4 ms·

Your point about information rationing as power is valid, but there is a fundamental threat to the existence of the internet as is, and I think given that wikip

Your point about information rationing as power is valid, but there is a fundamental threat to the existence of the internet as is, and I think given that wikipedia relies on that freedom its important for them to make this point firmly. I don't think law and medicine are good comparisons here. Lawyers should defend people they dislike because they believe in the value of the adversarial system in teasing out justice from subjectivity. Doctors treat all people because there is no credible way to value one life over another that does not ultimately trace its source to prejudice. Wikipedia sees SOPA as a fundamental threat to itself and the internet in general. Users of the internet should be made aware of the stakes. Nobody will die or lose their freedom from Wikipedia strongly making this point to its users. (A slight caveat being that most doctors I know turn to wikipedia/google multiple times a day for clarifications of diagnoses or to provide hypotheses for a given set of symptoms that they hadn't previously considered. I guess someone could die from the absence of this resource, but mostly doctors use them because its easier than logging into one of the medical databases and more up-to-date).

gojomo 15y ago
'Making aware' does not require withholding service. I tend to think any line of reasoning that begins, "this is such a fundamental threat to our survival that normal practice must be discarded" is a signifier of panicked groupthink, most common in war and campaign season, but that's just me. As of today, Wikipedia is an always-on information utility. As of Thursday, it will be also understood as an occasional lobbyist/information-withholding-disciplinarian. And I hadn't thought about the effect on medical/safety reference during the blackout period until earlier today. Given the large numbers of professionals and laypeople who rely on Wikipedia (far more than they should!), it's possible someone somewhere will die because of the blackout. updated to add: The health risk applies via the Reddit blackout, too. For some people, this is the support community from which they get urgent life guidance. See for example: http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_saved_this_morning_by_reddit/?limit=500 http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_sa...
- lnguyen 15y ago
  "It's possible someone somewhere will die" That's a bit extreme isn't it? But if Wikipedia (or any other site) is that important of a resource, imagine what would happen if it disappeared as a result of being blacklisted by SOPA/PIPA or an equivalent piece of legislation. They're perfectly in their right to advocate against a misguided effort that could threaten and impair their ability to function/exist.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    You're presenting a 'false dilemma': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (link may be broken due to political protest) The only people currently taking Wikipedia offline are Wikipedians themselves. Anything else is hypothetical and unlikely.
    - lnguyen 15y ago
      Hypothetical and unlikely? You're talking about legislation that is supported (if not written by) groups that don't exactly have a sparkling track record of being reasonable and not abusing any bit of power that they're given or feel that they're entitled to. Take the Universal/Megaupload fiasco for example. The Wikipedians are taking action so that "unlikely" isn't even a possibility. And while Wikipedia may be a central resource, it's not the only or primary source of information (see all the citations). At most it'll be an inconvenience but one that will prove a point.
- gillygize 15y ago
  That is a good point, and I agree with your argument that this boycott is a significant turning point for Wikipedia and other websites. If we think about the reason that the boycott exists, however, which is the danger that this legislation will allow Wikipedia to be taken offline without adequate recourse, then suggesting that "it is possible that someone somewhere" will die because of the blackout could similarly lead to an argument like, "if SOPA is passed, it is possible that someone somewhere will die" due to the Wikipedia (or some other website) being taken offline.

gojomo 15y ago

'Making aware' does not require withholding service. I tend to think any line of reasoning that begins, "this is such a fundamental threat to our survival that normal practice must be discarded" is a signifier of panicked groupthink, most common in war and campaign season, but that's just me. As of today, Wikipedia is an always-on information utility. As of Thursday, it will be also understood as an occasional lobbyist/information-withholding-disciplinarian. And I hadn't thought about the effect on medical/safety reference during the blackout period until earlier today. Given the large numbers of professionals and laypeople who rely on Wikipedia (far more than they should!), it's possible someone somewhere will die because of the blackout. updated to add: The health risk applies via the Reddit blackout, too. For some people, this is the support community from which they get urgent life guidance. See for example: http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_saved_this_morning_by_reddit/?limit=500 http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_sa...

lnguyen 15y ago
"It's possible someone somewhere will die" That's a bit extreme isn't it? But if Wikipedia (or any other site) is that important of a resource, imagine what would happen if it disappeared as a result of being blacklisted by SOPA/PIPA or an equivalent piece of legislation. They're perfectly in their right to advocate against a misguided effort that could threaten and impair their ability to function/exist.
- gojomo 15y ago
  You're presenting a 'false dilemma': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (link may be broken due to political protest) The only people currently taking Wikipedia offline are Wikipedians themselves. Anything else is hypothetical and unlikely.
  - lnguyen 15y ago
    Hypothetical and unlikely? You're talking about legislation that is supported (if not written by) groups that don't exactly have a sparkling track record of being reasonable and not abusing any bit of power that they're given or feel that they're entitled to. Take the Universal/Megaupload fiasco for example. The Wikipedians are taking action so that "unlikely" isn't even a possibility. And while Wikipedia may be a central resource, it's not the only or primary source of information (see all the citations). At most it'll be an inconvenience but one that will prove a point.
gillygize 15y ago
That is a good point, and I agree with your argument that this boycott is a significant turning point for Wikipedia and other websites. If we think about the reason that the boycott exists, however, which is the danger that this legislation will allow Wikipedia to be taken offline without adequate recourse, then suggesting that "it is possible that someone somewhere" will die because of the blackout could similarly lead to an argument like, "if SOPA is passed, it is possible that someone somewhere will die" due to the Wikipedia (or some other website) being taken offline.