Facebook, google, youtube and wikipedia should take down their sites and replace them with a message about SOPA all on the same day. But it shouldn't end there. They should also personally attack each of the original progenators in the Senate/House of the bill. Their political careers need to end that day.
It's not enough to simply stop this bill. If they do, another will be enacted pretty soon with pretty much the same problems. Politicians need to understand that if they take on the internet and choose record labels over their own constituents they cannot expect support from their own political base.
I believe this is what they call "raising the stakes" and the consequences of this may not be what you want/expect. In fact, taking such an aggressive move may hasten the very thing you're trying to prevent.
Let me elaborate. Right now most politicians in the US are pretty out of touch with the Internet, that much we can all agree on. They hear that it's powerful, and they have young staff members saying how the Facebooks and the Twitters are necessary nowadays, but it's easy for the regular politician to not really buy into the hype. Despite that politicians (and nefarious people in influential positions) aren't really happy with the Internet and the whole open thing. Which is precisely why we're getting SOPA. Now, US politician attacks have thus far been limited media copyright and piracy, dabbling a little bit into privacy with the Facebook stuff. These are easy targets.
Now, if these sites take this kind of action, and has the kind of effect that you want - namely kicking these politicians out - you don't think every other politician is going to learn a very big lesson. And I'd hope that we plebes have also learned a lesson. When politicians/people in power have a "threat" that they are actually vulnerable to, they don't respect it and learn to co-exist. Instead they try to destroy, co-op, or otherwise remove it as a threat.
Maybe I'm being cynical/pessimistic, but given the history of humanity and the way people in power behave, I think I have reason to be.
"another will be enacted pretty soon with pretty much the same problems."
And people's enthusiasm to fight the bill will shrink next time around too. It's just like how people donate to a cause a few times around, but eventually get tired of it.
I strongly hope this will happen, especially for the sake of non-US countries like mine.
There are a lot of comments saying that the blackout should spare non-US countries as it does not affect us.
For those who feel this way, please read holmesworcesters comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235431
If Wikipedia and hopefully Google would really replace their site for one day, it would raise the peoples awareness to such issues dramatically.
And if some American politicians lose their jobs over it, some European politicians will keep that in mind when the next "Anti-Internet-Law" (of course it would never be called that way) is proposed.
I was thinking the same. I would propose to have a "404" day in which all websites that do not like SOPA replace every page with a 404 "Not Found" explaining how such a law could impact their services.
It could even be up for about 8 hours between around 9am and 5am within USA time (CST or MST, or any other).
>They should also personally attack each of the original progenators in the Senate/House of the bill.
That will never work; it was a bipartisan group. The only way things are done in American are if either a union or corporation pays for it, or if there's politician gain in attacking the other party.
They don't even need to take down the sites. Just some brief description of the problem at the top of every page, and the names of the local politicians who support it.
If Google does it, this bill will die in a few hours and this shit will never come up again.
Facebook isn't just an information source, it is a communication medium. It would be like removing someone's email access for a day. For some, this might be a vacation, but for others, it would result in the failure of time-dependent project, which is not something that would win coverts to any cause.
There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted "First they came..." (which has it's own wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6), sites like Wikipedia cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia is not sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, politics have come to them pitchforks and torches in hand.
Couldn't agree more, another fantastic quote: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
- Dante Alighieri
edit: It appears I landed on a gold mine of applicable quotes while looking for the above one, (and corporations are people too, right?)....
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs."
- Albert Einstein
As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.
Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.
Hear, hear. If there was any issue on which Wikipedia should break it's neutrality, it would be this one. With SOPA, they might be blocked anyway, so it would be a good introduction to the new Internet.
I think that's a great idea. The vast majority of people do nothing until it hits them personally, that's why there's so much apathy. Cut Wikipedia for a week, something used by so many people, and then normal people will start caring. Show Americans what it can look like to be behind a firewall by having many popular sites blank out for a week, and by the end of the week the whole country will be in an uproar.
There's nothing more powerful to make people move and contact their representatives than blocking them from their farmville, celebrity news, homework help (wikipedia) and so on.
This would be the ideal outcome but if meatspace strikes are any indication, affected people often resent or openly turn against the strikers, not those that force them to strike. It won't be hard to spin it as "Internet paralyzed after Wikipedia's attempt for political blackmail" or somesuch.
