Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Discussion resumes wednesday?

https://twitter.com/#!/jasoninthehouse/status/147819972498948097

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57344536-503544/sopa-bill-to-stop-online-piracy-hits-minor-snag-in-house/ – It appears so. @Geoff: Can you please update Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative#Mark-Up_Update to reflect this announcement? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A schematic visualization of the legislative process. SOPA is in the yellow stage in Markup. Compare to Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Process and Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Rough Legislative Timeline.
According to Darrell Issa tweet, Judiciary has scheduled the rest of #SOPA markup next Wednesday, Dec. 21 at 9 AM EST.
How did the hearing adjourn? Chaffetz offered to withdraw his amendment, asking for 2 hearings, one classified briefing with experts from NSA, Department of Defense, Homeland security; and a public hearing with experts like Leonard Napolitano (watch here). Then chairman Lamar Smith adjourned, "I do expect to resume markup at the next, earliest practical day that congress is in session" (watch here). So I don't really understand if wednesday will be the (classified?) hearing with experts? --Atlasowa (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, SOPA markup is postponed to january 2012 (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#New Update: Wednesday House SOPA Mark-up Postponed!). See also Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Process and Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Rough Legislative Timeline. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Action on monday?

Some (non WP) people are advocating action on Monday I believe. I wonder how many people will actually be taking action then though. Should we set a trigger for then?

  • IF $day=="Monday" && $others_protesting THEN take($action);

Note it might be unwise to use our most powerful forms of action first, because there might be follow-on proposals to SOPA we may also need to worry about.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, could we just do a press release, and maybe a banner? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • concur for strategic reasons, escalation better binds the community of action. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalled

No, not the bill, us. Everybody seems to have made up their mind and nobody is changing thier position. We don't seem to be making any headway on what to do. We have missed several opportunities to do something. Not deciding is the same as deciding to take no action in the eyes of the general public. Is that what we want as a community? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 01:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. No action is often seen passive support because people aren't willing to get their act together and do something.∞陣内Jinnai 01:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You're free - and I encourage you - to take action as a citizen, and to advocate others take action similarly. Whether Wikipedia itself should take action is not at all clear to me. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Wikipedia itself even could do anything significant, though I must disclaim I'm very bad at politics. But if any sort of "strike" or "blackout" has any effect, then it involves some very entangling problems regarding backlash and blow-back (that's one thing I have indeed learned from politics :-(). No effects without side-effects. Anyone who thinks this stuff comes cheap is mistaken (or being sold a bill of goods). You do not deploy your cyber-powers, have the villain crumble before your awesomeness, and go back to the wikicave until the next time evil arises. It's more like the Middle East - endless skirmishes, sometimes big battles. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started a couple of discussions on when to do something: Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Trigger and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#When_to_act.3F. It seems that everyone would rather participate in the voting and not the planning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It's bad timing for userbase to really get active. There is short notice and its just before Christmas and New Years.∞陣内Jinnai 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not be too narrow-minded about what "action" is. As I posted on the 13th, just talking here already made the news. [1] And editing the articles helps people understand and makes them better debaters against the insiders. Applied politics can be more vocal and visible, but not necessarily sure. Suppose we convinced the Senate committee to adopt an amendment curbing the bill - does that make it more likely to be signed by Obama? Just because Wikipedia is diffuse, not monolithic, thoughtful, not rash, doesn't make it impotent - rather that is the essence of the new democratic power underlying many efforts for reform. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow and wednesday are the last 2 days to kill this in committee. Can we do it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Page for questions

I think we should have someplace where we discuss what would happen to actual Wikipedia pages in their current versions under the law. I started Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Questions for this. But I've not attempted to provide the answers... Anyone think this is a good idea? Or a bad one for that matter? Wnt (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I vote somewhere?

