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 it

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.