Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Archive 4

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

How to access Wikipedia during the blackout

Disable JavaScript

Since “Wikipedia” blackout implementation uses javascript, it’s so simple to get it back. Just turn of/Disable javascript in your browser and Wikipedia will be accessible again during blackout.

Here is how to disable Javascript in Firefox: 

* go to options (preferences for mac) and then content and uncheck “Enable Javascript”.

For Chrome: 

* In settings, Go to “Under the bonnet” then click “content settings” and disable Javascript.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.77.46 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A shred of evidence that Wikipedia will be using JavaScript to implement a blackout would seem to be in order.Darned if they didn't go ahead and implement the blackout in JavaScript! Who would have guessed? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
See below. Boud (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Timing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative&diff=471958330&oldid=471819920

Shouldn't we delay our protest until the next markup session? If we have the protest now, Congresspersons might exploit it by saying, "We're listening to the concerns citizens of Wikipedia, so we're going to propose some changes during the next markup session." The EFF said that SOPA can't be fixed. The protest may end with Congresspersons trying to fix the unfixable rather than outright opposing it. If we have a blackout now, then we might be forced to have a second blackout next month, and the second blackout won't be as effective as the first. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't change horses in midstream. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the wisdom of Slim Charles speaking: "If it's a lie? Then we fight on that lie!". It's still a lie though.VolunteerMarek 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
What's a lie? Pick and choose your battles. You're fighting over what, exactly? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Finding the "best" day for the blackout would be aiming at a constantly moving target. What makes tomorrow perfect is that it has essentially turned into National Protest SOPA Day, with hundreds of sites posting banners and holding blackouts, including Reddit, Google, and many, many others. The coverage will be enhanced manifold by this coordinated effort. It will surely turn into a day when lawmakers receive an overwhelming number of phone calls and emails. First Light (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
And what if the politicians reply to those messages by saying, "We will make SOPA better during markup," instead of saying, "We will oppose it"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there are a thousand such "ifs" that could be argued as reasons for justifying indecisiveness and equivocation. A mass coordinated protest, as this one is, has the best chance of sending a very strong message to lawmakers. First Light (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Another one of those people who feels this is pointless

Feel free to mob me telling me why I'm wrong, but let me state my opinion/understanding first :)

1) As I understand, there is and was already a ton of big business opposition to SOPA, enough so that it would never pass, at least in it's most ridiculous of forms.

2) This is more a general complaint with regards to how decisions are made on wikipedia, but I didn't learn about this blackout until about 12 hours ago. I'm not an extraordinarily active contributor, but still.

3) I believe that blacking out wikipedia will do more to annoy than to educate. I think the majority of those with the time and inclination to understand what SOPA is and why it is bad law already know of its existence. I think the majority of Wikipedia users will just go "oh great, wikipedia's protesting something".

4) I have some qualms about what is (depending on your POV) the breach of wikipedia's neutrality or quasi-neutrality, though I do somewhat accept the argument that wikipedia has always been in favor of freedom of information, and so political campaigning to that end is reasonable.

My two cents. Adam Berman (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Defending one's self-interest is paramount. Everything else is secondary. As others have already said many times, Wikipedia isn't neutral, and neutrality in the context you are using it only applies to articles and the editors who write them. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Defending one's self-interest is paramount. Everything else is secondary. - I'll try to keep that in mind next time someone tells me to AGF somebody, or hell, the next time that someone is just plain ol' annoying the hell out of my self interest on some article. And please, keep trying to square that circle, there's entertainment value in watching it.VolunteerMarek 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be very confused. Defending one's self-interest as an organization is paramount. Hope that clears up your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this protest affects more on Wikipedia than it could ever affect on that bill. That SOPA should be in blackout, not Wikipedia. Rather same than when a book tax were to come, then I would stop reading books for one day. 82.141.73.229 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Call your senators!

We've crossed the Rubicon and the blackout is going to happen, whether you thought the idea was heroic, perfidious, or somewhere in between. Regardless of your stance on the blackout, don't lose sight of what it's meant to achieve. Tomorrow, use the time you would have spent reading or editing Wikipedia to call, write, and email your representatives in Congress. Let's “melt the phone lines”! See you on the other side. Braincricket (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll call them and tell them to do what they believe is right and that they should not be influenced by the childish antics of Wikipedia and of the serial copyright violators who see these bills as a threat to their business model. --B (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's neutrality applies to information content, not to taking a stand on political issues directly affecting its existence. We can be simultaneously neutral in our reporting on a political issue while taking a firm stance in favor of particular side. Sure, some people can't do that, maybe most can't. Wikipedia isn't edited by "most" people. I'm sure that you wouldn't ask a reporter to take a neutral position on someone threatening to put a gun to his head, would you?  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head. The only thing that is going on is that Wikipedia is throwing a tantrum. --B (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice. It's a "tantrum" to express outrage over a blatant attempt at censorship. Riiiggghht!  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See you tomorrow and good luck

