RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike
175 comments
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.
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.
Actually, I think you're on to something, but I would go farther. Politicians are not just out of touch with the Internet, they are governing a country that is rapidly ceasing to exist outside the walls of their debating chambers. They do not have control so much as complacency of much of the public, and they seem more than willing to do away with the reality that does exist before letting it supplant the fantasy in which they continue to govern.
[deleted]
> 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.
You're right, SOPA is an attempt to destroy the internet. This is a flat-out attack on the internet as we know it, and I bet the middle east uprising had something to do with it.
You're right, SOPA is an attempt to destroy the internet. This is a flat-out attack on the internet as we know it, and I bet the middle east uprising had something to do with it.
Yes, the history is full of such examples. Unfortunately it takes a long time for a revolution to come and make things right again - generations.
If this is how the game is set, we don't get a chance. But it's worth a fight.
My concern troll alarm is going off. Do you have an alternate plan to kill SOPA?
Language objection. Just because he may/may not have an alternate plan to kill SOPA does not mean he doesn't have a valid point.
What point would that be, exactly? The only "point" I took away from his rambling, defeatist post is that he doesn't think we should fight. If that's his "point", I can't believe you'd call it "valid".
"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.
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.
That's why it's important to single out individual senators supporting the bill. Then the response is no longer a slap on the wrist to Congress.
Their political careers need to end that day.
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.
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.
> 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
But there's nothing we (non-US citizens) can do about it. Any noise we make means nothing to US politicians who are accountable only to the American people, and sometimes it looks not even to them.
Don't make the rest of us suffer for bad choices made by US voters.
But there's nothing we (non-US citizens) can do about it. Any noise we make means nothing to US politicians who are accountable only to the American people, and sometimes it looks not even to them.
Don't make the rest of us suffer for bad choices made by US voters.
Endure one single day of blacked-out Wikipedia and Google, and gain significantly better negotiation positions when it comes to our own law-making processes.
To me, that's a small sacrifice that can be really rewarding.
To me, that's a small sacrifice that can be really rewarding.
>Their political careers need to end that day.
Yes, so they can forthwith proceed to the lobbyist phase of their careers.
Yes, so they can forthwith proceed to the lobbyist phase of their careers.
(Shrug) They can lobby all they want. The goal is to make this sort of legislation a "third rail" -- touch it and your career dies instantly. (Social Security being the classic example.)
[deleted]
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).
It could even be up for about 8 hours between around 9am and 5am within USA time (CST or MST, or any other).
I think a tempered approach with all the sites blacking out their logos in protest to SOPA and redirecting to a page that details why SOPA is wrong in an accessible way is the way to go.
>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.
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.
Not really. At this point unions don't have enough money or membership to do much more than try to maintain their own existence.
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.
If Google does it, this bill will die in a few hours and this shit will never come up again.
Tumblr is hardly Google or Facebook, and they were able to generate massive grassroots political response, mainly through a banner. Any kind of coordinated action by major internet sites could generate the kind of response that I doubt Congress has ever seen before.
This would be absolutely great! EFF should coordinate some black-out-the-web day.
I hope that Twitter and Google have still enough spark to stand up for causes like that. This would finally provide an opportunity to use geo IP targeting for a meaningful purpose and directing people to take local action.
Pick it, Freeze it, Personalize it!
I hope that Twitter and Google have still enough spark to stand up for causes like that. This would finally provide an opportunity to use geo IP targeting for a meaningful purpose and directing people to take local action.
Pick it, Freeze it, Personalize it!
Correction, the web is a lot larger than the United States and I'd really dislike it if internal political discussions of the United States were used to 'black out the web'.
The business dealings of the rest of the world should not be collateral damage because of one nations political affairs.
So if you're going to use 'geo ip targetting' to make things local I'd suggest you use the same mechanism to give a free pass to those from other countries.
The business dealings of the rest of the world should not be collateral damage because of one nations political affairs.
So if you're going to use 'geo ip targetting' to make things local I'd suggest you use the same mechanism to give a free pass to those from other countries.
Agreed. Make it US only. That has the affect of highlighting how laws like this are a threat to the USA & the internet. i.e. tell the USA politicians that with laws like this, the internet might & associated companies might move out of USA.
The problem with that is, this would affect companies outside of the US as well. As long as nameservers are hosted here in the States, the USA will have the power to shut down any site, worldwide. Even if the nameservers are moved, the US would still have the power to block all US citizens from accessing the sites. Don't pretend that won't have a profound influence on the world.
