3 ms·
"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 wo
by 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 agoYou'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 agoHypothetical 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.