was appointed Vice President of the United States during the height of the Watergate scandal. Following the resignation of Richard Nixon, Ford ascended to the presidency on August 9, 1974. The Ford administration saw the withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam, the execution of the Helsinki Accords and the continuing specter of inflation and recession. Faced with an overwhelmingly Democratic majority in Congress, the administration was hampered in its ability to pass major legislation and Ford's vetoes were frequently overridden. After Ford was criticized by many for granting a pardon to Nixon, Democrat Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential race. Ford is the only U.S. President never elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency. Along with his own Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, he is one of two people appointed Vice President rather than elected. (continued...)

Without blurbs
  • He gave a speech today, promising changes to the mass surveillance programmes; some critics say it's not enough. [1] [2] Choosing the article about him could be seen as an endorsement. If any actual changes turn out not to be substantial, Wikipedia will look like the Nobel committee that awarded the man a peace prize. —rybec 23:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I share the worry this could be seen as either implied endorsement or implied dis-endorsement. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already appeared twice as a TFA. A third appearance would not be appropriate since most articles only get a single "day in the sun". Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems promising. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else wrote "impeached and resigned after misuse of surveillance". Choosing this could be perceived as calling for impeachment of the current US president. —rybec 23:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
same comment as for Nixon article —rybec
[edit]
Doesn't seem to be much support for a non-FA

[These are] Not FA. Not enough time to get it to FA. Why create another problem? ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it would be extremely difficult to get an article to Featured Quality status given our timetable. ☒N ---HectorMoffet (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


These look quite promising. Ultra-relevant and already at GA. Good find!--HectorMoffet (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah-- not enough time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Merkel compares NSA to Stasi

"Did You Know" for Feb 11

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Did you know
Unless we doubt the Verifiability of this statement, I feel like some mention of this merits inclusion. Both sides of the aisle have commented on this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essential tidbit, and has not been disputed. petrarchan47tc 20:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, a tidbit is all this is. It really is quite insignificant when you get down to it. It's one tiny bit of - pointed mind you - trivia related to a falsehood that a guy told in relation to the NSA. Politicians do thousands of those a day. ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This politician committed a felony (for which he has gone unpunished), and was then caught red-handed due the leaks. That does not happen often. petrarchan47tc 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that this is trivial, however it's received wide, recent news coverage so we might be telling people something they already know. If we use it, I think it would best be worded differently. The initial wording comes close to accusing a living person of a crime he hasn't been convicted of. —rybec 01:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...telling people something they already know" - though all your points are valid, this one is reason enough to drop this candidate. petrarchan47tc 02:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story appeared in Panorama [3] and they cite unspecified documents released by Wikileaks. The Telegraph says

According to US State Department cables released by WikiLeaks in March this year, the US embassy to the Holy See drew up a profile of him, describing him as a "wise pastor" who had been praised for his "humility".