I see no poll on this topic, how can I make my voice heard? I do support any possible steps to protest against SOPA. For example, but not limited to: Making the English version of Wikipedia display blank pages for a duration of some weeks, or as long as it takes. The proposed SOPA law will possibly ruin the Internet as we know it, and because of the seriousness of this threat, severe measures are necessary. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative#Concrete_proposals_workshop and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Coordinated_SOPA_reaction_in_early_2012_RfC. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite see where there's an option to vote, there are several discussion threads and proposals, but the "concrete proposals" seemed to be about triggers only and not actions. So are we a still in process of finalizing an actual poll (do we have time frame)? Or do I simply misread the whole thing?--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians prefer discussing to voting. You're here to contribute to the discussion; you aren't here solely to add to a statistic. You need to raise points or concerns that haven't been voiced out previously; you need to make a statement, an impression. Consensus isn't solely about numbers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of Wikipedians prefer discussing to voting and Consensus. Nevertheless that does not change the occasional need or appropriateness for a poll on concrete issues, in particular in this case. At some point this is needed to see how the overall community (or at least its part being interested/involved in the issue) stands on various concerns/statement and opinions. Simply adding an often somewhat redundant comment in a(an often long and convoluted) discussion thread is no replacement for that and in some cases not even helpful. Last but not least there it is resource/time/efficiency issue here as well, a lot of people might be interested to (quickly) support a reasonable clear proposal (via poll), but they may not have the time of following all the details of the preliminary often rather long discussion and to get involved in it. That's why important (policy/project) issues should produce a poll with clear alternatives in the end, unless the preliminary discussion revealed an overwhelming consensus to begin with.
As far as "what I'm here for" is concerned, you can leave that one to me.
Another which I currently don't quite understand is the status of the actions. There is a list of partially conflicting options, but almost no discussion (contrary to the trigger part). Is that deferred to later? Or is there a (hidden) consensus that simply escaped me when fast reading the page?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There's going to be a watchlist message for drawing attention to these discussion. See MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#SOPA_RfC. Discussions beyond triggers can be found at Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative#Action_By_the_Wikipedia_Community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as the discussion of actions is concerned, the link you've posted, is the project page I was talking about - essentially a list of suggestions with almost no discussion and this is the part I don't get. We have a lot of people discussing triggers but they have no opinion on the actions? Or is there a hidden consensus regarding the actions that is simply not apparent from reading the section (or I'm to stupid to see)? I have no idea how one would evaluate that section for now. What conclusion do you draw from a list of potentially proposals with almost no discussion?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a hidden consensus regarding actions. Some want to feature articles on the Main Page, some want banners followed by a blackout, and some want banners without a blackout. These pages are filled with comments and users discussing and debating options. If something of interest to you isn't being discussed, then you're free to start a new thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where you get this from. Yes there is some discussion under the feature article suggestion and regarding the area/geolocation, but for all other suggestions only 4 of all the users discussing on this project made a comment (so far), but on different ones. So currently aside from the featured article option there isn't "some" on anything yet as far as the suggested actions are concerned.anyhow i'll wait and see how it develops (maybe it is still to early in the discussion).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think somehow we've ended up with the wrong structure for voting. I think just about everyone wants an informational banner about SOPA that alerts readers to what it is and its effects and that it's under consideration, and they want it right now. We shouldn't have to decide whether we want to shut down the site before we put up the banner. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a thought, (as opposed to a vote), is it technically possible to have every page load first a redirect to a primarily black SOPA information page (tha blackout), with an explanation and a direct call to action with links to the users (if American) representatives based on ip geolocation perhaps with a link to the actual information being requested at the bottom? It might even be possible to save a cookie to those that have already contacted their congresspeople/reps to make the black page time out in x seconds? Failing that I would miss Wikipedia for a few days a great deal less than I would miss it if it was gone forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.136.55 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see at the top of my watchlist a notice about Wikipedia:Binding RFCs, presumably inserted for the purpose of seeking additional opinions on a matter that may concern a large percentage of editors who aren't watching the pages about Wikipedia procedures. Is there a reason to be less vigorous in assuring that a large percentage know of a pending decision on whether Wikipedia should shut down? Jim.henderson (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA markup postponed

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2134110/sopa-hearing-postponed – Time is on our side again. Perhaps the triggers for the proposals should be revised. Due to this extra time, I feel that we should use banners (but not a blackout) and raise awareness before markup resumes. We're now presented with an opportunity to have an impact on the markup process, and we shouldn't waste it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How about some 100 line blank on top, followed by article. It is like big blank banner of height of 1000 pixel on top. People can scroll down to read/edit the wikipedia article below the blank space. Heading indexing (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an American thing. Do we have to suffer in Europe as well? Some protest is ok, but only on USA specific articles seems more appropriate. The Italians changed only their local pages, not yours. Productive New Year, ZeaForUs (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"suggestions to other tech-companies" as new section in article?

I think we should add a section to brainstorm ideas to suggest to non-Wikipedia companies. Some ideas I had.

  • Twitter: Show a banner above politicians who support the acts saying something like "Senator X votes to destroy the internet" (rather than blocking them).
  • Google: When searching for candidates display a helpful tidbit "Senator X supports censoring Google" in a similar format to their Population of X is Y helpful tidbits.
  • Facebook: Show a banner above politicians who support the acts similar to the twitter banner.

Do you have any more ideas or comments? I would like to add this to the main article, do you think it is appropriate? Lansey (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're getting into very dangerous territory there. Wikipedia CANNOT target specific politicians. See Geoffbrigham's comment above - "Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the Foundation though, which is governed by certain legal requirements as a not-for-profit. The community is not encumbered in that way. --Errant (chat!) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right, and certainly individual members of the community are free to denounce various politicians by name, and associate with others to do so. But I'd just recommend being careful about organizing it in ways which would seems to imply it is a Wikipedia SOPA initiative (which is the title of this article). Maybe I'm being over-cautious. I've been thinking about this topic overall (from an activism standpoint), and worrying about the possibility of backlash and potential attacks over it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddit blackout Jan. 18

