5 ms·

Wikipedia will be leaving GoDaddy

385 points by shahed 15y ago

basugasubaku 15y ago
Link to the actual edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=467377661&oldid=467375455 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_...
- shahed 15y ago
  Thanks for the link!
chuinard 15y ago
It's interesting that they're being criticized. One of the three responses on the page (the other two being positive) is: "This is an overtly political decision. Poor form."
- Helianthus 15y ago
  For a sufficiently large organization, no decision will make everyone happy, therefore all decisions are controversial.
- a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
  Neutrality is important to their culture, and it could be difficult for some to separate "we don't want to support harmful practices and products" from the politics of those practices and products.
- ticks 15y ago
  I think they are looking at this from the wrong perspective (although it's easy to do). An overly political stance from GoDaddy has forced Wikipedia to make a decision. It's the same reason why I think Google and other big tech platforms shouldn't use their service to promote anti-SOPA initiatives... once you go down that track, your service is seen as divisive and political.
- vacri 15y ago
  It is a political decision, but it is directly related to an issue that could spell doom for wikipedia. Non-profits still get to have a say in issues that relate to their own survival.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Exactly. Certain "wikipedians" seem to hold neutrality with high regard while ignoring the fact that Switzerland has the luxury of neutrality because they are willing to act in their own defense. These wikipedians confuse pacifism with neutrality.
    - bborud 15y ago
      Do not confuse stupidity with neutrality. An organism which makes no effort to avoid its extinction, especially when it can do so in a peaceful manner, has forfeit its evolutionary right to exist. I hope the wikipedians in question will take some time to think about how their passive stance actually ends up jeopardizing their neutrality, and that once they have gotten their shit together, feel enough shame to apologize for being part of the problem. I'm disgusted.
- piggity 15y ago
  And who's to say that negative comment isn't the work of an astro-turfing lobbyist. They've certainly got means, motivation and opportunity.
- bborud 15y ago
  Personally I think one should be deeply ashamed of backing away from an issue because it may be seen as "political". Fact is that I doubt Wikipedia would have been possible in an environment where censorship and action without due process is seen as acceptable. Actually, access to wikipedia has been limited in the past by regimes that we consider totalitarian, or near-totalitarian, and the very action of censoring the web has been pointed out as a concrete manifestation of lack of democracy. Democracy in the west has been weakened gradually over the past years. To a large degree because the population is helpless when it comes to influencing policy; we don't know how to act. So when a clear opportunity to be heard presents itself I find it disgraceful that thoughtless and unprincipled people promote apathy and inaction. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
- theshadow 15y ago
  There is a significant section of the wikipedia community that thrives on inertia (just try contributing to an article there and see for yourself) for these people even a modicum of change is completely unacceptable. Heck if tomorrow wikipedia discovered a way to feed all the hungry children in the world by adding one article to the site you'd have people voting to delete that article for some reason.
- quinndupont 15y ago
  Political indeed! SOPA isn't just a practical issue (although, it is this too), it's an ethical issue. It's important for organizations like Wikipedia (and universities! ) to take a stand.
ellie42 15y ago
Will GitHub boycott GoDaddy because of their support for SOPA?
- Canada 15y ago
  That would be great. Maybe there should be a new open source software license featuring total denial of rights to use to the MPAA/RIAA member companies too.
  - kachnuv_ocasek 15y ago
    No, that would be bad. If open, it should allow everyone. The goal is to unite not segregate after all.
    - VMG 15y ago
      The goal is to unite not segregate after all Who says that? Why should you unite with your enemy?
      - aw3c2 15y ago
        Basic of free speech means allowing hateful stuff too. The more you forbid the less free it is (whatever "it" is).
        VMG 15y ago
        allowing is not the same as supporting
      - DanBC 15y ago
        "killing with kindness" "Embrace, extend and extinguish" There's probably a few in Art of War too.
      - rhizome 15y ago
        It's not about enemies, it's about free software as a matter of liberty.
GigabyteCoin 15y ago
Wikipedia used GoDaddy, period? I'm surprised they were able to function as they do, seriously. Not poking fun at anybody here.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mryan 15y ago
  There is a difference between registering your domain with GoDaddy, and using GoDaddy's DNS servers. The wikipedia.org domain is (currently) registered with GoDaddy. Wikipedia run their own DNS servers.
robomc 15y ago
Why is domain name supplier a community matter... does the community vet decisions on data-centres or server software?
- gala8y 15y ago
  Because they care?
- ekiru 15y ago
  Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editors participating in the linked discussion seem to think that domain name supplier is a community matter. As far as I can tell, this was a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the resulting action will be taken by the Wikimedia Foundation.
richardburton 15y ago
I think the great thing about an organisation as large and as important as Wikipedia taking a stance on this is that it makes for great copy. Journalists will love it. I hope this GoDaddy story takes on a new life and makes the transition from the blogosphere to the newspapers and therefore the general public's consciousness. Keep on fighting my US friends. Keep on fighting.
- noamsml 15y ago
  > Journalists will love it. This is probably the most important point. Boycotts of SOPA-supporting companies, as many have pointed out, do very little to stop the bill from passing. What they do succeed in doing is making sure opposition to the bill stays high in the news cycle and enters public consciousness.
Canada 15y ago
I donated to Wikipedia as a direct result of their decision to dump GoDaddy. I spent a good chunk of my day lobbying those I know with tons of domanis at GoDaddy to dump them immediately.
- adamtmca 15y ago
  hell of a username. do it justice.
WeWin 15y ago
In a longer run this may not look as good for Wikipedia as it does now. It shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote. It also shows that they are willing to turn on their business partners and screw them. This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening with the editing for some time.
- mustpax 15y ago
  Neutrality does not require passivity and inaction. In fact, it requires that you actively distance yourself from politicized parties so that your neutrality is not called into question. GoDaddy has, of their own accord, become a politicized party in the SOPA debate. It is altogether reasonable for Wikipedia to choose not to be involved with them.
  - WeWin 15y ago
    So has Wikipedia: they could have just dropped GoDaddy without saying a word, that would have been neutral. Publicly proclaiming you severing business ties for a politically-charged reason is just bad business.
    - lhnz 15y ago
      I don't see that as bad business. Wikipedia requires neutrality. SOPA is anti-neutrality. Can you really imagine sites like Wikipedia existing in a post-SOPA universe?
    - vacri 15y ago
      "publicly proclaiming" is 'as discussed in our own online spaces where we came up with the decision'? Do you have evidence of wikipedia seeking out other media to promote their decision?
- rimantas 15y ago
  > It shows that they are willing to sacrifice > their cultural values, particularly neutrality Are you sure you did not get it backwards?
bborud 15y ago
Are there any good estimates on how much GoDaddy has lost because of their support for SOPA?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
bradfeld 15y ago
I think this is a very powerful move by Wikipedia against SOPA. I hope they do something creative - such as take the entire site down for a few days in protest with a message that says something like "this is what your favorite websites could look like post-SOPA. Call your congressman now and tell him / her that SOPA should not be passed."
gnurag 15y ago
Just donated $10 to Wikipedia in support of @jimmy_wales stand against SOPA and keeping the Internet free.
phil 15y ago
OMG, Wikipedia talk pages are freaking impossible to read! Surely there are some serious Wikipedians floating around here. Hasn't anyone thought about adding a little bit of threaded conversation support to mediawiki so these back and forth discussions aren't such a mess?