The Vatican responded that they didn't know about any wiretapping and have "no concerns" about it. [4] —rybec 22:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... That in 1964, government surveillance of Martin Luther King was used by the FBI in an attempt to blackmail the civil rights leader[5] into committing suicide?[6]
  • ... That the first global wide area network was built beginning in 1981, for the ECHELON surveillance system?[7]
  • ... 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?[8]
"Surveillance network" and the linked article explain what ECHELON is. As for this being trivia, perhaps a change of wording is in order. The American Senate holds a fair bit of power, and ECHELON was being used to specifically collect the telephone calls of a particular senator, Strom Thurmond. There was a congressional investigation, which found that "targeting of U.S. political figures would not occur by accident, but was designed into the system from the start." Yet the Congress didn't shut it down. —rybec
  • ... That the American telephone company AT&T has a database of telephone call metadata dating back to 1987, and turns data over to law enforcement agencies—without search warrants—through the Hemisphere Project?[9][10][11]
👍 Like I genuinely didn't know this, and it's important to mention non-govt surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like The only drawback would be the US-centricity, but if that can remain balanced, this addition would add vauable context. petrarchan47tc 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little pointed (will need tweaking), but the idea is sound. Very nice. checkY--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... That the famous physicist Albert Einstein, an outspoken supporter of civil rights, was placed under government surveillance?[15][16]
Alternative: That due to his political views, government surveillance of Albert Einstein was employed in a campaign to discredit and expel him from the United States[17][15]
👍 Like Could even more be illuminating alongside mention of MLK (above) and allegations that MI5 spied on Mandela. petrarchan47tc 23:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has a link to Einstein's FBI file, but doesn't otherwise contain the words "FBI" or "surveillance" (I searched instead of reading). The surveillance went on for 22 years, from the year he entered the United States until the year he died. Perhaps that could be mentioned. —rybec 01:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. petrarchan47tc 09:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than having multiple hooks followingt he formula "[famous person] was placed under surveillance by [agency], may I suggest something like "[insert names of multiple famous people] have all been placed underr serveillance by [agency[ due to [political views or whatever it is]". A joint hook.--Coin945 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks promising. Perhaps creat List of notable people placed under surveillance or something as a staging ground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like The list idea is good. petrarchan47tc 23:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POV statement: Charlie Chaplin, Eleanor Roosevelt, Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Martin Luther King, John Lennon and Princess Diana were all under surveillance. Today, every famous person is under surveillance, and so are we all. —rybec
Interesting, relate-able, informative. petrarchan47tc 02:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... That under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan government forged a partnership with Britain and the United States to spy on Libyan dissidents living in the West?[18][19]
  • Ehhh.. I'm not sure about this one. I think there are better options. The use of the word "spy" seems pointed. Do we know why they did this? Was there a valid reason in their eyes? ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if saying "spy" is out, then a mention of Lockerbie is right out. Both sources do use the word "spy", but "exchange information" or "turn over information" would be accurate. The CNN story says "the Libyans were interested to learn about alleged Islamic radicals involved in anti-Gadhafi activity in Canada, the United States and Europe. The United States and Britain were interested in any detail Libya could provide about al Qaeda." It also says and "Reports of cases of U.S. rendition to Libya have emerged." The BBC story says "...UK intelligence appeared to give Tripoli details of a Libyan dissident who had been freed from jail in Britain."

Readers in the "Five Eyes" countries may be surprised to learn that their governments would consider secretly turning over information on them to a foreign government. —rybec

  • ...That the Australian and German governments both knew about the PRISM surveillance program long before Edward Snowden made details public?[20][21]
  • ...That in 1974, US President Richard M. Nixon resigned following an attempt to wiretap his political opponents.
Very lukewarm about this one-- everyone should already know this; but better too many nominees than not enough. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like. I didn't know about the Watergate scandal til relatively recently. Anyway the topic is sound, though the hook may need a bit of tweaking. checkY
  • Balancing out the NSA attack-fest. checkY--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY We need something like this for balance. Without this (or something like it) we'd be entirely one-sided. 17:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article says that there have been unsuccessful plots since September 2001, and says that in 2004 "Security in the United States was put on high alert after a plot ..." but I don't see a statement in the article that "increased security measures" figured in the prevention of attacks. I think that such statements have been made in the press; get it into the article first? —rybec 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intent, but we have to be consistent with facts: NSA spying resulted in at most one foiled terrorist plot. See here and here and here and here. If raising awareness of the issue appears to be an attack, it may be a sign that the spying program is faulty, and not a POV issue on our end. Further, this justifies the need for an "awareness day", as untruths and half-truths are being promulgated as full-truths: the very antithesis of an encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is covered in National_Security_Agency#Official_responses in the paragraph that opens with "Regarding the necessity of these NSA programs...." One of the citations [5] contains the "54 attacks" statement. I get a 404 error for the Pro Publica page. —rybec
The link is working for me... but it was only supplemental. Here is another one. petrarchan47tc 09:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This very fact was discussed on CNN today, once here and again here (comment by Bergen). petrarchan47tc 02:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...That right until months before her death, the actress Marilyn Monroe was placed under constant surveillance due to her alleged ties to communism?[25]
  • ...That right until moments before her death, Princess Diana's phone conversations were routinely intercepted by the NSA?[26]
  • ...That Britain's MI5 spied on the comedian Charlie Chaplin as part of a campaign to deport him from the United States?[28]
👍 Like We definitely need something like this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fact is in Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China(Golden Shield) citation —rybec