Agreed. Block it for the americans, let the rest of the world get it fine. Let Americans see what its like when big copyright cartels don't want to allow a certain piece of work to shown in their country. Let them learn that this could be the future of the internet for them.
SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle.
When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have:
a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission
b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission
The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests.
I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware of it, let alone aware of its repercussions.
National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue since most of their parent companies support this legislation.
Yeah, neutrality is only possible if Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Foundation, hosts itself in a nation which isn't going to be controlled by legislation that will affect it.
Even if it did, the domain seizures by the US means that Wikipedia is always going to be vulnerable for as long as the US owns the root DNS zone.
You can only be neutral until you're the one getting beat on.
--if we're cutting and pasting, my reply from there as well--
Some roles are not 'neutered' by their commitment to various standards of neutrality, but strengthened by it.
Many journalistic organizations forbid their reporters from making political donations, or holding shares in companies on which they report. This is considered a good thing.
Public defenders take on clients without regard to the heinousness of their alleged crimes or the attorney's personal opinions of the defendant. This is also considered a good thing.
I don't think SOPA even in its worst form would actually 'neuter' Wikipedia. In particular, if the US government ever did censor Wikipedia with force of law, that would generate even more sympathy and uproar than a merely simulated blackout. And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress).
That is, I don't think you can be sure that dropping one principle (political neutrality) in a dramatic gesture now will be better for the stated goal (defeating legalized censorship) than just diligently continuing to be a principled, NPOV source of reliable information.
Certain activists-by-temperament always want to politicize everything – "you're with us or against us, solidarity, unity, this issue is so important everyone must take sides!"
But society can often be more robust against injustice and oppression when some key institutions zealously cherish their duties of neutrality, and stay above the dirty business of politics, without applying any self-interest calculations.
Neutrality is important, but it simply isn't possible on this issue. It is a direct attack on Wikipedia. By opposing sopa, they aren't taking a stand, they are merely defending themselves.
I find it interesting that many of the commenters would rather see legislation passed that could harm Wikipedia than see the site "politicized" in any way.
I definitely understand the sentiment, but I think there's a big difference between simply taking a political stance for the sake of it and fighting to make sure your non-profit organization is legally allowed to survive and continue operations as it has.
SOPA is going down. I think it is obvious. I also think it is quite obvious that it was meant to go down by its creators. The open question now is what part of SOPA will be reintroduced later.
--
This is a trivial tactic based on the idea of anchoring. Say, one wants to pass an unpopular piece of legislation. He would then introduce something that is 5x as bad (an anchor), let the public take it down, and then reintroduce a (what now seems a much milder) version. Sure, the public may take an issue with it too, but it won't be as unified and uproarious. The public had their win, they prevailed, and they are simply bored to fight the same fight all over again.
I wonder if it would also make a difference if Google arranged to censor all of the supporting members of the House and Senate. It shouldn't take long for at least their aides to get the message in a particularly realistic way. For my .02 worth, I'd leave the 'switch' on for good, but I'm old and vindictive :)
To be honest, I really can't see Google doing that.
In a much more likely situation, they would put some kind of banner on Google.com expressing their distaste for SOPA. The same for other big companies like Facebook. I thought what Tumblr did was cool, they managed to get many people calling their local reps.
Also, I think we're concentrating too much on the big companies (not that it's really a bad thing). The little ones matter, too. Marshaling them would be somewhat easier due to their lack of hierarchical politics to make every decision.
Although you do have the problem of the multitude of people who just access the internet via Facebook's walled garden. They also have no idea what SOPA is/means.
So, if we can get the giants of the internet to do something - that's fantastic, but we need to get the smaller blogs/websites on board too.
Of course, this would be a much more heavy-handed approach than what is proposed here for Wikipedia. Turning off a site is a clear message, it's very direct and not manipulative beyond declaring your support either way.
Changing the algorithm is more insidious, unless or even if you had a disclaimer on top saying you modified the result to fit your agenda. I think this is comparable to modifying the Wikipedia SOPA article to be non-neutral, which is a terrible idea of course.
In the same vein, I don't think blanking Wikipedia can violate NPOV (in its Wikipedia sense), since this policy refers to editorial content: the articles themselves need to be neutral. The concept of NPOV is simply not applicable to the Wikipedia enterprise as a whole.
I'm surprised by how torn the community appears to be - after their success in Italy, I would have expected stronger support for such a proposal. Is there a tally somewhere on that page? My rough reading is that supports outnumber opposes, but not by much.
