4 ms·

-- 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

by 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 And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress).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.
- gwillen 15y ago
  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.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    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.
    - reissbaker 15y ago
      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.
      - gojomo 15y ago
        I file a DNS-delisting of Wikipedia.org under "I'd Like To See Them Try It".
        reissbaker 15y ago
        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.
Lewisham 15y ago
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.
- tejaswiy 15y ago
  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.
notatoad 15y ago
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.

by bgentry 15y ago

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.

gwillen 15y ago
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.
- gojomo 15y ago
  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.
  - reissbaker 15y ago
    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.
    - gojomo 15y ago
      I file a DNS-delisting of Wikipedia.org under "I'd Like To See Them Try It".
      - reissbaker 15y ago
        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.

Lewisham 15y ago

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.

tejaswiy 15y ago
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.

notatoad 15y ago

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.