Maybe a worldwide blackout would discourage other governments from attempting something similar.
Maybe a worldwide blackout would discourage other governments from attempting something similar.
I actually would not know what to do, if Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia all blacked out for a day. I just asked myself this, and I came up with several responses which all have problems:
1. I'd go outside and do something -> But I can't use Facebook to coordinate anything.
2. I'd go out and eat -> I can't google places to eat, or google map where they are.
3. I'd just absorb information -> Oh wait... Twitter and Wikipedia are down.
Fml.
1. I'd go outside and do something -> But I can't use Facebook to coordinate anything.
2. I'd go out and eat -> I can't google places to eat, or google map where they are.
3. I'd just absorb information -> Oh wait... Twitter and Wikipedia are down.
Fml.
Please tell me that this was tongue in cheek talk.
I felt so sad when I read these points and really hope you have a life without these services.
I felt so sad when I read these points and really hope you have a life without these services.
Up vote from me. I thought it was funny. In fact, I might even know some people who would suffer through the cycle you described.
Seriously?
There are 100 million of other websites.
You can use a phone to coordinate something.
You can go out and eat at a place you went to before.
There are 100 million of other websites.
You can use a phone to coordinate something.
You can go out and eat at a place you went to before.
If they haven't done it, I'm sure there's a good reason since I'm sure it's at least crossed their minds. Such a move would show what Google et al. are capable of, and that might scare more than just SOPA supporters.
Yeah, the most effective measure would just be a censored page with a call to action with a pointer to their local representatives. Calling your politicians is vastly effective, if you can get a small fraction of the country calling their reps. Just censoring the page isn't enough, you need to inspire action among the voters!
Google, Youtube and wikipedia I can see.
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.
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.
You put Facebook as the most important on that list? I'm not trying to say it wouldn't severely impact people if Facebook were down for a day, but I can't imagine not being able to use google or wikipedia for a day. This would definitely result in many failures of time-dependent projects.
I do agree with you completely, but to play devil's advocate:
- Youtube down, go on another video site or wait a day, who cares
- Google down, use bing/yahoo
- Wikipedia down, can likely find content in a cache (less easy but often very doable if Google is also down), if not the majority of Wikipedia users could wait a day and not have it do much harm. I use Wikipedia daily, but if I had to go a single day without it, it wouldn't really have a negative impact on me, just be slightly annoying. Or, find information on other sites, books, etc.
- Facebook down, there's no alternative. You can't just move over to Diaspora for a day. This is the only one where it being down for a day means you lose that functionality completely for a day.
- Youtube down, go on another video site or wait a day, who cares
- Google down, use bing/yahoo
- Wikipedia down, can likely find content in a cache (less easy but often very doable if Google is also down), if not the majority of Wikipedia users could wait a day and not have it do much harm. I use Wikipedia daily, but if I had to go a single day without it, it wouldn't really have a negative impact on me, just be slightly annoying. Or, find information on other sites, books, etc.
- Facebook down, there's no alternative. You can't just move over to Diaspora for a day. This is the only one where it being down for a day means you lose that functionality completely for a day.
When Facebook's down, I use GMail. Or G+. Or LiveJournal. Or my Amherst-only social network. Or text messages. Or call my friends up on the phone, or talk to them at work, or walk over to their apartment and knock on their door.
Do people really only have one communications media? I find that with anyone that I actually talk to on a regular basis, I talk to regularly on at least 3 different communications media, often simultaneously. (I'm pretty fond of taking Facebook conversations offline to text message when I need to say something private, for instance, or to GChat when I want something a little more real-time.)
Do people really only have one communications media? I find that with anyone that I actually talk to on a regular basis, I talk to regularly on at least 3 different communications media, often simultaneously. (I'm pretty fond of taking Facebook conversations offline to text message when I need to say something private, for instance, or to GChat when I want something a little more real-time.)
I'm no expert on this subject since I haven't had a Facebook account since a few years ago, but I would imagine there are certainly some people/scenarios where something that Facebook would normally be used for couldn't be done elsewhere. Like uploading some photos. Or looking at old photos. Or messaging someone who you don't know well enough to have ever bothered getting a phone number / email from because Facebook was good enough for talking to them.
Surely not being able to look at an old photo wouldn't result in a failure of a time-dependent project.
And if an important project would depend on somebody, you would probably bother to get a phone number or an email.