FYI, Reddit will be having a site blackout on Jan. 18, as their blog post says. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Wikia is planning anything? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Kat -- I hadn't seen that. Seth, I don't know about Wikia -- I haven't talked with anyone there about this issue, and I haven't heard they're planning anything. Maybe somebody else here will know? And I will ping Jay to ask if he happens to know, since he's been connecting in with other interested parties such as Mozilla and EFF. (I am having lunch tomorrow with Shari Steele; if she tells me anything helpful about EFF's plans, I will also post that here.)
By the way, I am assuming this is the main page where discussion is happening. If there's another page, somebody please let me know :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
We have also got the german protest site, which mainly refers to this site. Something we could use there is an experts opinion, to whom we would have to speak to have our banner activated and if we can design our banner using the wiki syntax. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@Seth_Finkelstein: Try asking User:Angela. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'd like to keep any such queries I do on open, public, topical forums (nominally WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL), as I'm not exactly Wikia's favorite person (though I never had an argument with User:Angela, still, better safe than sorry). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Craiglpalmer/Wikia_to_move_our_500%2B_domains_from_GoDaddy_over_their_support_of_SOPA_legislation, https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/150637358570668032 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I was wondering more along the lines of anything dramatic and user-visible, like some advocate for Wikipedia. Arguably Wikia has much more to lose over SOPA than Wikipedia does, given that Wikia is advertising-based and uses much more, ahem, "fan" material. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not going to reach a consensus for any sort of complex action, not in time to be effective. Instead, could we place a banner on the home page or site notice (all pages) saying that many Wikipedia editors are concerned about what this law means to Wikipedia, and encourage readers to inform themselves and take whatever political action they choose. I think a calm message will be more effective than strident rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 06:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been nearly 90% support on Jimmy Wales user discussion, the discussion for the concrete prosposal #2 shows a clear support for this. The question is, how much consensus you want to reach. 100% will never be possible, there will always be someone who opposes something. The idea of a consensus should not install a blocking minority. The discussions for this issue have shown a clear support, so you cant say, that there was none. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The argument "There have been nearly 90% support on Jimmy Wales user discussion" is one reason I consider the process extremely tainted. There's no way a poll of that sort of audience is any kind of fair representation, especially given the way things went. To use it further is thoroughly unjustified, to put it within WP:CIVIL terms. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no way to use a discussion in Userspace to justify an unprecedented action. A user talk page watchers are not representative of the community. Where is there a clear consensus on the page that has been properly announced via something like WP:CENT? Jehochman Talk 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=465270828&oldid=465155895 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This argument tends to neglect the history of the debatte and the structure of such debates. This issue has been started by Wales on his user discussion. The OSM uses "Working Groups" for organisational issues. They get a general legitimation and working on the concrete issue with less participation from the "public". This here is something similar, there has been the legitimation on Wales user discussion and now people are working on the details. We can not allow something like a second vote by the minority in the first vote. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. So, it seems like there is a good enough consensus to move forward with proposal 2. Who is going to implement this? Has somebody made the banner and the target page already so that they are ready to go? Jehochman Talk 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Something, that could be disucessed here is, if a blackout should take before the votes. Prosposal #2 suggests, that the blackout should take place, if the bill has passed the house of representatives, but there were also people, who wanted to blackout with Reddit at January 18th. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW: Could someone from the WMF make a stetement about what would need to be prepared for which action? The WMF opperates the server and uses to maintain the bannes, so they should make a comment here. We need technicans for installing anything. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no comparison between OSM "Working Groups" and a talk-page discussion held by someone in such a social position, with the ability to marginalize opposition in that context. It might be comparable to Congressional committees, where the head of the committee can use his or her status and powers to bias the process. But backroom strongarming politics isn't a good example to follow. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Drafting an RfC proposal for a Jan 18th SOPA protest

cross posted at Jimbo's and WP:VPP

I'd like to try and very quickly put together a clear, concise RfC proposal, that could run in the next few days. There is little time for ideas to be refined, so it has to be simple, minimally disagreeable, easy to implement quickly, and effective. U.S. tech experts are testifying to congress next week and numerous large websites including Reddit are going to be totally blacked out. Instituting a full blackout on Jan 18th would cause too much uproar, but I think we should do something, and it should be noticeable. Here's the sketch of what I think that should look like.

Proposal outline:

  • Jan 18th
  • 9am - 9pm Eastern Standard Time (New York)
  • Full page click-through information page (no editing lock-out or blackout)
  • Geotargeted for U.S. readers
  • Providing general info about the bill and congressional contact info
Why do it this way

Why protest SOPA?

  • Under SOPA the infrastructure of the internet is compromised
  • Third-party sites can be liable for infringing content
  • Payments to websites can be stopped without trial
  • Non-US sites can be blocked
  • Vague language gives government regulatory power
  • Mimics techniques of repressive regimes
  • Chilling effect on internet freedom
  • SOPA conflicts with Wikipedia's core mission of spreading the collective knowledge of humanity

Why now?

  • U.S. congress is starting its January session
  • Internet and tech experts are testifying to Congress about SOPA on Jan 18.
  • Major websites including Reddit are blacking out in protest on Jan 18.
  • The Senate is starting hearings on PIPA Jan 24.

Why a click-through information page?

  • Presents timely and specific information without disrupting core site function
  • A blackout or lockout are less likely to gain consensus
  • A mere banner is easily ignored

Why geotargeted to the US?

