6 ms·

I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well ->

by sriramk 15y ago

I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikipedias-sopa-blackout-is-a-terrible-idea/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particular country, you violate that. b) Wikipedia runs on the kindness of strangers, some of whom could potentially be supporting SOPA. It is egregious to spend a month asking for donations on every page and then turn around and deny some of them service. Fundamentally, it is not the job of an open and free repository of human knowledge to take political stances, however harmful and important the topic might be. To those making the point that this threatens the entirety of the internet, that is true. However - The point of being neutral is that you don't get to choose what you're neutral about. - Should Wikipedia shutdown hypothetically over nuclear arms (as an example) - something that could potentially destroy all of humanity? Where do you need to be on the destructiveness scale for Wikipedia to take a stance? I'm not doing as good a job of summarizing this as Paul Carr does - do read his piece.

jayzee 15y ago
You can't be neutral on a moving train - Howard Zinn
- sriramk 15y ago
  If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.
  - jayzee 15y ago
    I am responding to your point (a). Not acting is not being neutral. Not acting is taking a stand.
    - sriramk 15y ago
      That's a question of semantics. When you have a policy on not taking a stand on any issue which you stick to, you are not taking a stand.
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        When Wikipedia blocks an IP address for abusive behavior they are taking a stance in defense of their goals which are to provide a high quality, free, open, and unbiased repository of knowledge. PS: Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act it's fairly neutral if a little long.
    - Jach 15y ago
      That seems fairly pointless. By that reasoning it's impossible to not take a stand, and then the whole notion of neutrality nearly becomes meaningless. But fine, let's say Wikipedia is taking a stand, what is it for? That stance is for neutrality--i.e., not taking further political actions on behalf of one political camp or another. Your comments would be better if they actually addressed the issues raised and not divert us on this path. (Edit: to spell it out, the issue raised in point a) is whether a stance for neutrality is good/bad for Wikipedia. One argument that it's good is it helps Wikipedia be a trusted source.)
  - test3521 15y ago
    If war was imminent, and forcing nuclear disarmament by a simple protest was possible, then we could have such protest on Wikipedia.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- sriramk 15y ago
  Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted. If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events. By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long reaching consequences. Here's a trivial question for starters - how does humanity trust Wikipedia's articles on SOPA given that it has taken a stance on the issue? Or trust it's pieces on the people supporting SOPA (a lot of whom are perfectly normal, smart, upstanding people we just happen to disagree with strongly). The taint could be far reaching.
  - nandemo 15y ago
    > Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted. Your comment is well-written, summarizes a tenable position and contributes to the discussion. Unfortunately, the principle of not downvoting for mere disagreement has in practice been abandoned on HN.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I think we can safely abandon the practice of downvoting for disagreement when we can abandon the practice of upvoting for agreement.
seunghomattyang 15y ago
Dante once said, "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
barumrho 15y ago
But doesn't SOPA directly affect viability of Wikipedia?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
burgerbrain 15y ago
"Wikipedia runs on the kindness of strangers, some of whom could potentially be supporting SOPA." With friends like those....
cbabraham 15y ago
Wikipedia addresses this in their official announcement >But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not...We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-S...
MengYuanLong 15y ago
To begin, donations are not in exchange for a particular service or benefit. That is why these are donations and not membership fees. When you donate money to the Red Cross, you are not mandating that they provide fresh water to somebody in Thailand. Instead you are donating the money with the expectation that it is used in a way consistent with mission. So, Carr's claim that they are somehow "making a mockery" of those who donated money "to keep wikipedia live" fails to hold water. This argument is a strawman. They are upholding their mission to provide a knowledge repository by protecting their ability to do that. Again, donations are not membership fees and they are being used at the discretion of the organization. Second, the neutrality argument is equally weak. This is even addressed in the official Wikipedia release. Providing an objective and balanced knowledge repository does not require that they as an organizations behave in a neutral manner. The Wikimedia Foundation clearly feels the passage of this bill into law would negatively affect their ability to serve the community. Thus, they are expressing their position against the bill. Is that not proper? How personal must the attack be before it is okay for Wikimedia to take a stand and "lose their objectiveness". His final argument is extremely naive and simply not true. By his account, if you have a stance on a public topic and publicly declare it, you are now and forever inherently stating your approval of any subject you fail to discuss. If you think this is an exaggeration, here is his statement, "The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance...Everything else that’s happened in the world until now, and everything that will ever happen from this day forward..." By this logic, a group like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation must be in support of the Rape of Nanjing. PETA must be completely okay with the fraud committed by Enron. I could certainly create an unending list but the point is clear. It is impossible and unnecessary to publicly (or privately for that matter) hold informed positions about every topic. On a final note, I think it is actually very logical that different services should show support in different manners. Twitter, Facebook, G+, etc. are social networks and as such, can make the most impact by members creating an echo chamber of dissent. Wikipedia on the other hand is a resource. And, just like the physical world, we feel the greatest impact of a resource when it is no longer available.

