3 ms·

>I have mixed feelings about this idea. SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle. I have a hard time seeing why "political neutrality"

>I have mixed feelings about this idea. SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle. I have a hard time seeing why "political neutrality" is ever an important principle, but especially in this case, Wikipedia would be acting in what it considers to be it's own self-interest. What merits are there in any entity remaining "neutral" in circumstances like that?

gojomo 15y ago
It sounds like you have an activist/politicking mentality. That's fine, but it's not for everyone or every institution. One of Wikipedia's pillars, "written from a neutral point-of-view" (NPOV), considers neutrality (including about political controversies) an important principle. Political neutrality is also considered a good thing for judges, various public officials, and many journalists. If you have a diversity of strong political opinions in your family or workplace, keeping the shared spaces/events/organizations politically neutral is also usually a good idea.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Defense is not "activism", but rather "reactivism". And nothing about "neutrality" suggests that you should not act in defense.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    If SOPA passed, and then either some copyright-holder or prosecutor tried to use it against Wikipedia – then opposing that action would be a 'defense'. This is specific preemptive WP:ADVOCACY. And as bad as SOPA is, there are many worse laws proposed or existing around the world. Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      That is an unnecessarily and unjustifiably limited definition of defense. The mere proposal of legislation is an attack. "WP:ADVOCACY" is not a convincing argument for that viewpoint. Furthermore, defense can certainly be preemptive, so we have multiple levels of 'wrong' here. " Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?" Arguably, yes. They should always do this in response to legislation that so directly effects them. Doing it after the fact is obviously of much more limited utility. "activism" Again, this is a silly accusation.
- DasIch 15y ago
  Judges, public officials and many journalists are politically neutral on many if not most issues but that doesn't mean that they are and should be politically neutral on any issue. If something threatens the basic rules our society is build upon such as the constitution of the country you live in or human rights, as I believe SOPA does, political neutrality stops being worth maintaining, in fact I think it is actively harmful.
TruthElixirX 15y ago
Neutrality and pacifism are not the same thing.

gojomo 15y ago

It sounds like you have an activist/politicking mentality. That's fine, but it's not for everyone or every institution. One of Wikipedia's pillars, "written from a neutral point-of-view" (NPOV), considers neutrality (including about political controversies) an important principle. Political neutrality is also considered a good thing for judges, various public officials, and many journalists. If you have a diversity of strong political opinions in your family or workplace, keeping the shared spaces/events/organizations politically neutral is also usually a good idea.

burgerbrain 15y ago
Defense is not "activism", but rather "reactivism". And nothing about "neutrality" suggests that you should not act in defense.
- gojomo 15y ago
  If SOPA passed, and then either some copyright-holder or prosecutor tried to use it against Wikipedia – then opposing that action would be a 'defense'. This is specific preemptive WP:ADVOCACY. And as bad as SOPA is, there are many worse laws proposed or existing around the world. Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    That is an unnecessarily and unjustifiably limited definition of defense. The mere proposal of legislation is an attack. "WP:ADVOCACY" is not a convincing argument for that viewpoint. Furthermore, defense can certainly be preemptive, so we have multiple levels of 'wrong' here. " Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?" Arguably, yes. They should always do this in response to legislation that so directly effects them. Doing it after the fact is obviously of much more limited utility. "activism" Again, this is a silly accusation.
DasIch 15y ago
Judges, public officials and many journalists are politically neutral on many if not most issues but that doesn't mean that they are and should be politically neutral on any issue. If something threatens the basic rules our society is build upon such as the constitution of the country you live in or human rights, as I believe SOPA does, political neutrality stops being worth maintaining, in fact I think it is actively harmful.

TruthElixirX 15y ago

Neutrality and pacifism are not the same thing.