  • The legislation, though global in impact, must pass through US congress
  • A global protest would affect users who are more likely to find it irrelevant
  • Gaining consensus is less likely if the protest scope is wider

What we need for this to happen:

  • Minimal consensus on the above points
  • Detailed language for the RfC
  • Listing at WP:CENT and a site-wide central notice banner

Is this a viable outline? Who's interested in helping put an RfC together in the next 24-48 hours? Ocaasi t | c 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: timing, I'd make sure any blackout also covered the west coast evening period (so say til midnight EST). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's 5 days from now. We don't decide AfDs in that time period. what needs to happen is this:

  • Propose a US only blackout on the 18th.
  • Write up a short blurb for the RfC outlining the proposal(<3 paragraphs)
  • Write a neutral notice for CENT and a watchlist notice

That's it. We don't need to recapitulate the entire discussion in the RfC, it will just waste time and we don't have time. Protonk (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, keeping it simple is essential. When you say blackout, you mean no editing or article viewing? I don't think that will pass RfC. Thoughts?Ocaasi t | c 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea, take a look at the project page for some of the suggestions. We'd probably get consensus for another banner like the fundraising banners if we got a consensus at all. But I doubt there is time for even that. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The proposed idea is to have a full-page click-through. It's more noticeable than a banner but doesn't interfere with editing or reading. Ocaasi t | c 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WMF staff required at german protest site

We would need someone from the WMF at the german organisation site to coordinate the action. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page there. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

EU SOPA/PIPA style regulation proposed

As per this article linked below, the EU is proposing SOPA and PIPA style regulation where content providers could ask ISPs and payment processors to block access to websites and as with SOPA/PIPA, no mention of a trial or day in court for the accused, Would any EU legalisation be included within any campaigning for the SOPA Initative or a separate campaign by the Wikimedia Foundation? The fear is that SOPA and PIPA style regulation have reached Europe.

Source: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-commission-paves-the-way-for-privatized-net-censorship --tgheretford (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is ACTA, a very weird international agreement on terrible things, including internet censorship. In my opinion, ACTA is an argument for protesting against SOPA in Europe. Many Eiropean Citizens are not aware of the latest initiatives for internet censorship. If we could arange at least banners at the french, the spanisch and the italian Wikipedia - just to mention the major editions- we could make internet censorship an important issue for at least some days. User:Liberaler Humanist via his second account AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith Struggeling

Smith says, that he could imagine SOPA without the DNS Censorship to get forward with the rest of his prosposal. However, no clear promises have been made and this move does not really change anything for Wikipedia, as the DNS-Filtering would not have really affected our .org-Domain. Link: [2] --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia is legally a charity - are such political acts allowed?

Don't charities lose their tax free exemption in USA for political advocacy? Could a blackout be seen as some form of in-kind contribution in any way for doing this? Herp Derp (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The total prohibition only applies to contributions to specific candidates and parties; lobbying is only prohibited if they constitute a substantial or main part of the activities, defined as urging people to vote a certain way; other actions are not lobbying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The two important bits there are "a substantial part" and "if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.". If en.wp prevents reading articles and puts up a message that indicates that readers should contact the plutocrats they keep voting for, it could be argued that because en.wp is a substantial part of the WMF (US legislators will probably ignore commons and the other languages), the WMF should lose its status. -- Jeandré, 2011-12-17t08:08z
Did you just attempt to supply legal advice? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
??? It's a discussion; Herp Derp is not asking for advice about a legal matter s/he is involved in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This question has already been answered by Geoff in the 2011-12-15 IRC office hour on SOPA, read after [18:14:02]. But feel free to debate this endlessly, while the US "I'm not a nerd, but..." Judiciary Committee passes SOPA next wednesday, without actually having a clue of its technological (who needs DNSSEC anyway?) or legal (immunity, whatever?) ramifications.--Atlasowa (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the posting of banners or a blackout landing page that immediately redirects users to call Congress arguably raises issues about lobbying restrictions. In short, these activities, as others may suggest, might be considered lobbying. That said, Wikimedia can engage in lobbying activities as long as such engagement is "insubstantial" compared to overall activity. Insubstantial is not defined, and is based on the particular facts and circumstances. One possible consideration is that total lobbying for a tax year, under a conservative reading, should be less than 5% of total activities (though, I should say, some may say that this is not in itself determinative as to whether lobbying is insubstantial).

Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I believe that we are a 501(c)(3) and lobbying and/or protesting on behalf of a political topic could adversely affect Wikipedia. That is why calling and/or contacting politicians on our own would be more advisable. Mugginsx (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue should not be what Wikipedia legally CAN do but what it SHOULD do. Legally, Wikipedia can be as biased as it wants to be. But bias is and ought to be a violation of Wikipedia's principles. I see from the lobbyist registration that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't just hired an expensive DC lobbyist for "Copyright/Patent/Trademark" but for "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties". Even if the government allows a small amount of tax-deductible money to be diverted to civil liberties lobbying, that does not mean that this OUGHT to be done, and I fail to see where in Wikipedia's neutrality policy there is an exception for civil liberties issues.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links