by sriramk 15y ago

jayzee 15y ago

You can't be neutral on a moving train - Howard Zinn

sriramk 15y ago
If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.
- jayzee 15y ago
  I am responding to your point (a). Not acting is not being neutral. Not acting is taking a stand.
  - sriramk 15y ago
    That's a question of semantics. When you have a policy on not taking a stand on any issue which you stick to, you are not taking a stand.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      When Wikipedia blocks an IP address for abusive behavior they are taking a stance in defense of their goals which are to provide a high quality, free, open, and unbiased repository of knowledge. PS: Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act it's fairly neutral if a little long.
  - Jach 15y ago
    That seems fairly pointless. By that reasoning it's impossible to not take a stand, and then the whole notion of neutrality nearly becomes meaningless. But fine, let's say Wikipedia is taking a stand, what is it for? That stance is for neutrality--i.e., not taking further political actions on behalf of one political camp or another. Your comments would be better if they actually addressed the issues raised and not divert us on this path. (Edit: to spell it out, the issue raised in point a) is whether a stance for neutrality is good/bad for Wikipedia. One argument that it's good is it helps Wikipedia be a trusted source.)
- test3521 15y ago
  If war was imminent, and forcing nuclear disarmament by a simple protest was possible, then we could have such protest on Wikipedia.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sriramk 15y ago
Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted. If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events. By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long reaching consequences. Here's a trivial question for starters - how does humanity trust Wikipedia's articles on SOPA given that it has taken a stance on the issue? Or trust it's pieces on the people supporting SOPA (a lot of whom are perfectly normal, smart, upstanding people we just happen to disagree with strongly). The taint could be far reaching.
- nandemo 15y ago
  > Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted. Your comment is well-written, summarizes a tenable position and contributes to the discussion. Unfortunately, the principle of not downvoting for mere disagreement has in practice been abandoned on HN.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I think we can safely abandon the practice of downvoting for disagreement when we can abandon the practice of upvoting for agreement.

seunghomattyang 15y ago

Dante once said, "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

barumrho 15y ago

But doesn't SOPA directly affect viability of Wikipedia?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

burgerbrain 15y ago

"Wikipedia runs on the kindness of strangers, some of whom could potentially be supporting SOPA." With friends like those....

cbabraham 15y ago

Wikipedia addresses this in their official announcement >But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not...We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-S...

MengYuanLong 15y ago

To begin, donations are not in exchange for a particular service or benefit. That is why these are donations and not membership fees. When you donate money to the Red Cross, you are not mandating that they provide fresh water to somebody in Thailand. Instead you are donating the money with the expectation that it is used in a way consistent with mission. So, Carr's claim that they are somehow "making a mockery" of those who donated money "to keep wikipedia live" fails to hold water. This argument is a strawman. They are upholding their mission to provide a knowledge repository by protecting their ability to do that. Again, donations are not membership fees and they are being used at the discretion of the organization. Second, the neutrality argument is equally weak. This is even addressed in the official Wikipedia release. Providing an objective and balanced knowledge repository does not require that they as an organizations behave in a neutral manner. The Wikimedia Foundation clearly feels the passage of this bill into law would negatively affect their ability to serve the community. Thus, they are expressing their position against the bill. Is that not proper? How personal must the attack be before it is okay for Wikimedia to take a stand and "lose their objectiveness". His final argument is extremely naive and simply not true. By his account, if you have a stance on a public topic and publicly declare it, you are now and forever inherently stating your approval of any subject you fail to discuss. If you think this is an exaggeration, here is his statement, "The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance...Everything else that’s happened in the world until now, and everything that will ever happen from this day forward..." By this logic, a group like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation must be in support of the Rape of Nanjing. PETA must be completely okay with the fraud committed by Enron. I could certainly create an unending list but the point is clear. It is impossible and unnecessary to publicly (or privately for that matter) hold informed positions about every topic. On a final note, I think it is actually very logical that different services should show support in different manners. Twitter, Facebook, G+, etc. are social networks and as such, can make the most impact by members creating an echo chamber of dissent. Wikipedia on the other hand is a resource. And, just like the physical world, we feel the greatest impact of a resource when it is no longer available.