Just remember 2 quotes, "A problem is the chance for you to do your best." Duke Ellington and "I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders" Jewish proverb Alpedio (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Now it's tomorrow, well done

Lots of press coverage, a good amount of turn around in the House and Senate, and many have labeled the bills "dead in the water". Whether that's true or not, we shall see in the near future. But well done everyone; this was the right thing to do. upstateNYer 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Subpage title

Now that we're done throwing a fit, I'd like to ask — do we need to leave Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Learn more entitled "SOPA and PIPA - Learn more"? It seems reasonable to get rid of the DISPLAYTITLE bit and restore the title to the actual name of the page. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Has someone tested the blackout on the mobile version of en?

Has anyone tested the blackout and ensured it'll work on the mobile version of en? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Awh, you had to go and think of our little back door! Now we really won't have an English Wikipedia! ;-) Seriously, good call. I hope so. This needs checked, too.  Jim Reed (Talk)  00:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
During blackout, I tried to use the en mobile version of Wikipedia since my GPRS connection takes too slow to read the full version. Whilst reading random article, it shows only banners about SOPA and PIPA above the article. It really doesn't blacked the whole page. Rouward (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I was able to read, both on my Android phone and the antique computer I still use for E-mail that doesn't have Javascript. No big deal; it wasn't intended to be leakproof. I couldn't edit either way, however, so just edited picture descriptions in Commons. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention Senate cloture vote on PIPA in the thank you message

The thank you message should mention the Senate cloture vote on Tuesday, January 24th. That would help convince visitors to speak to their Senators now rather than later. Also, can we have a banner about the cloture vote up until the vote ends? If the cloture vote fails, then we can have a real "thank you" message. If the cloture vote ends in success, then we should have a "We are disappointed of the current Senate's performance" message. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the blackout

meta:English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout/Post-mortem – Please participate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA/PIPA would possibly ban every user at first offense?

I'm not really sure about this but, if SOPA/PIPA have passed, is it possible that the user who who posted something even it is not infringement will get permanently banned at first offense? Rouward (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In the current state, repeated offender will be banned by our admins and have the infringing contents deleted immediately if that is obviously violating the copyright law. However, if SOPA has become law and someone has submitted the alleged infringing material, that will cause the WHOLE site (by that it means every single Wikimedia sister project) to be blocked after receiving the court order. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

javascript-only blackout

i don't believe that people supporting a full blackout were supporting a javascript-only blackout. Maybe it's not a bad idea: the tech-savvy users (who turn off javascript, e.g. with the noscript plugin to iceweasel/firefox) are probably those who would most oppose SOPA anyway. And educating the internet public about how to disable javascript is a Good Thing.