Forgive the language, but Holy Crap! There are so many listings there that really pinpoint the specific problems and repercussions of these Bills and their direct effect on consumers, small businesses, start-ups, etc. So much information in general here that helps someone (even like me) to understand, and also gain a wider grasp of where the Legislators are at...What can we do with this?! Petersontinam (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To be frank, the blog link is ok for Wikipedia namespace page, but definitely inappropriate for the article SOPA. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, but there are many links there that would be great for editors and people (like me) to gain a better understanding...and also links to articles and opinion pieces that point out "real life" consequences. These consequences have, so far, been very difficult to shrink down into Draft Messages or info for the readers. I'm just thinking that someone may be able to pick and choose from these to show (easy to understand) reasons to support opposition to the Bills. I'm not trying to say users of Wikipedia are not intelligent, just tryng to say that looking at the actual language of legislation is complicated and daunting. It's important to have some kind of reference that puts it to you in "layman's" terms. There are many to choose from within that blog. So, yes not for the article itself, but I think still very useful. Petersontinam (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's Find a Way that Does Not Betray Public Trust

When someone considered essential to public services "goes on strike", they deserve the resentment that builds in the public in response to their action. They are holding hostage a thing of value, that has no ready alternative elsewhere, in a way that's more extortion than protest.

This is why people correctly despise police and fire departments who strike. Wikipedia may be a private entity, not criminally harming others by withholding a government-mandated monopoly, but it's still seen as a unique, indispensable resource...and surely we who work here all agree that it is, to one extent or another. The resentment that would explode from cutting it off would be tremendous.

And the fact that the badguys are only a few politicians and organizations, but the whole world would be the victim of the cut-off, would just exacerbate that. People would start to say "hey, we shouldn't depend on someone who could just shut us off on a whim, what could we use as an alternative?"

And, if we betray their trust in that way, they should.

When a cartel tried to restrict the supply of tin in the 1970s, the response of the world was to start buying aluminum, until the price of tin collapsed, and NEVER recovered. Economies of scale had, purely because of the cartel shifting demand, finally made aluminum a real competitor, and it's superior for most applications.

Let's not betray their trust and drive them elsewhere. --Kaz (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That argument assumes that people would just readily change their source of information. Sure, if Wikipedia goes offline for 12 hours, some people will be angry, but those who already use Wikipedia as a primary source won't simply stop using it. As you said, Wikipedia is seen as "a unique, indispensable resource"...where would they go to? And besides, a complete blackout isn't the only issue being floated around, there are ideas of partial blackouts, specifically targeted ones (geographically), and even ones with frequency caps. Surely those alternatives are acceptable? --haha169 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You are only making an argument to the practical half of my point, not the ethical one. An entity that will arbitrarily cut you off, when YOU haven't done anything wrong, in a sort of tantrum directed at someone else, is not trustworthy. This will prove the very Wikipedia authorities who are doing it to be corrupt and unreliable. It will color people's impressions, and alter their behavior, for a long time to come...and it should. --Kaz (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

other wikipedias

But why don't you ask people from other wikipedias, I wonder? May be we also support this project, but we want to vote this initiative too. How can you decide our destiny without our opinion. Yes, we want internet to be always free, we understand, that the USA are the motherland of many editors and readers. United States also are the home of our common WM foundation, it is the place, where project's servers are situated, and we know that all content in all the language sections has to depend on the State's of Florida laws. But why couldn't you make this votation not in the one of the wikipedias, but in our common meta-wiki? What's the problem? Where have we to find wiki-Bolotnaya square to protest this votation? Can tou return us our stolen voices or not? Wanwa II (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a simple user from russian wikipedia. Of course I have there semi-admin rights of closer (I can delete articles, for example, but can't block other users). Also I write there articles, some of them are good, one of them I want to make featured. I think I do only good to my project. Why mustn't my voice be heard here? Wanwa II (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Something you could do is trying to set up a banner for the russian Wikipedia, that can be displayed over every page on January 18. We have made a banner and an Information Site at the german Wikipedia, someone would just need to translate it and change a few words, you can find it here: [3]. The banner can be used with the Sitenotice-Feature. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a burocrat at nl.wiktionary and a sysop at af.wiki and I have started discussions about what to do in response there and at nl.wiki. It.wiki already has a discussion. nl.wiktionary will probably fly a banner in support. We need to stick together on this. Jcwf (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exposure

As a semi-active editor who would be negatively affected by a blackout, I'm extremely disappointed that this proposal was not publicized more prominently. I had seen talk of possible actions, but I had no idea that the proposed date was coming up so quickly. Powers T 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you weren't aware. However, the proposal has been on Centralised Discussion for over a month. — Pretzels Hii! 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As a semi-active editor who came across the news of this blackout on the Drudge report rather than WP, I cannot possibly more strongly support the blackout, and wish it to be entire, rather than soft, and will both donate money to the project for the first time and, should he veto any SOPA or PIPA bill, vote for the re-election of America's worst p[resident since LBJ. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with User:LtPowers. My edit history will show I'm not an inactive user, yet I was completely unaware of these proposals until notified by a friend this evening. I'd question how many specialised editors like myself are even aware of the Centralised Discussion page, let alone frequent visitors to it. I strongly feel that any action which had the potential to result in something as drastic as a site backout, should have been advertised proactively to all users, by banners or talkpage messages, rather than reactively, meaning that users had to have read specific pages to be aware of the proposals.