I'm heartened that they're considering it. I certainly think it's worth trying.
One problem is that it's much bigger, so the main contributors no longer know each other. When I started editing Wikipedia in 2003, I'd look at the "Recent Changes" page and at least recognize the name of everyone who made more than a few contributions, and I definitely knew everyone who was active in meta-activities (mailing list, Village Pump, etc.). The Italian Wikipedia is roughly like that, with a few dozen major contributors, and in some ways they're actually more tightly knit than even 2003-era English Wikipedia, because the vast majority live in Italy within a few hours' train ride of each other.
The English one, though, has grown so huge that it's more unwieldy now. I no longer recognize even some very prolific contributors, because there's no feasible way to keep tabs on All Edits To Any Article. It's unclear how to go about building community and decentralized decision making in really large communities. Even just this one discussion page is unwieldy: it's been edited about 600 times since Jimmy Wales floated the idea.
There is also, unlike the Italian Wikipedia, a more international base of contributors, and a vocal subset are really touchy about the English-language Wikipedia being seen as the "American" Wikipedia, so vociferously object to it doing anything in response to USA-specific politics.
Adopting a silent stance is still a political stance of abstaining.
Frankly, Wikipedia organisation has every right to protest if it means long-term problems with SOPA compared to maintaining the reputation of being neutral.
Surely, a Wikipedia editor can point out projected costs and article effects with the SOPA compared to losing some article experts/editors from having a less neutral reputation. Much less emotion through the evidence route.
I thoroughly respect the stance that Wikipedia should remain politically neutral, but when there's legislation that threatens your existence, it's the right time to get act on it.
"Blanking" Wikipedia uses the Wikimedia Foundation platform to make a statement to educate the public about an issue that threatens to kill the Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikipedia, by extension), and thereby to enlist help in keeping the site alive. This is functionally no different from the Jimbo Wales Annual Stare-Into-Your-Soul-Until-You-Donate funding drive, except that then, the issue threatening Wikipedia is money rather than legislation. This is not Wikipedia taking a political stance on an issue just to take a stance; it is Wikipedia trying to educate the public about and beg for help regarding an issue that threatens Wikipedia's existence.
If Congress introduced a "Make Wikipedia Illegal" bill, would it be wrong or "politicization" for Wikimedia to attempt to defend their existence by making an emergency call-to-education to the public?
I understand why Wikipedia wants to editorially remain unbiased. That said, they have a huge ad on top to raise money to stay in business. I don't this action any different than brining to attention laws that could harm Wikipedia.
This is a simple darwinian situation. Entities that can defend themselves survive and those that can't vanish in time.
"You are trying to send a message that the SOPA is crossing the line for the internet, because it gives too much power to corporations to shut down websites and cut off their funding -- even if Wikipedia is unlikely to be among them. Shutting down wikipedia can illustrate this, but consider the consequences. First of all, Wikipedia content is replicated elsewhere, so people would be able to get at least a recent copy of Wikipedia articles somewhere. But before you take such an action, consider when you will "pull your troops out". Certain countries have started "military campaigns" due to a very controversial reading of their constitution (ahem, [[8]]) , and it always became unclear when to pull out. I am worried that if Wikipedia goes down this road, it will likewise be unclear when to revert back. Suppose the SOPA is passed anyway. Will Wikipedia voluntarily be its first casualty? In that case, be aware that your attempt at a protest may very well get Wikipedia permanently removed from the internet. If you are supporting this action, please explain below what it will take for Wikipedia to go back online, or else why you think it is OK for Wikipedia to never reopen for business as a result of this brinksmanship. I would oppose because if we all know Wikipedia will be back whether or not SOPA passes, then it's not a credible threat at all, merely a protest -- which at the end of the day is worth shutting down the site. "
Facebook and Google (or YouTube) might be the only other internet powerhouses with enough traction to successfully pull something like this off. I hope they take a stand. It is an awful bill with awful consequences.
Too bad WOW didn't purpose this instead. I'd wager millions of angry, hair-pulling, screaming 13 year-olds are a lot louder than all of America's partially inconvenienced adults.
Perhaps someone here at HN can do what the RfC's opposing commenters repeatedly asked someone to do, but which no one (at least in the few hundred comments I read) actually did:
Explain how SOPA threatens the existence of Wikipedia. Show your work.
It's one thing to say "this situation is different! we're fighting for survival!" and another thing to argue it based on past real events and the actual contents of the bill.