  • ...That in the United States, thousands of surveillance drones are expected to be deployed at major public events such as protest gatherings?[30]
Alternative...That in the United States, over 30,000 surveillance drones are expected to be deployed by 2020?[31]
  • ...NSA surveillance helped identify and convict four San Diego men who sent funds to the Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia.[33][34][35]
Included because we need balance and we're having a hard time finding other documented successes. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative:


...That an NSA slide presentation leaked by Edward Snowden claims that information from the XKeyscore Internet monitoring program led to the capture of 300 terrorists by 2008?[36]

New Page / 5x expanded / or recently GAed

[edit]
References (not for use in Mainpage)
  1. ^ http://news.panorama.it/cronaca/urbi-et-orbi/papa-francesco-datagate
  2. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/188723-report-nsa-spied-on-the-vatican
  3. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/report-nsa-spied-on-vatican-2013-10
  4. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10415228/US-spied-on-future-Pope-Francis-during-Vatican-conclave.html
  5. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/
  6. ^ Pilkington, Ed. "Burglars in 1971 FBI office break-in come forward after 43 years". The Guardian. One notorious letter sent by the FBI to Martin Luther King contained materials relating to his extra-marital sexual activity intended to blackmail him into suicide, with a note that said: "King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is."
  7. ^ Duncan Campbell. "Echelon: World under watch, an introduction". ZDNet. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
  8. ^ Campbell, Duncan (1988-08-12), "Somebody's Listening", New Statesman, archived from the original on 2013-04-20, The Congressional officials were first told of the Thurmond interception by a former employee of the Lockheed Space and Missiles Corporation, Margaret Newsham, who now lives in Sunnyvale, California.
  9. ^ Shane, Scott; Colin Moynihan. "Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.'s". The New York Times.
  10. ^ "Drug agents reportedly have access to bigger phone database than NSA's". Fox News. 2013-09-02. Retrieved 2013-09-04. [Jaffer] said that the Hemisphere Project raised 'profound privacy concerns,' [...]
  11. ^ "DEA program linked to vast AT&T database, documents show – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs". Security.blogs.cnn.com. Retrieved 2013-09-04.
  12. ^ Erickson, Mark (2005). Into the Unknown Together - The DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight. ISBN 1-58566-140-6.
  13. ^ "P". 1982.
  14. ^ "The Rand Paper Series".
  15. ^ a b "New Details Emerge From the Einstein Files; How the F.B.I. Tracked His Phone Calls and His Trash". The New York Times. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
  16. ^ "FBI campaign against Einstein revealed". BBC. Retrieved 16 January 2014.
  17. ^ "FBI campaign against Einstein revealed". BBC. Retrieved 16 January 2014.
  18. ^ "Libya: Gaddafi regime's US-UK spy links revealed". BBC. 4 September 2011. Retrieved 20 December 2013.
  19. ^ Wedeman, Ben (3 September 2011). "Documents shed light on CIA, Gadhafi spy ties". CNN. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
  20. ^ Ockenden, Will (October 8, 2013). "Australia prepared briefing on US global internet spying program PRISM before Snowden revelations". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved October 8, 2013.
  21. ^ Matthias Gebauer. "Prism in Afghanistan: Conflicting Accounts By German Government". Der Spiegel.
  22. ^ ADAM COHEN. "While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon". The New York Times.
  23. ^ "Eleanor Roosevelt". History (TV channel). Retrieved 16 January 2014.
  24. ^ Michael Hastings (28 February 2012). "Exclusive: Homeland Security Kept Tabs on Occupy Wall Street". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
  25. ^ "New data show how closely FBI monitored Marilyn Monroe". CBS News.
  26. ^ "NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana". The Washington Post.
  27. ^ "The World from Berlin: BND Agents 'Knew What They Were Doing'". Der Spiegel.
  28. ^ Richard Norton-Taylor (17 February 2012). "MI5 spied on Charlie Chaplin after FBI asked for help to banish him from US". The Guardian.
  29. ^ "China employs two million microblog monitors state media say". BBC. Retrieved 16 January 2014.
  30. ^ rian Bennett and Joel Rubin. "Drones are taking to the skies in the U.S." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
  31. ^ MICHAEL KIRKLAND. "Drones over America". United Press International. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
  32. ^ Jacques Follorou (2013-10-30). "Surveillance : la DGSE a transmis des données à la NSA américaine". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  33. ^ "NSA Confirms Dragnet Phone Records Collection, But Admits It Was Key in Stopping Just 1 Terror Plot", Democracy Now Aug 1 2013. Retrieved Sep 27 2013.
  34. ^ "Indictment: USA vs Basaaly Saeed Moalin, Mohamed Mohamed Mohamud and Issa Doreh". Southern District of California July 2010 Grand Jury. Retrieved Sept 30 2013.
  35. ^ "54 Attacks in 20 Countries Thwarted By NSA Collection" (Press release). The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 2013-07-23. Archived from the original on 2013-10-23. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  36. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