For the record, I would go along with any user consensus, but my personal opinion, as a UK-based editor who isn't directly interested in domestic US politics, would be that any blackout should be US-only, and shouldn't affect non-US users of the site. EJBH (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm the most active user, but I didn't know about it either (and,I assume it's too late now, but I really think it is a very unwise idea - it's politicizing Wikipedia and setting a very bad precedent; which IMO could do just as much if not more damage to Wikipedia.) Vultur (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can a banner notification be placed over watchlists notifying editors of the decision? Nobody Ent 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoever's in charge of the banner - there's a typo. It should read "In less than 29 hours", not "In less then 29 hours".... Dohn joe (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It should also read "fewer," and not "less." The Haz talk 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling in the banner

The banner says: "Please note: In less then 29 hours, he English Wikipedia will be blacked out globally in protest of SOPA and PIPA."
It's "than", not "then". --nlitement [talk] 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it also "fewer" not "less"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "Please note: in fewer than xx hours, the English Wikipedia will be globally blacked out in protest of SOPA and PIPA." leading to of course "Please note: in one hour,..." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fewer is more correct for measurable items like hours. Less is for amounts of hard to measure stuff. Less sand, or less grains of rice.
I'll let it get away with the less/fewer distinction because it's talking about a continuous scale rather than a number of whole objects. However, it's just wrong about the then/than distinction. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Time is continuous, hours are countable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Jalexander (talk · contribs) created the banner. And now it's turned off. Hopefully someone will fix the error soon because it's embarrassing. Goodvac (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

Dear lord, guys. "Please note: In less then 29 hours [...]" Fix that now.

Uh... nevermind, someone else pointed that out.

Fixed. Goodvac (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Is it possible for someone to create a lead that summarises the stages any decisions are at? At the momment it is difficult for people to understand the gist of what is going on without trawling through a substantial amount of information (for an international audience there is little context to explain 'Issa's office's response to Cantors comments'..) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For someone who has no idea what's going on, a clearer more concise summary/intro is in order. This article causes information overload. Also please, for the love of god, someone fix the "then" in the banner. 93.173.152.130 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I've found the summary - however it would be nice if it was the first thing the reader sees. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blog down

Is it me, or is the blog keep timing out. You should probably add some servers to the blog to handle the enormous traffic its gonna get. No point in providing a link if its gonna time out.Smallman12q (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored after removal by ipSmallman12q (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MAKE IT BIG!

I totally agree with Jimmy Wales and his decision to close Wikipedia in protest of the evil SOPA initiative.

SOPA is yet another case of the few greedy rich at the top who think they can bully millions (if not BILLIONS) of people around the world. Wikipedia is right to close for the day against this evil SOPA, which will see the end to freedom of speech on the internet. Wikipedia should make this big and when people try to access Wikipedia during the shutdown period, there should be a big notice saying why Wikipedia is against SOPA and the top reasons why. Get the message across.

Let's not give-in to the greedy capitalists who live off the expense of the poor. If you don't think this works, I suggest you read about the McLibel case.

Here's a link to a video telling the truth about SOPA and how it affects people outside of the USA as well: video about SOPA.

As an editor on Wikipedia, I don't like lies or carefully worded "spin" being present on ANY Wikipedia page. I am not afraid to tell the truth and expose lies!

I can't guarantee reading everyone's reply here, but do think carefully about the future and the serious problems SOPA would create for sites like Wikipedia. Everyone would be too afraid to do anything online!

That's plenty from me. It's 2 a.m. GMT and I'm tired.

Thanks for reading. TurboForce (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unintended consequences

I've been vaguely aware of this SOPA issue rumbling along in the background, but was away this weekend and was rather surprised to see that in just 3-4 days a huge poll had sprung up and been closed (I clearly chose the wrong weekend to be busy). It is too late to express an opinion as an editor, but as someone who looks things up daily on Wikipedia, both at work and at home, I wanted to say something as a reader and consumer of Wikipedia.

One of the things I've realised as I look things up on the internet (daily for over ten years), is both how useful Wikipedia is, and also how it is only a starting point. Often the information I'm looking for is actually on another website, or in an online scan of a book (Google Books is often far more useful), and in many cases I need to go to that source to confirm the details (rather than relying on what the Wikipedia page says). The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia, while useful, is not essential (unless the source is offline and cannot be confirmed independently elsewhere online). What many people may realise, during this blackout, is that they don't actually need Wikipedia. They need the internet, yes, but once a service is interrupted people naturally go looking elsewhere and they may realise they don't need to use Wikipedia to find the information they were looking for. This applies especially if there are more blackouts in future.

