11 ms·

RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest

546 points by lelf 15y ago

hsmyers 15y ago
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 :)
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I think this would be considerably more effective.
- boredguy8 15y ago
  Wouldn't that run counter to Google's point about how hard / difficult it is to censor specific sites?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    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.
    - boredguy8 15y ago
      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.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Quite so, that's a great point.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - BrandonM 15y ago
    Google owns YouTube and Google+, both of which are sites for user-created content. And besides, the Internet is user-created content, indexed by Google. SOPA would require them to police their index just as much as the more direct user-content sites.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- blhack 15y ago
  How does SOPA effect gmail? If somebody sends me a link to copyrighted material, and I view it on gmail.com, is google infringing?
  - gkoberger 15y ago
    It is possible that Google will someday have to filter all emails for "blacklisted links". I'll try to find a source.
- jeggers5 15y ago
  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.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Sure--nothing seizes the moral high ground in a censorship fight like censoring a whole bunch of democratically elected officials.
- morsch 15y ago
  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.
bguthrie 15y ago
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.
- _delirium 15y ago
  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.
- raldi 15y ago
  I can't find a tally on the page, but a quick Perl tally suggests "support" is getting ~75% of the votes.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    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.
lazerwalker 15y ago
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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- smokeyj 15y ago
  I see standing up for free speech is a philosophical stance, whereas remaining silent is a political stance. Philosophy > Politics IMO.
  - fl3tch 15y ago
    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.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- waqf 15y ago
  > 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%.
bryanh 15y ago
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.
- bdrocco 15y ago
  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!)
bgentry 15y ago
-- 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.
- SilasX 15y ago
  I agree. Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual.
- gojomo 15y ago
  --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.
Joakal 15y ago
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.
salimmadjd 15y ago
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.
jeggers5 15y ago
At the moment - just by doing a find 'support'/'oppose'; there are 161 'support's and 62 'opposes'
- theon144 15y ago
  Really? When I quickly skimmed through, the supporters seemed to be in the absolute majority. Well, it's a straw poll anyway, so they may or may not act according to it. Let's see.
dendory 15y ago
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.
- pnathan 15y ago
  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.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    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.
    - doktrin 15y ago
      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.
    - pak 15y ago
      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-on-wikipedia-proves-itself http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-o... [2] http://xkcd.com/978/ http://xkcd.com/978/
BiosElement 15y ago
If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  or living outside the USA?
  - scythe 15y ago
    It's hosted in Florida. Sure, it could theoretically move -- but that would be even more disruptive than blanking the site for a month.
- cjfont 15y ago
  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?
  - scythe 15y ago
    SOPA doesn't really care about that, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_infringing_website 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.
    - cjfont 15y ago
      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.
      - gbhn 15y ago
        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.
lambda 15y ago
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.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  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.
  - regularfry 15y ago
    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.
Shenglong 15y ago
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.
- pak 15y ago
  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), none of them can vote.
- whyenot 15y ago
  "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
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    I'm fully aware. That wasn't the point I was emphasizing, though!
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
EGreg 15y ago
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. "
- sbayless 15y ago
  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.
kunalmodi 15y ago
not during college finals!
- finnw 15y ago
  If the aim is to maximise news coverage, that would be the perfect time to do it.
  - DrStalker 15y ago
    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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bittermang 15y ago
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 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.
- doktrin 15y ago
  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.
- semisight 15y ago
  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.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  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
  - gruseom 15y ago
    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 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri In this case, the source of the misquote is known: a 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy.
cheald 15y ago
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?
cpeterso 15y ago
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.
- ComputerGuru 15y ago
  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!
- notatoad 15y ago
  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
azelfrath 15y ago
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.
snowwrestler 15y ago
What a terrible idea; I can't think of a faster way to kill the public credibility of this open encyclopedia project.
jxcole 15y ago
Here is what I recommend: 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.
- rorrr 15y ago
  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.
  - ImprovedSilence 15y ago
    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!
  - wanorris 15y ago
    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.
  - cjfont 15y ago
    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.
huhtenberg 15y ago
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.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  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.
  - mavelikara 15y ago
    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#Supporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...
grandalf 15y ago
Uh, hello, don't take sites down, just use the ad revenue to support the political opponents of the officials who support SOPA.
vldo 15y ago
This seems pointless.. wikipedia pages will still be accessible via google cached pages. Also i think wiki should remain neutral in this matter.
- theon144 15y ago
  The point isn't to not let anybody access the content, they just use it as a means to raise the awareness on an issue.
deepkut 15y ago
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.
ggwicz 15y ago
"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.
feralchimp 15y ago
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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jtchang 15y ago
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."
rmc 15y ago
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.
- feor 15y ago
  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.
tibix 15y ago
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.
plasma 15y ago
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.