As I see it, disabling facebook for a day would be much less inconveniencing than say, disabling google's search engine (of course you could use alternative search engines, but none of them come close to google's result), or wikipedia (to which there's not much alternatives, really).
And if an important project would depend on somebody, you would probably bother to get a phone number or an email.
As I see it, disabling facebook for a day would be much less inconveniencing than say, disabling google's search engine (of course you could use alternative search engines, but none of them come close to google's result), or wikipedia (to which there's not much alternatives, really).
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.
Do it. Paint it black.
Do it. Paint it black.
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
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
Dante didn't say that. I tell ya, don't trust those quote sites! There's only one that's mostly reliable. If you check there first, you'll often find what you're looking for under "Misattributed":
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri
In this case, the source of the misquote is known: a 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri
In this case, the source of the misquote is known: a 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy.
> The hottest place in Hell was reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, until the Swiss made it a well-run mountain paradise.
--Steven Kaas https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350
--Steven Kaas https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350
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.
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.
IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had more to do with endorsing for or against candidates than taking overt positions on specific issues.
For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention." [1]
Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even implying that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line.
Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject.
[1] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf
(EDIT: clarification.)
For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention." [1]
Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even implying that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line.
Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject.
[1] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf
(EDIT: clarification.)
I'm pretty sure you're correct. I've worked with a number of 501(c)(3), and most of them have worked on political issues and bills. They cannot endorse a candidate though.
501(c)3 organizations can engage in lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substancial portion of the organization's activity. 501(c)3 organizations have an absolute ban on lobbying for candidates for public office, however.
This would not threaten Wikipedia's tax-exempt status.
This would not threaten Wikipedia's tax-exempt status.
The WM produces one project: Wikipedia, the bulk of which is the English-language version. If that is given over entirely to lobbying a specific bill, even temporarily, they would have a very hard time arguing that that is not a "substantial portion" of their activity.
"Substantial portion" from the IRS perspective would involve money or staff time. They have 2 floors of staff. None of whom need be involved in this other than possibly to approve the release of some community-requested code changes.
1 day out of 365 is less than .3%
And if you geo-target it to en/US only visitors -- you're a minute fraction of wikimedia's activity.
And if you geo-target it to en/US only visitors -- you're a minute fraction of wikimedia's activity.
They wouldn't have that hard a time, it's just a line of code after all.
That's not quite accurate. 501(c)(3) nonprofits CAN engage in political activity. They are just limited in the amount they can do. A group like the Sierra Club whose primary activity is lobbying and politics and who incidentally does other things wouldn't fit under 501(c)(3).
EFF is a 501 (c) (3). If EFF can advocate, so can Wikipedia.
[deleted]
This proposal isn't coming from the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, it's coming from the community. For example, the Italian Wikipedia came down recently in protest of something political. That was implemented by the community of volunteers who maintain Wikipedia, rather than the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
But remember, 501(c)(3) status is a US-only thing. Different rules would apply in Italy.
Replying to myself to point out that Jimbo addressed this concern directly here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_updat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_updat...
As is seen on the Jimbo Wales user talk page, the WikiMedia Foundation already hires paid political lobbyists...
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 agree. Neutrality is laudable in principle, however is not something that should be embraced at the exclusion of common sense and self preservation.
Based on everything I've heard, this is a perfectly appropriate time to take bold action.
Based on everything I've heard, this is a perfectly appropriate time to take bold action.
Also, I can't help but think that SOPA would be dead in ~1 hour if Google pulled the plug on Youtube.
Of course not. Viacom et al. would point to this as a victory and Congress would go on without them.
But there is a considerable number of people with YouTube addictions who would be, all things considered, just short of violent revolution. Corporations are only valuable because they provide money for advertising aimed at the people.
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.
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.
Agreed.
If Wikipedia is locked out for a week, it will make mainstream international news in no time flat.
I think it needs to happen.
If Wikipedia is locked out for a week, it will make mainstream international news in no time flat.
I think it needs to happen.
That's not even the main impact. Think about all of the people accessing Wikipedia every day - students, teachers, randoms - who don't read or watch the news. Ever.
All of these people who will probably never hear about SOPA, even if it's passed, will suddenly realise that their First Amendment rights are under threat and will hopefully be incredibly, incredibly angry.
All of these people who will probably never hear about SOPA, even if it's passed, will suddenly realise that their First Amendment rights are under threat and will hopefully be incredibly, incredibly angry.