I realise the existence of mirrors and caches makes the above argument a bit redundant, and I realise that the proposed legislation could affect other sources of information, but I for one will be using Wednesday (well, looks more like Thursday now) to see if it actually makes any difference and whether Wikipedia is that essential or not. Also, I think for many consumers of Wikipedia, this blackout will see Wikipedia move in their mind from being an anonymous online encyclopedia to being a community of editors with opinions. I do hope the WMF publicity people are ready to deal with the news stories on this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are the first person who has pointed this out, I believe. Out of miles and miles of suggestions, opinions, etc., you are the only one who has thought about those types of unintended consequences...What an eye-opener! What you have said is something I wish everyone could see right now and so very valid, in my opinion. I don't think the proposed blackout is going to stop, like a train without brakes, but I hope what you have mentioned does not come to pass. Petersontinam (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have a button on the blackout page to access the encyclopedia in an emergency. We should also have an invitation for people to create an account and join the community. A good unintended consequence would be recruiting new editors. Jehochman Talk 02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What emergency requires someone to be able to access an online encyclopedia? And adding more stuff will dilute the central message here. Though I wonder where people will go to complain about typos in the banner... Will the meta site still be up and running? Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually last year's WMF appeal for "stories" brought several from people working in ER/casualty wards who said it is regularly used and vital ... (I know, I know) Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The Invitation is a positive thing to offer up. Very interesting about people working in ER's...what I worry about is Students needing access. I don't know if it can easily be explained to young students that in an effort to protest censorship...we are blocking them from accessing information. Petersontinam (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Librarians strike. Nurses strike. Doctors strike. Fire fighters strike. Aircraft pilots strike. Teachers strike. And occasionally a volunteer run encyclopaedia may boycott the provision of a day's worth of updates and the "officially stamped and approved" version of its free encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think some of those are Australia-only. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the ones I mentioned are legal during registered bargaining periods after notifications in Australia, but this may of course not be true in other countries. OTOH, legality and the taking of industrial action do not go hand in hand. I didn't even mention the military contexts of Australian industrial relations. I'm not aware of any restraints on volunteer encyclopaedia boycotts in Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there an emergency that requires turning off English Wikipedia? The vote isnt going to happen. It is now a FUD campaign. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. Which is why I made the comment about the WMF publicity people. In theory someone could start a new poll to halt the blackout, but what should really have been done (and others noticed this as well) is make the blackout conditional and given someone the authority to stop it if circumstances changed. Hopefully someone at the WMF will realise this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is one of our five pillars. There was a long discussion and a decision was made. If we are unable to, at some point, end a debate and act then we are paralyzed and no longer a functioning entity. Nobody Ent 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Congress writes many laws that authorize the president to do (or not do) something if he certifies certain conditions to be in effect. We've tried to micro manage this through a poll, and can't react swiftly enough to developing events. Whatever happens, it's only 24 hours. Emergency access would be a good idea. In a distressed situation somebody can get Wikipedia on a mobile phone. Who knows what sort of helpful info they might look up. (What kind of snake is this? How do I restart an airplane engine? etc.) I was once in a hotel where my wife found a bug. I used Wikipedia to determine that it was in fact a bed bug, at which point we had to go to another hotel. You might not think this was an emergency, but she did. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There's enough Wikipedia mirrors to duplicate the content of the site. --Rschen7754 03:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cloning the site

Since you guys are doing this, I'm going to clone as many articles as I can and get ready for the next Wikipedia blackout so I get all your traffic!  :) 24.16.225.9 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But i'll gonna warn you.maybe one of us will file you a case because of this.only you have to do is to make a bot(is that possible?)to copy others pages and send them a notification about what are you doing.you have 24 hours left!!!--John kaiser (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many full mirrors of Wikipedia already on the web, and you are entitled to do so, but please don't use web crawlers or spiders (instead use a database dump). Dcoetzee 07:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep "contact Wikipedia" link in sidebar, and pages on SOPA/PIPA

In addition to contacting congresspeople, visitors will very likely want to

  • Read and write about the bills themselves
  • Contact Wikipedia (to support or complain)

It would be a pity if they couldn't learn the details in 1. It would suck for the EFF if people who wanted to do 2. were all writing directly to the EFF (which has nothing like OTRS to distribute such a surge of interest and flames).

66.31.200.47 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

"less THAN", not "less THEN".

Absolutely embarrassing.


Yeah, I was a little perturbed to see a typo at the top of every WP page as well. The Haz talk 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just terrible. Stereotypical Wikipedia error. Awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.27.248 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss how "stereotypical", "awful", and "absolutely embarrassing" Wikipedia is. 71.146.10.10 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure it is. 24.16.225.9 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be  Fixed It Is Me Here t / c 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA is dead/shelved