Today's Picture(s)

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria
  • "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more."
  • "It might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative."


[edit]
Its political message, that the commoners have rights, should be uncontroversial. —rybec 23:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrant Dink's funeral - Hrant Dink "was best known for advocating Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and human and minority rights in Turkey; he was often critical of both Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide, and of the Armenian diaspora's campaign for its international recognition.[2][3] Dink was prosecuted three times for denigrating Turkishness, while receiving numerous death threats from Turkish nationalists".--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


In response to Coin945's comments about "not enough time", discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates lasts 10 days, so a nomination would have to be made by 1 February. Also Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria says that a picture must be used in an article to qualify, and recommends waiting a week after adding it to the article. Some of the suggested pictures are already used in articles; for those that are not, the last day to add them would be 25 January (for a 1 February nomination). There does appear to be enough time for featured picture designation. —rybec 20:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can get an image to FP in time, and I also think that the community might decide to merely change the name of the section to "Today's Picture" if we want to spotlight a free but not-currently-featured picture. (In contrast, our featured article really does need to be a featured article-- FPs are subjectively better than normal pictures-- but FAs are objectively better than normal articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the images jumped out at me as a candidate for Featured Picture, so I nominated it. If you sincerely believe an image should be FP, please nominate it. Please adhere to our guidelines about WP:Canvassing-- do NOT support images for FP just because you support this proposal and always disclose how you found out about the discussion, etc. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bad Aibling Station near Munich, Germany. It was originally run by the NSA (until 2002) and is currently the largest listening post outside Britain and the United States
The National Reconnaissance Office launched spy satellite NROL-39 in December 2013. It received a relatively high level of press coverage due to the mission's choice of logo which depicted "a monstrous octopus with its massive arms wrapped around the world" and the motto "Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach".

This was nominated for FP, but looks like it will fail due to the resolution and a request that it be vectorised. Converting it to SVG may be feasible but is beyond my skills. —rybec 10:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found an actual scan of the patch that bumps it up to 900px. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Information Awareness Office was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in January 2002 to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying surveillance and information technology to achieve "Total Information Awareness". The office's logo featured an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid using a golden light to scan the planet Earth. The logo included the motto scientia est potentia – knowledge is power.

This is low-resolution, which could be a problem at FP Candidates. Asking that it be converted to SVG would be unreasonable, particularly because of the globe in it. We might try the angle that the office has been defunct for over 10 years and this is the best version that has come to light. —rybec 10:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Doesn't meat the resolution criterion (which asks for at least 1500x1500 pixels). A request that it be vectorised would not be unreasonable. —rybec 10:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • NSA headquarters at night, official NSA-supplied photo originally titled "The Mission Never Sleeps"
  • officialMoD-supplied photo of GCHQ building
  • GCHQ building from the air
As I noted, these are non-free media (the NSA used other people's copyrighted images to make these slides). Hence they don't conform to the featured picture criteria. My thought was to put them in place of the day's featured picture; the "today's featured picture" heading could be changed to indicate that they do not have a featured picture designation. WP:NFCC would have to be satisfied; some sourced commentary about the slides may suffice. I realise that including non-free content on the main page will be controversial, but found these slides memorable so I feel they are worth consideration nonetheless. —rybec 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Featured Picture, but it's been evaluated as a Quality Image on Commons. —rybec 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone feels like nominating this for FP, the description should be checked for accuracy first. The site seems to have been run first by the US army then by the NSA. —rybec 10:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • top secret slide reading "Why are we interested in HTTP? Because nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet uses HTTP" with Wikipedia logo, among others

