4 ms·

So; the blackout will work something like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/?banner=SOPA_blackout_alt https://test.wikipedia.org/?banner=SOPA_blackout_alt The

by ErrantX 15y ago

So; the blackout will work something like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/?banner=SOPA_blackout_alt https://test.wikipedia.org/?banner=SOPA_blackout_alt The exact text is being figured out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Proposed_Messages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Propo... (I think the current draft isn't very informative; it doesn't actually explain anything, just that there is a protest of SOPA/PIPA & link to some blogs). My personal take is that as of last weekend we are now on the back foot - and going through with a protest right now plays into the hands of the politicians. What will happen is that SOPA/PIPA are effectively dead anyway (and were when the Whitehouse didn't outright support them), the press will cover this protest until it bores them and then, after the election, a lot of it will be slipped through under another name. A mass blackout has the most impact, from a media perspective, the first time. I worry that WP and others have essentially been goaded into misfiring. (I also note that Issa has backed off going after SOPA this week; which I suspect is the right way to play against a delaying tactic). I hope I'm wrong, but I am a little worried :(

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mike-cardwell 15y ago
FWIW, if you disable JavaScript, that test.wikipedia.org page isn't blacked out.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  Confirmed. I use NoScript and I saw no warning noticed until it was turned on.
gojomo 15y ago
Will there be a clickthrough to 'continue to Wikipedia' during the real blackout? If not, it's too bad the blackout can't link to the relevant articles to explain things. Of course the interests pushing the worst parts of SOPA/PIPA will keep trying to sneak it through in different forms, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. I'm reminded of the copyright industry's pro-DRM legislation from a decade ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_... When first proposed in 2001, it looked like a steamroller destined to expand the worst (anti-circumvention) parts of the DMCA. But tech backlash, plus the distraction of the 9/11 wars, meant by mid-2002 it was shelved, and the same idea hasn't returned as a credible legislative threat. Surely it will, and will need to be fought again, but it shows territory can be won for years/decades, rather than just months, and the battle-lines can shift over time in net-freedom's favor, just as well as against it.
colanderman 15y ago
The current test page is total weaksauce: 1. It resembles in all forms a pop-up Flash ad. The 2-second delay after loading, the black background, the "continue to Wikipedia" link at the top. I click those away instinctively (almost did this one!) and I suspect many many users will as well. How to fix this: the page should be black by default, and the click-through link should be "below the fold" or similarly hidden. 2. The text is a featureless block. Its format -- small, justified columns with minimal inter-paragraph spacing -- looks like an ad masquerading as a newspaper blurb. This reinforces the click-through reflex. 3. The title sucks. "The Internet Must Protect Free Speech" doesn't address the problem I'm having, nor indicate that this is something more than an ad -- Wikipedia is black! A much better title would be "Why is Wikipedia Black?" -- this simultaneously indicates that this is something more than an ad, and entices the reader to read so they understand why. 4. The text is weak. Let's look at the first lines of each paragraph; these are by far the most important because they're what's read when the eye skims: "For over a decade, global volunteers have..." --> bla bla typical Wikipedia advert fluff. Better would be "Until today, Wikipedia volunteers have been able to..."; the "until" indicates that something's different. "We have only been able to do this because the..." --> almost entirely helper words. The only word of substance in this entire line is "able". Much better would be "Only the freedom and openness of the Internet makes this possible." "However, the United States Congress is currently..." --> this paragraph NEEDS to mention SOPA. It's on CNN; people have heard about it and making that connection helps. Furthermore, "repressive censorship tools capable of destroying..." is ridiculously vague. Say exactly what power SOPA gives and why it's dangerous to Wikipedia. "Please, consider whether a free and open..." --> no no no. Don't tell me to "please consider" an abstract concept. That doesn't help one bit. "Contact your representatives in Congress using the tool below to help maintain a free and open Internet." is a better call to action. EDIT: This suggestion is pretty decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Proposed_Messages#Draft_messages_on_click-through_.28short_FAQ_.2B_what_you_can_do.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Propo...

by ErrantX 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mike-cardwell 15y ago

FWIW, if you disable JavaScript, that test.wikipedia.org page isn't blacked out.

RexRollman 15y ago
Confirmed. I use NoScript and I saw no warning noticed until it was turned on.

gojomo 15y ago

Will there be a clickthrough to 'continue to Wikipedia' during the real blackout? If not, it's too bad the blackout can't link to the relevant articles to explain things. Of course the interests pushing the worst parts of SOPA/PIPA will keep trying to sneak it through in different forms, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. I'm reminded of the copyright industry's pro-DRM legislation from a decade ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_... When first proposed in 2001, it looked like a steamroller destined to expand the worst (anti-circumvention) parts of the DMCA. But tech backlash, plus the distraction of the 9/11 wars, meant by mid-2002 it was shelved, and the same idea hasn't returned as a credible legislative threat. Surely it will, and will need to be fought again, but it shows territory can be won for years/decades, rather than just months, and the battle-lines can shift over time in net-freedom's favor, just as well as against it.

colanderman 15y ago

The current test page is total weaksauce: 1. It resembles in all forms a pop-up Flash ad. The 2-second delay after loading, the black background, the "continue to Wikipedia" link at the top. I click those away instinctively (almost did this one!) and I suspect many many users will as well. How to fix this: the page should be black by default, and the click-through link should be "below the fold" or similarly hidden. 2. The text is a featureless block. Its format -- small, justified columns with minimal inter-paragraph spacing -- looks like an ad masquerading as a newspaper blurb. This reinforces the click-through reflex. 3. The title sucks. "The Internet Must Protect Free Speech" doesn't address the problem I'm having, nor indicate that this is something more than an ad -- Wikipedia is black! A much better title would be "Why is Wikipedia Black?" -- this simultaneously indicates that this is something more than an ad, and entices the reader to read so they understand why. 4. The text is weak. Let's look at the first lines of each paragraph; these are by far the most important because they're what's read when the eye skims: "For over a decade, global volunteers have..." --> bla bla typical Wikipedia advert fluff. Better would be "Until today, Wikipedia volunteers have been able to..."; the "until" indicates that something's different. "We have only been able to do this because the..." --> almost entirely helper words. The only word of substance in this entire line is "able". Much better would be "Only the freedom and openness of the Internet makes this possible." "However, the United States Congress is currently..." --> this paragraph NEEDS to mention SOPA. It's on CNN; people have heard about it and making that connection helps. Furthermore, "repressive censorship tools capable of destroying..." is ridiculously vague. Say exactly what power SOPA gives and why it's dangerous to Wikipedia. "Please, consider whether a free and open..." --> no no no. Don't tell me to "please consider" an abstract concept. That doesn't help one bit. "Contact your representatives in Congress using the tool below to help maintain a free and open Internet." is a better call to action. EDIT: This suggestion is pretty decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Proposed_Messages#Draft_messages_on_click-through_.28short_FAQ_.2B_what_you_can_do.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Propo...