385 points by shahed 15y ago

Link to the actual edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=467377661&oldid=467375455 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_...

shahed 15y ago
Thanks for the link!

chuinard 15y ago

It's interesting that they're being criticized. One of the three responses on the page (the other two being positive) is: "This is an overtly political decision. Poor form."

Helianthus 15y ago
For a sufficiently large organization, no decision will make everyone happy, therefore all decisions are controversial.
a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
Neutrality is important to their culture, and it could be difficult for some to separate "we don't want to support harmful practices and products" from the politics of those practices and products.
ticks 15y ago
I think they are looking at this from the wrong perspective (although it's easy to do). An overly political stance from GoDaddy has forced Wikipedia to make a decision. It's the same reason why I think Google and other big tech platforms shouldn't use their service to promote anti-SOPA initiatives... once you go down that track, your service is seen as divisive and political.
vacri 15y ago
It is a political decision, but it is directly related to an issue that could spell doom for wikipedia. Non-profits still get to have a say in issues that relate to their own survival.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Exactly. Certain "wikipedians" seem to hold neutrality with high regard while ignoring the fact that Switzerland has the luxury of neutrality because they are willing to act in their own defense. These wikipedians confuse pacifism with neutrality.
  - bborud 15y ago
    Do not confuse stupidity with neutrality. An organism which makes no effort to avoid its extinction, especially when it can do so in a peaceful manner, has forfeit its evolutionary right to exist. I hope the wikipedians in question will take some time to think about how their passive stance actually ends up jeopardizing their neutrality, and that once they have gotten their shit together, feel enough shame to apologize for being part of the problem. I'm disgusted.
piggity 15y ago
And who's to say that negative comment isn't the work of an astro-turfing lobbyist. They've certainly got means, motivation and opportunity.
bborud 15y ago
Personally I think one should be deeply ashamed of backing away from an issue because it may be seen as "political". Fact is that I doubt Wikipedia would have been possible in an environment where censorship and action without due process is seen as acceptable. Actually, access to wikipedia has been limited in the past by regimes that we consider totalitarian, or near-totalitarian, and the very action of censoring the web has been pointed out as a concrete manifestation of lack of democracy. Democracy in the west has been weakened gradually over the past years. To a large degree because the population is helpless when it comes to influencing policy; we don't know how to act. So when a clear opportunity to be heard presents itself I find it disgraceful that thoughtless and unprincipled people promote apathy and inaction. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
theshadow 15y ago
There is a significant section of the wikipedia community that thrives on inertia (just try contributing to an article there and see for yourself) for these people even a modicum of change is completely unacceptable. Heck if tomorrow wikipedia discovered a way to feed all the hungry children in the world by adding one article to the site you'd have people voting to delete that article for some reason.
quinndupont 15y ago
Political indeed! SOPA isn't just a practical issue (although, it is this too), it's an ethical issue. It's important for organizations like Wikipedia (and universities! ) to take a stand.

ellie42 15y ago

Will GitHub boycott GoDaddy because of their support for SOPA?