"On This Day" for Feb 11

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:On This Day
Banner of The Day We Fight Back
  • 2008 – The controversial FRA law is enacted by the Parliament of Sweden, allowing warrantless wiretaps of all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders.
Is this connected to an anniversary of Feb 11? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article says it was passed on 18 June. —rybec
Scratch that. Did not even occur on February 11th. ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this connected to an anniversary of Feb 11? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was proposed and passed in October 2001. —rybec

Did not occur on February 11th. ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like and it checks out [6] —rybec
From a 'messaging' point of view, I worry this is off-message. Giving the A-bomb to Stalin isn't really about mass surveillance or privacy rights. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ties in with the suggested Einstein DYK; NYT says "In the '50s, he made headlines by appealing for clemency for the Rosenbergs" [7] —rybec
Hmm... nice espionage story, but yeah. Too tangential in retrospect. ☒N--Coin945 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protesting for equality? I can see the relevance to the theme. I think this could be worded rather nicely, demonstrating that a protest was held by poeple who noticed what they perceived as wrongdoing by authority and wanted to change it. Whether or not they were right is irrelevant, and it is not our place to say what we think. But we can certainly state the facts. checkY--Coin945 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible connection to spying: when Mandela became president, someone came forward with a claim that the CIA had tipped off the police about his whereabouts, leading to his arrest. [8] [9] —rybec

  • 1914: Dutch parliamentary historian and constitutional lawyer Frans Jozef Ferdinand Marie Duijnstee is born. [10]
[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Featured lists

Just in case we decide to include it.--Coin945 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Benjamin Franklin, the 6th President of Pennsylvania, was a strong advicator of freedom of speech. In 1722 he said: "In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech ... Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man ..."

  • I also like this once very much, but propose alternate text featuring the oft-quoted "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 1: Benjamin Franklin, the 6th President of Pennsylvania, was a strong advocate of Liberty and of the Freedom of Speech. In 1755, Franklin wrote "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This quote was later used as a motto on the title page of a book published by Franklin.'
  • This is not a featured article, but rather a featured list, which incidentally contains no content whatsoever about Benjamin Franklin aside from listings in a couple tables. I get the idea behind this suggestion, but this isn't a good way to get there IMO. Maralia (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone feel like getting United States Bill of Rights to FA? :P--Coin945 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, List of Governors of Pennsylvania is not a Featured Article, but a List. Therefore, it cannot appear in the TFA section. — Cirt (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that my original wording was way too rhetorical and i could imagine an american flag waving in the background as i read it aloud. But I still like my idea. It's a great quote. checkY--Coin945 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sitenotice for Feb 11

[edit]

Any banner to be featured on every article needs extreme scrutiny from a diverse sampling of our community. Banners may point to the main page, to a special statement about Surveillance Awareness Day, both, or neither.