There is a reason WP avoids political advocacy as a foundational principle, and it's not just to preserve their status as a charity.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I strongly oppose SOPA, and I agree with most of the online protests I see of SOPA and PROTECT-IP.
On the other, Wikipedia prides itself on its neutrality; it is one of Wikipedia's selling points, that they (at least attempt, as much as a collaborative, anonymously edited encyclopedia can) to provide a neutral point of view, keep from giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, don't allow themselves to be tempted into being non-neutral or appear non-neutral by offering advertising. Making a strong political statement that takes advantage of their popularity would move away from this neutral stance.
On the gripping hand, this is something that would impact Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia would instantly become much more liable for any problematic content posted by users. They would likely have to change their editing policies, add domain blacklists to avoid linking to verboten domains. Many sources of information that Wikipedia editors use and link to may be banned. SOPA is in direct opposition to the open and free dissemination of information that is Wikipedia's mission.
So, I don't really know. I wish there were a good answer here. But there really isn't.
[+] [-] jxcole|14 years ago|reply
Facebook, google, youtube and wikipedia should take down their sites and replace them with a message about SOPA all on the same day. But it shouldn't end there. They should also personally attack each of the original progenators in the Senate/House of the bill. Their political careers need to end that day.
It's not enough to simply stop this bill. If they do, another will be enacted pretty soon with pretty much the same problems. Politicians need to understand that if they take on the internet and choose record labels over their own constituents they cannot expect support from their own political base.
[+] [-] OmarIsmail|14 years ago|reply
Let me elaborate. Right now most politicians in the US are pretty out of touch with the Internet, that much we can all agree on. They hear that it's powerful, and they have young staff members saying how the Facebooks and the Twitters are necessary nowadays, but it's easy for the regular politician to not really buy into the hype. Despite that politicians (and nefarious people in influential positions) aren't really happy with the Internet and the whole open thing. Which is precisely why we're getting SOPA. Now, US politician attacks have thus far been limited media copyright and piracy, dabbling a little bit into privacy with the Facebook stuff. These are easy targets.
Now, if these sites take this kind of action, and has the kind of effect that you want - namely kicking these politicians out - you don't think every other politician is going to learn a very big lesson. And I'd hope that we plebes have also learned a lesson. When politicians/people in power have a "threat" that they are actually vulnerable to, they don't respect it and learn to co-exist. Instead they try to destroy, co-op, or otherwise remove it as a threat.
Maybe I'm being cynical/pessimistic, but given the history of humanity and the way people in power behave, I think I have reason to be.
[+] [-] firefoxman1|14 years ago|reply
And people's enthusiasm to fight the bill will shrink next time around too. It's just like how people donate to a cause a few times around, but eventually get tired of it.
[+] [-] mduerksen|14 years ago|reply
I strongly hope this will happen, especially for the sake of non-US countries like mine.
There are a lot of comments saying that the blackout should spare non-US countries as it does not affect us. For those who feel this way, please read holmesworcesters comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235431
Not only the USA is pressing hard to "control" the internet. Similar attempts will be made in the EU, in fact, one is already underway. See ACTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agree...
If Wikipedia and hopefully Google would really replace their site for one day, it would raise the peoples awareness to such issues dramatically. And if some American politicians lose their jobs over it, some European politicians will keep that in mind when the next "Anti-Internet-Law" (of course it would never be called that way) is proposed.
[+] [-] plink|14 years ago|reply
Yes, so they can forthwith proceed to the lobbyist phase of their careers.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xtracto|14 years ago|reply
It could even be up for about 8 hours between around 9am and 5am within USA time (CST or MST, or any other).
[+] [-] wdr1|14 years ago|reply
That will never work; it was a bipartisan group. The only way things are done in American are if either a union or corporation pays for it, or if there's politician gain in attacking the other party.
[+] [-] rorrr|14 years ago|reply
If Google does it, this bill will die in a few hours and this shit will never come up again.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|14 years ago|reply
Facebook isn't just an information source, it is a communication medium. It would be like removing someone's email access for a day. For some, this might be a vacation, but for others, it would result in the failure of time-dependent project, which is not something that would win coverts to any cause.
[+] [-] bittermang|14 years ago|reply
Do it. Paint it black.
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|14 years ago|reply
edit: It appears I landed on a gold mine of applicable quotes while looking for the above one, (and corporations are people too, right?)....