But i don't believe it's what Wikipedians thought was being discussed. Boud (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Now is not the time to subvert a community decision to have a full blackout by supposedly tech excuses. Boud (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see evidence that disabling javascript will reveal the site? First Light (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
We'll find out soon. I think the issue is that Wikipedia doesn't want to utterly destroy its search rankings because that would (1) damage the site long term; and (2) reduce the number of people seeing the protest message in the short term. Jehochman Talk 03:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The word "javascript" doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action. The !voters didn't ask for JavaScript. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that this is NOT what the vast majority of the supports of the blackout wanted and that this implementation is a blatant and categorical subversion of the community consensus. Wikipedia's "intent" is not the issue. Jimbo asked for and got a consensus; the Wikimedia Foundation ought to deal with it. This said, I edited out the actual information of how to bypass the blackout. Per the intent of the blackout, we ought not to be telling people how to bypass it.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I undid your censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, meta:English Wikipedia SOPA blackout/Technical FAQ. Yes you can read the English Wikipedia by disabling javascript, but not edit it. It's meant to be like that. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Was that FAQ publicized during the voting and I just missed it? Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout/Technical_FAQ&diff=3255535 – The FAQ was created after the discussions were closed. The !voters weren't aware of it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
First Light: disable javascript (see the suggestions above, or install the noscript plugin to firefox/iceweasel), then read the explanation at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Blackout screen testing. Maybe the people preparing tech instructions just separated Blackout screen discussion from edit/read freezing, and so it's just a problem of a poor tech explanation. However, based on the present content of that page, go to any page at https://test.wikipedia.org and put "?banner=blackout" at the end of the URL. Try this with javascript, and then without javascript. For example, the page https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Cash?banner=blackout . I was able to edit the page with javascript disabled. With javascript enabled, i was not able to edit it, and only could read it for a few seconds.
Maybe i've just misunderstood the Blackout_screen_testing page. i hope i'm wrong (as i was above about the number of people discussing). Boud (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Jehochman: Wikipedia is supposed to be a community. We have a clear community decision. It's not up to the WMF Board to decide that we were too stupid to think about things like google rankings during the discussion. Boud (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
By the time Wikipedia decided to do a blackout, Google had already given directions about the best way to do it. They advised a 503 redirect, which on Apache-hosted sites like Wikipedia is a simple change to the .htaccess file. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Google specifically and directly advised us not to do a 503 redirect. The way that Google indexes Wikipedia is different from how they index other sites. The blog post above was intended for other sites, not for Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the WMF didn't share that advice from Google with the !voters. As a !voter for the "soft blackout" option with the click-through, I wanted JavaScript to be used so that Wikipedia's content would still be accessible to visitors. Nevertheless, the !voters for the "full blackout" option probably didn't expect the use of JavaScript. The "full blackout" !voters obviously wanted Wikipedia to be inaccessible, but what they really got was a "soft blackout" without an edit button. The WMF should've let the !voters in on their plans. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As much as I would like to assume good faith, comments such as This remind me of something I see every day in my job as an engineer. A decision is made by management, someone questions it, and a bogus technical excuse is generated. This satisfies most people who object, but it drives engineers crazy. In this particular case I have seen it argued elsewhere that 24 hours more fair to all timezones, rather than there being some technical issue that makes a 12 hour blackout difficult. I have similar suspicions about recent claims that Apache .htaccess redirection does not scale up to a site as large as Wikipedia.
I would understand perfectly if someone came back and told me that in the rush to meet a deadline there wasn't always time for a detailed technical explanation, as long as it was understood that in future cases such technical/engineering questions will be addressed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"It's not meant to be like that." Any means of bypassing is supposed to be for "emergency access" only. Publishing the means of bypassing for general use is a violation of the explicitly stated intent. Also, enabling mobile access is just as blatant a disregarding of the cumminity concensus. Oh well. Jimbo et al will do what they will. :-/  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
If you think a "hard" blackout is that essential, you've unfortunately missed the core goal of the protest. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think you've missed that the protest doesn't have a consensus around its "core." A number of arguments were put, quite strongly, that the required action is to disrupt the circulation of value (ie: physical force in the Chartist's schema) as it is to advertise a deep concern (moral force from the same). A common cause, a free encyclopaedia; and a common action, a one day partially effective site blanking; do not indicate a common analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if SOPA|PIPA|OPEN are passed, there will be no by-passable Javascript implementation: Wikipedia will be shut down by URL at the DNS servers.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The plan presented in the FAQ is ridiculous! Disabling javascript is trivial - it'll go viral and we'll have 10 million or so users "emergency"-reading Wikipedia articles for their assignments.
Moreover, there are many more passive reader-only's than active editors. The vast majority of people who hear about how to disable javascript won't realise the difference between read-only access and read-edit access. Think of the vast number of people you know who "know what Wikipedia is" but don't realise that they can edit it and check the editing history and talk with other editors. Boud (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree, sigh...., but there may be some other reasons for this that we're not aware of. First Light (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
And does Congress have reasons for SOPA that we are not aware of? Boud (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a protest, not a punishment. Even if you can get around it, this is not a problem. The point is to show to Congress how serious this is, and to make others aware of what is happening. Actually preventing people from accessing Wikipedia is not the goal, only the means, and hence it is not a problem if you can get around it. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture: you are trying to reopen a closed discussion. The debate among Wikipedians already took place. It was overwhelmingly in favour of a full blackout. The people participating in the debate understood the difference between means and goals. Now we have a problem of (i presume) the WMF Board subverting the community decision by pretending that turning off javascript (e.g. by all members of Congress) is an "emergency" procedure. Boud (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Boud: Agreed! This not a mere paper protest. Part of the protest is to practically demonstrate the very real effect of these bills becoming law. The purpose of these bills is to "actually prevent people from accessing" content. That's the intent evident in many of the comments from the community.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not reopening any discussion, I'm explaining to you why it is a non-issue. Again you seem to think that we are somehow punishing members of congress by preventing the to access Wikipedia, which is not the goal. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: There are many people who could provide a very good response here about why this is about the best we can currently do... but all those people are _exceptionally_ busy right now trying to make this happen. It's absolutely coming right down to the wire, and no one working on the actual implementation has time at the moment to really talk this through right now. Sorry! --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now they are less busy. I would really like to know (not by way of criticism but of curiosity) why JavaScipt instead of the obvious .htaccess solution? I am also really curious what the technical limitation that we were told forces a 24 hour blackout instead of 12 hour was. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=prev&oldid=471196191 – The WMF decided to keep the discussion about the length of the blackout away from the eyes of most !voters. Then you killed the talk page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=471471710&oldid=471468474. I guess that you didn't know that it was the WMF that decided not to have that discussion on the main page. I complained about the WMF's dictation of the discussion, yet most of the people who replied to my complaint dismissed my concerns: Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Interference_by_the_WMF. Next time, the community, not the WMF, should be in charge of these sorts of discussions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. I was not aware that the WMF have moved it to the talk page. The general rule is, votes on main voting page, discussion on talk page. WMF moved a vote to the talk page. That's wrong. It is true that we do not have to allow anyone to add any sort of additional vote to the main voting page, but moving a vote to the talk page is the wrong way to deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Seeing the document you're working on, it's just CSS... --Rschen7754 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
This may get me in hot water but AGF just isn't working for me right now. I'm not buying... yet. Please, don't try to pacify us: we're not average Internet users. Or even or average Wikipedia users. I'm almost ready to call "bluff" on this one. Please, prove me wrong. Explain it to me. No excuses, just a simple "this is reality". Believe me, there will be a real "come to Jesus" meeting over this if it turns out that the blackout really "isn't"!  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why it isn't being done with a 302 redirect ... just redirect all traffic to blackout.wikipedia.org or some such thing and put your message there on static pages. That way, search engines aren't going to pick up (and potentially hold forever) a blacked out version of the site. --B (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably we need to introduce a mechanism for Recall_election#Venezuela for Board members, as in Article 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution. Boud (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, we so need a recall!!! Is this before or after the tar & feathers? :-D  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really read through the whole discussion since it's moot, but I do want to point out that most people even don't know what JavaScript is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

