4 ms·

> 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. T

by 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%.

EGreg 15y ago
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?
chc 15y ago
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
- waqf 15y ago
  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.
  - doktrin 15y ago
    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.
twelvechairs 15y ago
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)?
- waqf 15y ago
  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.

by waqf 15y ago

EGreg 15y ago

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?

chc 15y ago

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

waqf 15y ago
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.
- doktrin 15y ago
  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.

twelvechairs 15y ago

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)?

waqf 15y ago
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.