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." - Albert Einstein
[+] [-] snowwrestler|14 years ago|reply
Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.
[+] [-] semisight|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doktrin|14 years ago|reply
Based on everything I've heard, this is a perfectly appropriate time to take bold action.
[+] [-] oconnore|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dendory|14 years ago|reply
There's nothing more powerful to make people move and contact their representatives than blocking them from their farmville, celebrity news, homework help (wikipedia) and so on.
[+] [-] pnathan|14 years ago|reply
If Wikipedia is locked out for a week, it will make mainstream international news in no time flat.
I think it needs to happen.
[+] [-] reinhardt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgentry|14 years ago|reply
SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle.
When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have:
a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission
b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission
The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests.
I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware of it, let alone aware of its repercussions.
National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue since most of their parent companies support this legislation.
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
Even if it did, the domain seizures by the US means that Wikipedia is always going to be vulnerable for as long as the US owns the root DNS zone.
You can only be neutral until you're the one getting beat on.
[+] [-] gojomo|14 years ago|reply
Some roles are not 'neutered' by their commitment to various standards of neutrality, but strengthened by it.
Many journalistic organizations forbid their reporters from making political donations, or holding shares in companies on which they report. This is considered a good thing.
Public defenders take on clients without regard to the heinousness of their alleged crimes or the attorney's personal opinions of the defendant. This is also considered a good thing.
I don't think SOPA even in its worst form would actually 'neuter' Wikipedia. In particular, if the US government ever did censor Wikipedia with force of law, that would generate even more sympathy and uproar than a merely simulated blackout. And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress).
That is, I don't think you can be sure that dropping one principle (political neutrality) in a dramatic gesture now will be better for the stated goal (defeating legalized censorship) than just diligently continuing to be a principled, NPOV source of reliable information.
Certain activists-by-temperament always want to politicize everything – "you're with us or against us, solidarity, unity, this issue is so important everyone must take sides!"
But society can often be more robust against injustice and oppression when some key institutions zealously cherish their duties of neutrality, and stay above the dirty business of politics, without applying any self-interest calculations.
[+] [-] SilasX|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazerwalker|14 years ago|reply
I definitely understand the sentiment, but I think there's a big difference between simply taking a political stance for the sake of it and fighting to make sure your non-profit organization is legally allowed to survive and continue operations as it has.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|14 years ago|reply
--
This is a trivial tactic based on the idea of anchoring. Say, one wants to pass an unpopular piece of legislation. He would then introduce something that is 5x as bad (an anchor), let the public take it down, and then reintroduce a (what now seems a much milder) version. Sure, the public may take an issue with it too, but it won't be as unified and uproarious. The public had their win, they prevailed, and they are simply bored to fight the same fight all over again.
[+] [-] hsmyers|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeggers5|14 years ago|reply
In a much more likely situation, they would put some kind of banner on Google.com expressing their distaste for SOPA. The same for other big companies like Facebook. I thought what Tumblr did was cool, they managed to get many people calling their local reps.
Also, I think we're concentrating too much on the big companies (not that it's really a bad thing). The little ones matter, too. Marshaling them would be somewhat easier due to their lack of hierarchical politics to make every decision.
Although you do have the problem of the multitude of people who just access the internet via Facebook's walled garden. They also have no idea what SOPA is/means.
So, if we can get the giants of the internet to do something - that's fantastic, but we need to get the smaller blogs/websites on board too.
[+] [-] boredguy8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morsch|14 years ago|reply
Changing the algorithm is more insidious, unless or even if you had a disclaimer on top saying you modified the result to fit your agenda. I think this is comparable to modifying the Wikipedia SOPA article to be non-neutral, which is a terrible idea of course.
In the same vein, I don't think blanking Wikipedia can violate NPOV (in its Wikipedia sense), since this policy refers to editorial content: the articles themselves need to be neutral. The concept of NPOV is simply not applicable to the Wikipedia enterprise as a whole.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blhack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bguthrie|14 years ago|reply
I'm heartened that they're considering it. I certainly think it's worth trying.
[+] [-] _delirium|14 years ago|reply
The English one, though, has grown so huge that it's more unwieldy now. I no longer recognize even some very prolific contributors, because there's no feasible way to keep tabs on All Edits To Any Article. It's unclear how to go about building community and decentralized decision making in really large communities. Even just this one discussion page is unwieldy: it's been edited about 600 times since Jimmy Wales floated the idea.
