4 ms·

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 ca

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.
- gwern 15y ago
  > The hottest place in Hell was reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, until the Swiss made it a well-run mountain paradise. --Steven Kaas https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350 https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350
snowwrestler 15y ago
As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3. Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.
- aculver 15y ago
  This proposal isn't coming from the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, it's coming from the community. For example, the Italian Wikipedia came down recently in protest of something political. That was implemented by the community of volunteers who maintain Wikipedia, rather than the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
  - sp332 15y ago
    But remember, 501(c)(3) status is a US-only thing. Different rules would apply in Italy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- philipn 15y ago
  501(c)3 organizations can engage in lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substancial portion of the organization's activity. 501(c)3 organizations have an absolute ban on lobbying for candidates for public office, however. This would not threaten Wikipedia's tax-exempt status.
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    The WM produces one project: Wikipedia, the bulk of which is the English-language version. If that is given over entirely to lobbying a specific bill, even temporarily, they would have a very hard time arguing that that is not a "substantial portion" of their activity.
oconnore 15y ago
Also, I can't help but think that SOPA would be dead in ~1 hour if Google pulled the plug on Youtube.
- sp332 15y ago
  Of course not. Viacom et al. would point to this as a victory and Congress would go on without them.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    But there is a considerable number of people with YouTube addictions who would be, all things considered, just short of violent revolution. Corporations are only valuable because they provide money for advertising aimed at the people.

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.
gwern 15y ago
> The hottest place in Hell was reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, until the Swiss made it a well-run mountain paradise. --Steven Kaas https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350 https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350

snowwrestler 15y ago

As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3. Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.

aculver 15y ago
This proposal isn't coming from the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, it's coming from the community. For example, the Italian Wikipedia came down recently in protest of something political. That was implemented by the community of volunteers who maintain Wikipedia, rather than the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
- sp332 15y ago
  But remember, 501(c)(3) status is a US-only thing. Different rules would apply in Italy.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
philipn 15y ago
501(c)3 organizations can engage in lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substancial portion of the organization's activity. 501(c)3 organizations have an absolute ban on lobbying for candidates for public office, however. This would not threaten Wikipedia's tax-exempt status.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  The WM produces one project: Wikipedia, the bulk of which is the English-language version. If that is given over entirely to lobbying a specific bill, even temporarily, they would have a very hard time arguing that that is not a "substantial portion" of their activity.

oconnore 15y ago

Also, I can't help but think that SOPA would be dead in ~1 hour if Google pulled the plug on Youtube.

sp332 15y ago
Of course not. Viacom et al. would point to this as a victory and Congress would go on without them.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  But there is a considerable number of people with YouTube addictions who would be, all things considered, just short of violent revolution. Corporations are only valuable because they provide money for advertising aimed at the people.