Canada 15y ago
That would be great. Maybe there should be a new open source software license featuring total denial of rights to use to the MPAA/RIAA member companies too.
- kachnuv_ocasek 15y ago
  No, that would be bad. If open, it should allow everyone. The goal is to unite not segregate after all.
  - VMG 15y ago
    The goal is to unite not segregate after all Who says that? Why should you unite with your enemy?
    - aw3c2 15y ago
      Basic of free speech means allowing hateful stuff too. The more you forbid the less free it is (whatever "it" is).
      - VMG 15y ago
        allowing is not the same as supporting
    - DanBC 15y ago
      "killing with kindness" "Embrace, extend and extinguish" There's probably a few in Art of War too.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      It's not about enemies, it's about free software as a matter of liberty.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

Wikipedia used GoDaddy, period? I'm surprised they were able to function as they do, seriously. Not poking fun at anybody here.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mryan 15y ago
There is a difference between registering your domain with GoDaddy, and using GoDaddy's DNS servers. The wikipedia.org domain is (currently) registered with GoDaddy. Wikipedia run their own DNS servers.

robomc 15y ago

Why is domain name supplier a community matter... does the community vet decisions on data-centres or server software?

gala8y 15y ago
Because they care?
ekiru 15y ago
Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editors participating in the linked discussion seem to think that domain name supplier is a community matter. As far as I can tell, this was a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the resulting action will be taken by the Wikimedia Foundation.

richardburton 15y ago

I think the great thing about an organisation as large and as important as Wikipedia taking a stance on this is that it makes for great copy. Journalists will love it. I hope this GoDaddy story takes on a new life and makes the transition from the blogosphere to the newspapers and therefore the general public's consciousness. Keep on fighting my US friends. Keep on fighting.

noamsml 15y ago
> Journalists will love it. This is probably the most important point. Boycotts of SOPA-supporting companies, as many have pointed out, do very little to stop the bill from passing. What they do succeed in doing is making sure opposition to the bill stays high in the news cycle and enters public consciousness.

Canada 15y ago

I donated to Wikipedia as a direct result of their decision to dump GoDaddy. I spent a good chunk of my day lobbying those I know with tons of domanis at GoDaddy to dump them immediately.

adamtmca 15y ago
hell of a username. do it justice.

WeWin 15y ago

In a longer run this may not look as good for Wikipedia as it does now. It shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote. It also shows that they are willing to turn on their business partners and screw them. This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening with the editing for some time.

mustpax 15y ago
Neutrality does not require passivity and inaction. In fact, it requires that you actively distance yourself from politicized parties so that your neutrality is not called into question. GoDaddy has, of their own accord, become a politicized party in the SOPA debate. It is altogether reasonable for Wikipedia to choose not to be involved with them.
- WeWin 15y ago
  So has Wikipedia: they could have just dropped GoDaddy without saying a word, that would have been neutral. Publicly proclaiming you severing business ties for a politically-charged reason is just bad business.
  - lhnz 15y ago
    I don't see that as bad business. Wikipedia requires neutrality. SOPA is anti-neutrality. Can you really imagine sites like Wikipedia existing in a post-SOPA universe?
  - vacri 15y ago
    "publicly proclaiming" is 'as discussed in our own online spaces where we came up with the decision'? Do you have evidence of wikipedia seeking out other media to promote their decision?
rimantas 15y ago
> It shows that they are willing to sacrifice > their cultural values, particularly neutrality Are you sure you did not get it backwards?

bborud 15y ago

Are there any good estimates on how much GoDaddy has lost because of their support for SOPA?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

bradfeld 15y ago

I think this is a very powerful move by Wikipedia against SOPA. I hope they do something creative - such as take the entire site down for a few days in protest with a message that says something like "this is what your favorite websites could look like post-SOPA. Call your congressman now and tell him / her that SOPA should not be passed."

gnurag 15y ago

Just donated $10 to Wikipedia in support of @jimmy_wales stand against SOPA and keeping the Internet free.

phil 15y ago

OMG, Wikipedia talk pages are freaking impossible to read! Surely there are some serious Wikipedians floating around here. Hasn't anyone thought about adding a little bit of threaded conversation support to mediawiki so these back and forth discussions aren't such a mess?