I'm not sure the type of people who don't read or watch any news are the type of people to care about their first amendment rights.
Considering the junk that's flying in this age as news, I don't blame them for not watching TV or not reading newspapers.
This study showed that people who DO watch (one particular) channel of news are LESS informed than those who don't watch or read news at all:
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/fairleigh_dickinso...
True, but mainly because they take their rights for granted. They would definitely notice if they were taken away.
I don't think the mainstream news media cares about Wikipedia. Plus, the site's process and product are a direct challenge to the legacy news oligarchy.
Eh, I would say (sadly) that the mainstream news media practically depends on Wikipedia to fill in background info for half of their stories. Gaffes by TV reporters have occasionally been traced back to Wikipedia vandalism. Sometimes Wikipedians then cite the misguided journalist(s) when adding the falsehood into the article [1], a circular phenomenon of "fact-creation" that has been lampooned by xkcd [2].
[1] http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-o...
[2] http://xkcd.com/978/
[1] http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-o...
[2] http://xkcd.com/978/
That is cynical to the point of being shortsighted. Even assuming the "news oligarchy" really operates as something resembling a unified entity, and regardless of said unified entity's feelings vis a vis Wikipedia - an outage would make headlines.
I am not saying all editorial coverage would be uniformly supportive, but it would certainly be newsworthy.
I am not saying all editorial coverage would be uniformly supportive, but it would certainly be newsworthy.
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.
-- My thoughts as posted in the other thread: --
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.
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.
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.
But if there was hypothetically a law that was good for wikipedia and bad for the people in general, then should they just keep quiet? I'll protest because it impacts me isn't such a viable strategy. You either protest everything that is "wrong" from some view point or you protest nothing. And this is where we get on the slippery slope.
--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.
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.
I suspect that, among the informed, the main determiner of people's stance on this issue is their belief whether Wikipedia would be able to continue to exist in a world with SOPA. I strongly suspect it would not. It is a specific goal of the new law to remove the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, which would allow the removal of infringing content as a defense; under SOPA, it appears to be within the realm of possibility for Wikipedia to be removed from the DNS in response to any copyright violation, even if it is later removed. I don't see how Wikipedia can survive in such an environment.
Wikipedia will survive. The silly laws of any one country – even its sponsoring Foundation's home country – would just drive Wikipedia activity into new jurisdictions.
Except that no Americans could access it, thanks to SOPA's Great American Firewall. And I imagine Americans make up an overwhelmingly large portion of the editors, writers, and readers of English Wikipedia.
I file a DNS-delisting of Wikipedia.org under "I'd Like To See Them Try It".
You'd like every judge in the country to have a Wikipedia kill-switch, and "see them try it"? Because let me tell you: the courtrooms in East Texas are filled with a bunch of nutjobs. And it only takes one of them to do it.
Even ignoring the kill switch: this is a bill that would make it illegal to cite sources via hyperlink if the site being linked to contains copyrighted material anywhere, even outside of the linked page, or posted years after the link was originally created. Even if a user posted the link -- and even if that link was swiftly removed by an editor -- Wikipedia would have broken the law for allowing the link to ever have been posted at all, and would be subject to strict penalties. This is a law that Wikipedia literally could not comply with unless it changed its essential character.
Even ignoring the kill switch: this is a bill that would make it illegal to cite sources via hyperlink if the site being linked to contains copyrighted material anywhere, even outside of the linked page, or posted years after the link was originally created. Even if a user posted the link -- and even if that link was swiftly removed by an editor -- Wikipedia would have broken the law for allowing the link to ever have been posted at all, and would be subject to strict penalties. This is a law that Wikipedia literally could not comply with unless it changed its essential character.
I agree. Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual.
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.
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.
I see standing up for free speech is a philosophical stance, whereas remaining silent is a political stance.
Philosophy > Politics IMO.
Philosophy > Politics IMO.
Politics is a subset of philosophy -- the philosophy of governance, and of social and economic organization -- but it can include a lot of things.
Some argue that it's impossible to be apolitical, because almost everything you do is a legal matter somewhere (drinking, eating certain foods, reading certain things), so by doing them, you are implicitly asserting a political position. Wikileaks has always been in favor of free speech, and publishes content that is actually illegal in some places. They have always been political to one extent or another.
Some argue that it's impossible to be apolitical, because almost everything you do is a legal matter somewhere (drinking, eating certain foods, reading certain things), so by doing them, you are implicitly asserting a political position. Wikileaks has always been in favor of free speech, and publishes content that is actually illegal in some places. They have always been political to one extent or another.