When all was said and done, the javascript thing was a minor issue, perhaps unavoidable and maybe even for the best. Considering how quickly all of this had to happen for Wikipedia to take part in the worldwide internet blackout/protest, it went stunningly well. First Light (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though I am very much anti-SOPA, I opposed a hard blackout, because I feel Wikipedia has a duty to its donors to keep the information available. I was a bit disturbed that some people didn't see an easy way to get to their desired page, but technically, I have to say Wikipedia's duty is only that the information be available, not necessarily easy. So with some slight reservation, I am satisfied the right balance was struck. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Where has this come from?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN

Suddenly we're are writing open letters to the UN? Maybe I'm taking this more seriously then it merits, but where on earth has this come from? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you asked me to explain my reasoning? Well, I saw that there was a proposal for an e-petition for the United Kingdom that requested the UK government to speak out about SOPA/PIPA. So, I thought that I should expand it, since Wikipedia is edited by everyone across the World, that governments around the World should speak out about it and encourage the United States to retract SOPA/PIPA. It's not the United Nations, themselves encouraging the United States but rather the memeber states. It seemed good at the time.. and now it's up for MfD. Probably didn't really think that through. Whenaxis about | talk 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh...thank you for that response, and I apologies if my comments in any way implied bad-faith on your part. However, as others have said, its really not the best action to take. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) Whenaxis about | talk 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
However, for anyone who wants this legislation revived and passed tout suite, there is no better way to do it than to get the UN to tell the USA that they shouldn't pass it. :) Franamax (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Where has this come from?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN

Suddenly we're are writing open letters to the UN? Maybe I'm taking this more seriously then it merits, but where on earth has this come from? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you asked me to explain my reasoning? Well, I saw that there was a proposal for an e-petition for the United Kingdom that requested the UK government to speak out about SOPA/PIPA. So, I thought that I should expand it, since Wikipedia is edited by everyone across the World, that governments around the World should speak out about it and encourage the United States to retract SOPA/PIPA. It's not the United Nations, themselves encouraging the United States but rather the memeber states. It seemed good at the time.. and now it's up for MfD. Probably didn't really think that through. Whenaxis about | talk 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh...thank you for that response, and I apologies if my comments in any way implied bad-faith on your part. However, as others have said, its really not the best action to take. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) Whenaxis about | talk 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
However, for anyone who wants this legislation revived and passed tout suite, there is no better way to do it than to get the UN to tell the USA that they shouldn't pass it. :) Franamax (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Archive_4&oldid=1145843468"