Proposals

[edit]
  • Past communications have used the phrasing (First "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" and later "Imagine a world without Wikipedia"...) --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mass spying is a grave threat to a free and open Internet. Surveillance stifles dissent, empowers governments at the cost of individual liberties, and challenges our basic right to privacy"
  • Rough draft text from TheDayWeFightBack.org
    Hm, I don't think we can really take a position on those things. Implying that stifling dissent is a bad thing, that individual liberties (beyond those necessary to sustain Wikipedia) are a good thing, or that people have a "basic right to privacy", seems to go quite a bit far away from NPOV. --Yair rand (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the banner text will be the more crucial and hardest to nail down, as it will affect the most people. That said, the banner doesn't have to be NPOV-- the whole point of putting it in a banner would be for the community to, however subtly, editorialize. But we have to do it "our way", which is way more low key than DemandProgress's tone.
    So I don't expect we'll be able to just take TheDayWeFightBack's text and paste it onto our banner. We're more educators than we are activists. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that it might be too many words for a banner. My second is that it over-emphasises the Internet. CCTV, ANPR, spy satellites, mobile phone tracking and storage of phone call metadata are important too. How about "mass surveillance stifles dissent, empowers governments at the cost of individual liberties, and challenges our basic right to privacy"? —rybec 23:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Q Madeupname is reading the Wikipedia article on potentially embarrassing topic. Learn more.
  • If we do a sitenotice (and I'm not yet convinced that we should) this is my attention getting suggestion. The link would explain that we don't actually track what you are reading, and we don't think that governments should either, blah blah blah. I'm sure we can come up with plenty of different articles which people might not want others to know they are reading for whatever reason (bedwetting, divorce, Depictions of Muhammad...) the wub talk
Yes, this one is funny but the destination page does need to say that we're just kidding and we haven't changed the privacy policy. —rybec

It has three links, two of which go to unassessed articles. The global surveillance article, at roughly 11,500 words, is a bit longer than the maximum recommended size (see WP:SIZESPLIT). Besides that, we'd also offer the TIA page and a third page? Could be too much reading material. —rybec

  • "Wikipedia has chosen February 11 to put mass surveillance in the spotlight. Learn more
  • "Today, Wikipedia is putting mass surveillance in the spotlight. Learn more
Very very neutral, no advocacy, just the facts. HectorMoffet (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes a good balance. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I didn't realize this was open for editorializing. I would go with something more informative. From some questions and comments I've seen, there really is a lack of awareness about this subject. petrarchan47tc 00:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The banner shows a map with Fort Meade, Maryland on one side and Ashburn, Virginia on the other.[11] The Wikipedia logo appears over Ashburn, and the NSA logo over Ft. Meade. The words "today, take a look at the listeners" appear (perhaps calling to mind quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). Or, something like that but not animated (easier to make and less annoying). Note, the links I put here aren't supposed to be in the banner itself. —rybec

Official statement for Feb 11

[edit]

We need a serious, highly-polished statement explaining why we're taking any special action on February 11. In contrast to other content, this statement should be minimally controversial and reflect the widest possible spectrum of points of view. This statement should have the support of Jimmy Wales, our board, and be polished by our foundation staff.

Proposals

[edit]
  • Proposal: "Wikipedia's mission is to disseminate information from all branches of knowledge. Today, on 11 February 2014, we are placing the spotlight on global surveillance and the right to privacy.
    • (Possible addition - "This is critically important because a significant portion of writers are self-censoring their work after learning about the recent surveillance disclosures in the news media.1").
Survey: 1 in 6 writers have self-censored because of NSA surveillance
Comment: writers supply the encyclopedia's lifeblood. If one in six are changing their ways due to surveillance, this directly effects Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The freedom to read and learn what you wish, without being spied upon, is a fundamental human right which is core to everything that we do and everything that we stand for."
A Jimmy Wales quote that may be useful.

Reading list

[edit]

Please post your interesting links below:


Specific to US


Outside US

Implementation options

[edit]

Draft of major options for potential guidelines for Feb 11 has been created. Please improve it or add to it, especially if you support an option not described within the draft.

General discussion

[edit]

Things You Can Do

[edit]

You don't need Wikidebates, "consensus", or rule changes to take action now to raise public awareness of these issues! There are many ways to work within the rules of Wikipedia to ensure that we do not disappoint people who want to research the issues involved on February 11:

  • WP:Portals. There's a Portal:Intelligence that has had the same Selected Article since [2011]. Do you suppose it's time for an upgrade? Play with theirs or start Portal:The Day We Fight Back, either way you can have the custom Main Page you're dreaming of, not as some mock-up for debate but as a link you can send out on your favorite social networks and try to get featured on The Day We Fight Back site itself.
  • And of course, above all, don't forget the importance of humdrum ordinary editing to keep our articles up to date and with better detail. We can make a splash on one day or another if we want, but the water we're using trickles in one edit at a time from ordinary people all over the world, and we should always respect that above all else.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Brainstorming_phase&oldid=1164501132"