[deleted]
> 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.
That's a false choice. Many of the commenters would rather take the small chance that a Wikipedia protest could have been the deciding factor preventing SOPA than see the site politicized.
FWIW, I agree with them, and certainly one factor which weighs into my decision is that in my opinion the chance that Wikipedia would be the deciding factor is, say, less than 1%.
That's a false choice. Many of the commenters would rather take the small chance that a Wikipedia protest could have been the deciding factor preventing SOPA than see the site politicized.
FWIW, I agree with them, and certainly one factor which weighs into my decision is that in my opinion the chance that Wikipedia would be the deciding factor is, say, less than 1%.
A Wikipedia protest would be a huge factor. It would put a recognizable face on the potential consequences of SOPA, whereas now it's kind of vague what's at stake to most people. Opposition to SOPA would go from "A majority of geeks" to "A majority of the Internet-using population," which is a few orders of magnitude. I don't see how you could doubt any of this. Since the effect would be massive — definitely beyond any politician's ability to ignore — there are only two situations in which it is unlikely to be a deciding factor:
1. SOPA will inevitably fail even without Wikipedia's help, so it's not even worth worrying about SOPA
2. SOPA literally cannot be defeated
1. SOPA will inevitably fail even without Wikipedia's help, so it's not even worth worrying about SOPA
2. SOPA literally cannot be defeated
I'm glad you stated that argument, because it's kind of what I suspect a lot of people think so it gives me something to attack ;).
My specific concerns are:
a. I think politicians can ignore something that "a majority of the Internet-using population" knows. As long as the "mainstream" media (i.e. television) chooses not to pick it up, the politicians won't be forced to answer for themselves.
b. If there is opposition to SOPA, either the public media spin will be controlled by politicians announcing that the draft law has been modified "in response to" the concerns/opposition/protests, or "SOPA" will be defeated but the powers that want it passed will regroup and send it through again next year under a different name.
c. If there's room to argue that Wikipedia is exaggerating the threat, then that is what will be publicly argued when this story breaks. This might not turn out so positively for Wikipedia (or negatively for SOPA): after all, which side has more experience and resources to put towards controlling the public debate? And that's before we consider the possibility that someone will seriously suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia to be censored.
Don't read (b), in particular, as defeatism: I understand that this is a war and that we have to fight the current battle as well as future ones. I claim only that in the cost–benefit analysis, the utility of defeating this particular incarnation should not be approximated by the utility of being free from SOPA-like law for ever.
My specific concerns are:
a. I think politicians can ignore something that "a majority of the Internet-using population" knows. As long as the "mainstream" media (i.e. television) chooses not to pick it up, the politicians won't be forced to answer for themselves.
b. If there is opposition to SOPA, either the public media spin will be controlled by politicians announcing that the draft law has been modified "in response to" the concerns/opposition/protests, or "SOPA" will be defeated but the powers that want it passed will regroup and send it through again next year under a different name.
c. If there's room to argue that Wikipedia is exaggerating the threat, then that is what will be publicly argued when this story breaks. This might not turn out so positively for Wikipedia (or negatively for SOPA): after all, which side has more experience and resources to put towards controlling the public debate? And that's before we consider the possibility that someone will seriously suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia to be censored.
Don't read (b), in particular, as defeatism: I understand that this is a war and that we have to fight the current battle as well as future ones. I claim only that in the cost–benefit analysis, the utility of defeating this particular incarnation should not be approximated by the utility of being free from SOPA-like law for ever.
a. I disagree, but this is speculation on my part. For instance, I think an issue can gain sufficient public attention without television coverage. In addition, I think a Wikipedia blackout would in fact garner a not-inconsiderable amount of mainstream coverage.
b. The cost-benefit is highly skewed towards immediate action. It is highly likely that some incarnation and/or descendant of SOPA will eventually become law. However, it's critical that SOPA does not. If publicly defeated, future versions will be less ambitious and more rational.
b. The cost-benefit is highly skewed towards immediate action. It is highly likely that some incarnation and/or descendant of SOPA will eventually become law. However, it's critical that SOPA does not. If publicly defeated, future versions will be less ambitious and more rational.
I find the "Wikipedia shouldn't be politicized" argument very strage - as the WikiMedia Foundation already hires political lobbyists, which seems pretty politicized to me... Are you against wikimedia using lobbyists too? Or are they different in some way (that I fail to see)?
