3 ms·
Defense is not "activism", but rather "reactivism". And nothing about "neutrality" suggests that you should not act in defense.
by burgerbrain 15y ago
Defense is not "activism", but rather "reactivism".
And nothing about "neutrality" suggests that you should not act in defense.
- gojomo 15y agoIf 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 agoThat 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.