Well done; SOPA is politically dead and will no longer be voted on. I've no doubt it was the grass roots "blackout" pressure that helped to do this. Are we still going to protest? If so it needs to be modified so that we aren't talking about SOPA as something still alive (makes us look a bit slow :)). --Errant (chat!) 10:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not protest PIPA instead? It's still on the table.--67.55.53.99 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is no new news. Despite all efforts, SOPA is far away from beeing defeated. Lamar Smith has said, that he intends to do something with the planned restrictions on DNS-Servers. He intends to calm the telecommunication companies and the critics in his own party. This is far away from improving the situation for us, but we have already discussed this issue. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. SOPA isn't going to put through. It's not going to pass. Here's some words of wisdom from Shii and NearlyFreeSpeech.net: [4], [5], [6]. There's been far too much hype and alarmism. Also, just because Lamar Smith is going to continue talking (the blackout won't even stop him from exercising his Constitutional right to speak and persuade) doesn't mean that people are going to take him seriously. Smith lost this one. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberaler; Congress is a funny beast. After the Whitehouse effectively threatened to veto there was not much hope for this form of SOPA. And with that "on hold" there is very little chance of PIPA passing either. Politically, SOPA will not make it to a floor vote in the 2012 Congress. You are right, it will rear it's head again - as with DMCA they will let the online protest bluster out till the media don't care any more. Then pass it without anyone noticing. Protesting now seriously hurts our credibility and reduces the impact of a future protest (to stop a sneaky bill). We always knew it would come to this. --Errant (chat!) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@ErrantX: You get +infinity internetpoints. Spot on. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"Issa said that even without the site-blocking provision, the bill is 'fundamentally flawed'. 'Right now, the focus of protecting the Internet needs to be on the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced his intention to try to move similar legislation in less than two weeks,'" he said. From:The Hill Yes, relieved for now...but as ErrantX said, another form of legislation will be coming to the surface. Hopefully after all of this it will not be so blatantly flawed. Petersontinam (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This very SOPA will probably not be voted on, but these changes are an attempt to calm his own party, that wants to prevent damage from the telecommunication industries. Smith says, that the actual changes should improve the chances of the rest of the bill, which is far away from beeing acceptable. Corynne McSherry from the EFF says: "bill is stall far away from beeing acceptable. Our view all along has been they are not fixable." [7]. We will only be safe, if SOPA is cancelled. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
SOPA is cancelled, to all effective purposes . Campaigning against it right now simply plays into the hands of the politicians (who have been using bait/switch tactics for much longer than the internet has been around :)). My prediction; if Jan 18th goes ahead we will, unfortunately, end up with SOPA-like legislation before the end of the year. See DMCA for a recent example of how they pulled off such a move. The ideas will be back, in other forms, we should fight them directly rather than bluster ourselves into oblivion now. --Errant (chat!) 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative&diff=471066224&oldid=471060597:

"If Wikipedia takes this most severe protest action against a minor bill like this, then protests againbst future legislation which really does propose a direct threat to Wikipedia will have a limited impact. It's the "boy who cried wolf" problem. Let Reddit take its stand against this one, and Wikipedia can stand with it if the danger of SOPA passing becomes more serious."

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The DNS-Blocks have never been our main Problem. We should be more concerned about the regulations for search engines. Any "improvement" of SOPA is useless. The bill is npot repairable and should be completeley abandoned. Smith and his supporters are far away from this point. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In the context of a protest on Wednesday, save the impact for the time when there is immediate threat. If at that time a blackout is decided upon, it will not have any impact at all if it had already been done for shelved Bills. We have to use our heads. In the meantime, it is good to not have to "wing it." after all. Petersontinam (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please stop acting as if we're giving up just because a single provision of the bill has been dropped? We're saying that all of SOPA isn't going to pass. I don't give a shit about how many modifications Smith makes. I agree that it isn't repairable. SOPA is dead, and we can have another discussion about a protest if it reemerges in a new form. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, stopping the protest would send the message to congress that they can use their ability to quickly shift scheduling, make changes to the law that later get undone, etc. to torpedo any coordinated Internet protest. We will lose every time if they lure us into a game of Whack-a-Mole. Better to go ahead with the protest so they get the message that such tactics will not work. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
They won't get that message. They'll think we're slow and stupid for protesting a bill after it's already been killed, while at the same time we end up alienating readers (and editors, like myself) who just want to use the damn site and not be bugged ... about a bill that's already been killed. Save this incredibly significant and disruptive collective action for the most opportune moment -- which this no longer is. Powers T 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw Jimbo's announcement on Techdirt just the other minute. Had I voted in time (considering this weekend's developments in Washington), I would've given this issue a Neutral vote (much like WP should be), although I conditionally favoured a blackout the first time around. Let's find out what Protect IP has in store. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points, now that SOPA is effectively dead:

  • Agreeing with the above, protesting against SOPA once it is already dead will reduce the strength of Wikipedia's protest, akin to crying wolf. WP consensus decided to protest because SOPA represented a clear and present danger, one so serious that it caused WP to renege on its pillar of neutrality. Protesting against what is not a clear and present danger is moving towards simply playing politics.
  • Using this consensus, defined here as opposing SOPA, to oppose something else (PIPA) is putting words into users' mouths. If there is to be action opposing PIPA then there needs to be consensus for "action opposing PIPA". -M.Nelson (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is no consensus for a full blackout of Wikipedia for the purposes of PIPA. It was the effects of SOPA, especially fiddling with the DNS, which has caused the internet to react. "SOPA" was the topic during meta:IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12. "SOPA" was the subject of the polls[8]. PIPA was barely mentioned in either. They are not the same thing. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this in time to participate in the discussion, but I endorse this blackout even if SOPA is down for now. There is, and has been for a long time, a powerful movement to use legal measures to restrict important and fundamental freedoms in the name of protecting so-called "intellectual property". Wikipedia/media is especially vulnerable to these, so it makes sense for it to lead in efforts to squash these forces. Our articles are NPOV, but there is no reason why Wikipedia, in a meta-capacity, should not do whatever it can to raise awareness of this. SOPA might be out, but surely nobody thinks those who bankrolled it have given up? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Archive_2&oldid=1220928195"