Well, it's certainly the case that there's more than one kind of politicized: for example Wikimedia is a 501(c)(3) organization, a status which prohibits certain kinds of political activity.
But what I have in mind here is that this is a lot closer to the content of Wikipedia becoming politicized, in the following sense: user goes to Wikipedia to get information about something innocuous, Wikipedia takes the opportunity to tell user about one side of a political debate of the Wikimedia Foundation's choosing. That's a dangerous precedent.
But what I have in mind here is that this is a lot closer to the content of Wikipedia becoming politicized, in the following sense: user goes to Wikipedia to get information about something innocuous, Wikipedia takes the opportunity to tell user about one side of a political debate of the Wikimedia Foundation's choosing. That's a dangerous precedent.
It's a very close call for me, because the small chance that a Wikipedia protest could prove the deciding factor against SOPA (which I think is doomed anyway) is weighed against the small chance that Wikipedia would be shut down by special interests, instead of facebook, youtube and other "much bigger infringers" on copyright.
I am against censorship, but at the same time, I am not sure it's a good idea to shut down the Wikipedia without any agreement on when it would go back up. Suppose SOPA passes anyway. Then what?
I am against censorship, but at the same time, I am not sure it's a good idea to shut down the Wikipedia without any agreement on when it would go back up. Suppose SOPA passes anyway. Then what?
[deleted]
Not want to politicize does not automatically imply "want SOPA".
"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."
Evolution in action, eh?
Evolution in action, eh?
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.
--
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.
Which, as others have said, is why the black banner or page should target the Senators behind the legislation, not just the legislation itself. The Overton Window needs to be slammed shut on their fingers.
I was unsure who the Senators were, and had to look it up on Wikipedia. Here is the relevant section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...
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.
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.
Wouldn't that run counter to Google's point about how hard / difficult it is to censor specific sites?
Suppose they just blocked access entirely to all publicly known IP blocks used by congress members and buildings?
That wouldn't be the same sort of technical challenge as SOPA would pose, but would drive home the point pretty well.
That wouldn't be the same sort of technical challenge as SOPA would pose, but would drive home the point pretty well.
This is an interesting idea, insofar as it falls generally in line with one of the potential effects of SOPA enforcement.
But perhaps more interestingly: because people would still have a job to do, they'd use Bing or something else, which would hopefully demonstrate to Washington just how circumventable the legislation is.
But perhaps more interestingly: because people would still have a job to do, they'd use Bing or something else, which would hopefully demonstrate to Washington just how circumventable the legislation is.
Quite so, that's a great point.
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.
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.
[deleted](1)
Sure--nothing seizes the moral high ground in a censorship fight like censoring a whole bunch of democratically elected officials.
I think this would be considerably more effective.
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.
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.
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.
I can't find a tally on the page, but a quick Perl tally suggests "support" is getting ~75% of the votes.
It won't have a tally, as this is just a straw poll and not any sort of official !vote on the matter. Jimbo's floating the idea on his talkpage to guage the community's reaction to it and get some ideas for what he should say to lawmakers when he meets them.
If it seems like the motion has legs, then either Jimbo or someone else will create an actual RfC where the community will hash out a plan to enact it.
If it seems like the motion has legs, then either Jimbo or someone else will create an actual RfC where the community will hash out a plan to enact it.
There's a scraper here:
http://hacksandthoughts.posterous.com/blanking-all-wikipedia...
which is keeping a tally.
http://hacksandthoughts.posterous.com/blanking-all-wikipedia...
which is keeping a tally.
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.
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?
"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.
This is a simple darwinian situation. Entities that can defend themselves survive and those that can't vanish in time.
Here were my thoughts:
"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. "
"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. "
Thats a good point. What if, instead of shutting down completely, wikipedia shuts down for just one day every week (say, each Monday). That way, people will continue using the site most of the time, instead of adapting by switching to some other source (like a website of replicated content), and hence the periodic loss of access will continue to be noticed. Moreover, in the event that the bill passes, wikipedia can comfortably continue protesting, without permanently shutting down.
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.
I can't say I'd mind youtube getting shut down for a day...
It'd be comical though when a study puts a value to the U.S. productivity increase when youtube videos are an inaccessible distraction.
Some of those videos have sucked up millions of man-hours of viewing... if even a single digit percent of those views were by workers procrastinating, we're talking millions in lost productivity. (Per clip!)
It'd be comical though when a study puts a value to the U.S. productivity increase when youtube videos are an inaccessible distraction.