There is also, unlike the Italian Wikipedia, a more international base of contributors, and a vocal subset are really touchy about the English-language Wikipedia being seen as the "American" Wikipedia, so vociferously object to it doing anything in response to USA-specific politics.
[+] [-] raldi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robertskmiles|14 years ago|reply
http://hacksandthoughts.posterous.com/blanking-all-wikipedia...
which is keeping a tally.
[+] [-] Joakal|14 years ago|reply
Frankly, Wikipedia organisation has every right to protest if it means long-term problems with SOPA compared to maintaining the reputation of being neutral.
Surely, a Wikipedia editor can point out projected costs and article effects with the SOPA compared to losing some article experts/editors from having a less neutral reputation. Much less emotion through the evidence route.
[+] [-] cheald|14 years ago|reply
"Blanking" Wikipedia uses the Wikimedia Foundation platform to make a statement to educate the public about an issue that threatens to kill the Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikipedia, by extension), and thereby to enlist help in keeping the site alive. This is functionally no different from the Jimbo Wales Annual Stare-Into-Your-Soul-Until-You-Donate funding drive, except that then, the issue threatening Wikipedia is money rather than legislation. This is not Wikipedia taking a political stance on an issue just to take a stance; it is Wikipedia trying to educate the public about and beg for help regarding an issue that threatens Wikipedia's existence.
If Congress introduced a "Make Wikipedia Illegal" bill, would it be wrong or "politicization" for Wikimedia to attempt to defend their existence by making an emergency call-to-education to the public?
[+] [-] salimmadjd|14 years ago|reply
This is a simple darwinian situation. Entities that can defend themselves survive and those that can't vanish in time.
[+] [-] EGreg|14 years ago|reply
"You are trying to send a message that the SOPA is crossing the line for the internet, because it gives too much power to corporations to shut down websites and cut off their funding -- even if Wikipedia is unlikely to be among them. Shutting down wikipedia can illustrate this, but consider the consequences. First of all, Wikipedia content is replicated elsewhere, so people would be able to get at least a recent copy of Wikipedia articles somewhere. But before you take such an action, consider when you will "pull your troops out". Certain countries have started "military campaigns" due to a very controversial reading of their constitution (ahem, [[8]]) , and it always became unclear when to pull out. I am worried that if Wikipedia goes down this road, it will likewise be unclear when to revert back. Suppose the SOPA is passed anyway. Will Wikipedia voluntarily be its first casualty? In that case, be aware that your attempt at a protest may very well get Wikipedia permanently removed from the internet. If you are supporting this action, please explain below what it will take for Wikipedia to go back online, or else why you think it is OK for Wikipedia to never reopen for business as a result of this brinksmanship. I would oppose because if we all know Wikipedia will be back whether or not SOPA passes, then it's not a credible threat at all, merely a protest -- which at the end of the day is worth shutting down the site. "
[+] [-] bryanh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shenglong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azelfrath|14 years ago|reply
80% of Internet traffic (just pulling that number out of thin air) blacked out? People will notice. People will care.
Wikipedia has the right idea and needs to kick this off. Then others need to follow suit.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
Explain how SOPA threatens the existence of Wikipedia. Show your work.
It's one thing to say "this situation is different! we're fighting for survival!" and another thing to argue it based on past real events and the actual contents of the bill.
There is a reason WP avoids political advocacy as a foundational principle, and it's not just to preserve their status as a charity.
[+] [-] lambda|14 years ago|reply
On the other, Wikipedia prides itself on its neutrality; it is one of Wikipedia's selling points, that they (at least attempt, as much as a collaborative, anonymously edited encyclopedia can) to provide a neutral point of view, keep from giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, don't allow themselves to be tempted into being non-neutral or appear non-neutral by offering advertising. Making a strong political statement that takes advantage of their popularity would move away from this neutral stance.
On the gripping hand, this is something that would impact Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia would instantly become much more liable for any problematic content posted by users. They would likely have to change their editing policies, add domain blacklists to avoid linking to verboten domains. Many sources of information that Wikipedia editors use and link to may be banned. SOPA is in direct opposition to the open and free dissemination of information that is Wikipedia's mission.
So, I don't really know. I wish there were a good answer here. But there really isn't.
[+] [-] sukuriant|14 years ago|reply
Perhaps even the neutral have to fight be allowed to remain neutral.
Censorship stands in the face of neutrality.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]