546 points by lelf 15y ago

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 :)

anigbrowl 15y ago
I think this would be considerably more effective.
boredguy8 15y ago
Wouldn't that run counter to Google's point about how hard / difficult it is to censor specific sites?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  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.
  - boredguy8 15y ago
    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.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Quite so, that's a great point.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- BrandonM 15y ago
  Google owns YouTube and Google+, both of which are sites for user-created content. And besides, the Internet is user-created content, indexed by Google. SOPA would require them to police their index just as much as the more direct user-content sites.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
blhack 15y ago
How does SOPA effect gmail? If somebody sends me a link to copyrighted material, and I view it on gmail.com, is google infringing?
- gkoberger 15y ago
  It is possible that Google will someday have to filter all emails for "blacklisted links". I'll try to find a source.
jeggers5 15y ago
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.
snowwrestler 15y ago
Sure--nothing seizes the moral high ground in a censorship fight like censoring a whole bunch of democratically elected officials.
morsch 15y ago
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.

bguthrie 15y ago

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.

_delirium 15y ago
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.
raldi 15y ago
I can't find a tally on the page, but a quick Perl tally suggests "support" is getting ~75% of the votes.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  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.

lazerwalker 15y ago

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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
smokeyj 15y ago
I see standing up for free speech is a philosophical stance, whereas remaining silent is a political stance. Philosophy > Politics IMO.
- fl3tch 15y ago
  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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
waqf 15y ago
> 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%.

bryanh 15y ago

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.

bdrocco 15y ago
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!)

bgentry 15y ago

-- 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.

SilasX 15y ago
I agree. Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual.
gojomo 15y ago
--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.

Joakal 15y ago

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.

salimmadjd 15y ago

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.

jeggers5 15y ago

At the moment - just by doing a find 'support'/'oppose'; there are 161 'support's and 62 'opposes'

theon144 15y ago
Really? When I quickly skimmed through, the supporters seemed to be in the absolute majority. Well, it's a straw poll anyway, so they may or may not act according to it. Let's see.

dendory 15y ago

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.

pnathan 15y ago
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.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  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.
  - doktrin 15y ago
    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.
  - pak 15y ago
    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-on-wikipedia-proves-itself http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-o... [2] http://xkcd.com/978/ http://xkcd.com/978/

BiosElement 15y ago

If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

twelvechairs 15y ago
or living outside the USA?
- scythe 15y ago
  It's hosted in Florida. Sure, it could theoretically move -- but that would be even more disruptive than blanking the site for a month.
cjfont 15y ago
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?
- scythe 15y ago
  SOPA doesn't really care about that, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_infringing_website 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.
  - cjfont 15y ago
    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.
    - gbhn 15y ago
      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.

lambda 15y ago

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.

sukuriant 15y ago
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.
- regularfry 15y ago
  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.

Shenglong 15y ago

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.

pak 15y ago
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), none of them can vote.
whyenot 15y ago
"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
- Shenglong 15y ago
  I'm fully aware. That wasn't the point I was emphasizing, though!
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

EGreg 15y ago

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. "

sbayless 15y ago
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.

kunalmodi 15y ago

not during college finals!

finnw 15y ago
If the aim is to maximise news coverage, that would be the perfect time to do it.
- DrStalker 15y ago
  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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

bittermang 15y ago

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 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.

doktrin 15y ago
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.
semisight 15y ago
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.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
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
- gruseom 15y ago
  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 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri In this case, the source of the misquote is known: a 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy.

cheald 15y ago

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?

cpeterso 15y ago

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.

ComputerGuru 15y ago
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!
notatoad 15y ago
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

azelfrath 15y ago

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.

snowwrestler 15y ago

What a terrible idea; I can't think of a faster way to kill the public credibility of this open encyclopedia project.

jxcole 15y ago

Here is what I recommend: 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.

rorrr 15y ago
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.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  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!
- wanorris 15y ago
  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.
- cjfont 15y ago
  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.

huhtenberg 15y ago

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.

CamperBob 15y ago
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.
- mavelikara 15y ago
  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#Supporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...

grandalf 15y ago

Uh, hello, don't take sites down, just use the ad revenue to support the political opponents of the officials who support SOPA.

vldo 15y ago

This seems pointless.. wikipedia pages will still be accessible via google cached pages. Also i think wiki should remain neutral in this matter.

theon144 15y ago
The point isn't to not let anybody access the content, they just use it as a means to raise the awareness on an issue.

deepkut 15y ago

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.

ggwicz 15y ago

"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.

feralchimp 15y ago

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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jtchang 15y ago

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."

rmc 15y ago

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.

feor 15y ago
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.

tibix 15y ago

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.

plasma 15y ago

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.