Some of those videos have sucked up millions of man-hours of viewing... if even a single digit percent of those views were by workers procrastinating, we're talking millions in lost productivity. (Per clip!)
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.
"It is easy to dismiss video games as pointless activities that only teenagers indulge in. The truth is that the average age of MMORPG players is around 26. In fact, only 25% of MMORPG players are teenagers. About 50% of MMORPG players work full-time. About 36% of players are married, and 22% have children. So the MMORPG demographic is fairly diverse, including high-school students, college students, early professionals, middle-aged home-makers, as well as retirees. In other words, MMORPGs do not only appeal to a youth subculture."
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), none of them can vote.
Imagine if all The Greats did this: Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, hell even 4chan.
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.
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.
What a terrible idea; I can't think of a faster way to kill the public credibility of this open encyclopedia project.
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.
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.
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.
I stand in a similar position to you; and am going to say something sappy here:
Perhaps even the neutral have to fight be allowed to remain neutral.
Censorship stands in the face of neutrality.
Perhaps even the neutral have to fight be allowed to remain neutral.
Censorship stands in the face of neutrality.
It's simpler than that. Even the most neutral body will be very much pro its own existence. If Wikipedia views SOPA as an existential threat, it is not inconsistent to oppose it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is no SOPA bill in my country, please don't block English Wikipedia from me. Unless you are willing to block enwiki for everyone incl. USA when some law somewhere threatens it, please don't do the same when a law threatens only USA.
I know the USA is big in the anglosphere, but please be a bit less USAcentric.
I know the USA is big in the anglosphere, but please be a bit less USAcentric.
Wikipedia was created and is hosted in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the US, Jimbo Wales is American, and I'd wager a large part of en.wp visitors and editors are American. Like it or not, Wikipedia itself is US-centric.
And though it may be besides the point, you know as well as I do that if SOPA happened to pass in the US it wouldn't be long before most Western countries had their own version too.
And though it may be besides the point, you know as well as I do that if SOPA happened to pass in the US it wouldn't be long before most Western countries had their own version too.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
SOPA is evil. We need to do everything we can to fight it. Wikipedia is one of a handful of sites who have the power to really make a difference.
I suggest that not Wikipedia, but blogs, community sites, even your business sites all have at least some temporary display against SOPA.
I only get ~15 visitors to my site per day.
That's still something to work with.
We must all support a temporary Wikipedia white out. Those who are opposed are blind and need to understand SOPA.
SOPA is evil. We need to do everything we can to fight it. Wikipedia is one of a handful of sites who have the power to really make a difference.
I suggest that not Wikipedia, but blogs, community sites, even your business sites all have at least some temporary display against SOPA.
I only get ~15 visitors to my site per day.
That's still something to work with.
We must all support a temporary Wikipedia white out. Those who are opposed are blind and need to understand SOPA.
While I agree taking a neutral stance is important for an organization like Wikipedia, it is imperative the world understands the impact SOPA will have. A majority of the people I know understand enough about SOPA to say, "I'm against that," but
(1) these people do not resemble your average American, and
(2) even they couldn't tell you much more than "it isn't good," or "it's what the entertainment biz wants."
People really need to understand SOPA. It needs to make headline news. This will push it there.
(1) these people do not resemble your average American, and
(2) even they couldn't tell you much more than "it isn't good," or "it's what the entertainment biz wants."
People really need to understand SOPA. It needs to make headline news. This will push it there.
This is very, very interesting. I'd like to point out that the situation is very similar to Asimov's Foundation. In the novel, the Encyclopedists where arguing whether they should stick to their scholar work on the Galactic Encyclopedia or become a very strong force in the history of mankind.
That decision has come to Wikipedia.
That decision has come to Wikipedia.
I'd definitely like to see this happen.
I agree with a proper blackout that presents the use of some/most of the site, and a detailed reason about why it is happening and who's responsible in the senate/house/etc for the bill so people know not to vote for them.
If you do nothing, its too late. One day of no Facebook won't be so bad.
I agree with a proper blackout that presents the use of some/most of the site, and a detailed reason about why it is happening and who's responsible in the senate/house/etc for the bill so people know not to vote for them.
If you do nothing, its too late. One day of no Facebook won't be so bad.
[deleted]
If Wikipedia won't protest, a outside group (like Anonymous) could do the job for them with a week-long DoS. They could just peg the Wikipedia servers or use bots to continuously auto-wipe/censor random articles.
You know, that's a really brilliant middle-of-the-road solution.
And if someone at Wikimedia, you know, notices a DoS and just happens to have problems with their load balancer.. hey, it's not their fault - they stayed neutral!
And if someone at Wikimedia, you know, notices a DoS and just happens to have problems with their load balancer.. hey, it's not their fault - they stayed neutral!
except this doesn't get the message out. the point isn't to blank wikipedia out, it is to blank out wikipedia while informing visitors why and what they can do to help
Frontpage of Wikipedia should be changed to:
"We're sorry. SOPA passed so we can no longer legally show you Wikipedia content. So long and thanks for all the fish."
"We're sorry. SOPA passed so we can no longer legally show you Wikipedia content. So long and thanks for all the fish."
Uh, hello, don't take sites down, just use the ad revenue to support the political opponents of the officials who support SOPA.
If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
That's alarmist hyperbole. Even if the worst form of SOPA passes...
• it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear
• the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction
• etc., etc., etc.
SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by the ephemera of silly politics.
• it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear
• the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction
• etc., etc., etc.
SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by the ephemera of silly politics.
"it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear"
The threat of use is often significantly worse than the use itself. Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take.
Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know it ceases to exist.
(Same with startups: would you start a company to fill that void if you knew that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)
The threat of use is often significantly worse than the use itself. Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take.
Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know it ceases to exist.
(Same with startups: would you start a company to fill that void if you knew that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)
I agree completely and such chilling effects are more reasons why SOPA is bad for the web. But I was only listing why it's not, realistically, an existential threat for Wikipedia.
"• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction"
Small comfort to any of the American contributors and users.
Small comfort to any of the American contributors and users.
Perhaps I'm simply out of the loop, but could someone please explain to me why SOPA is such a huge threat to Wikipedia? As far as I know they do a fairly good job at keeping copyrighted material off, is there something else I'm missing aside from pure speculation?
SOPA doesn't really care about that, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_inf...
Wikipedia links to The Pirate Bay. Furthermore, it would be absurd for Wikipedia not to link to The Pirate Bay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_inf...
Wikipedia links to The Pirate Bay. Furthermore, it would be absurd for Wikipedia not to link to The Pirate Bay.
Regardless, who do you know that would fit the profile of someone willing to go after Wikipedia because of it? They would look like an asshole and throw away their political career, if they have one.
Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly the enforcement reality in the United States -- the law at this level is used selectively as an intimidation weapon rather than being applied uniformly.
Examples abound: which "leakers" are prosecuted? The ones "leaking" secret government data which the government wants you to know (i.e. how Iran is supposedly in dealings with Somalia), or the ones leaking government data which it doesn't want you to know (i.e. Bradley Manning)?
When the law is so broad that everyone's a criminal, and enforcement is capricious and politically motivated, we are at a low point in the tradition of a just society governed by the rule of law.
Examples abound: which "leakers" are prosecuted? The ones "leaking" secret government data which the government wants you to know (i.e. how Iran is supposedly in dealings with Somalia), or the ones leaking government data which it doesn't want you to know (i.e. Bradley Manning)?
When the law is so broad that everyone's a criminal, and enforcement is capricious and politically motivated, we are at a low point in the tradition of a just society governed by the rule of law.
No politician would have to, if the bill passed. The RIAA would do it for them, and Wikipedia's only resort would be to take it to court -- where it would, after spending buckets of money, lose.
Or more accurately, Wikipedia wouldn't take it to court: they'd censor themselves instead, so that they could stay on the internet. Which makes SOPA an existential threat to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.
Or more accurately, Wikipedia wouldn't take it to court: they'd censor themselves instead, so that they could stay on the internet. Which makes SOPA an existential threat to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.
SOPA removes the DMCA's safe harbor provision. Presently a publisher is immune to infringement liability by responding to takedown notices. Wikipedia publishes plenty of copyrightable text and photos and also what could be construed as circumvention devices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
or living outside the USA?
It's hosted in Florida. Sure, it could theoretically move -- but that would be even more disruptive than blanking the site for a month.
not during college finals!
If the aim is to maximise news coverage, that would be the perfect time to do it.
But think of all the poor students forced to find original sources instead of just visiting Wikipedia!
Would be interesting to see the changes in grades for assignments due during a period when Wikipedia was unavailable.
Would be interesting to see the changes in grades for assignments due during a period when Wikipedia was unavailable.
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.