Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contacting of US Embassies for non-US citizens

I should point out (in my personal capacity, not my professional capacity as a diplomat at a US embassy) that this is not really the best solution. U.S. missions abroad largely deal with bilateral relationships between governments. Yes, sometimes they meet with private citizens but usually it is to discuss local issues, very rarely is it to discuss US policy. Even in the best case scenario, what would happen is that the political/economic section would write a cable to Washington noting the concern. The State Dept. in Washington then does not necessarily have anything to do with the resulting report. It's not a legislative body, it generally does not make domestic policy recommendations on matters like this.

What WOULD be useful, is if non-US citizens contacted their government's foreign affairs body; for most countries this is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or some other equivalent to the Department of State that is responsible for diplomatic relationships in their country. With enough weight behind it, it could entice that country's government to write a diplomatic note formally expressing the complaints. That has more weight than a simple reporting cable.

Just throwing my two cents in here, it would be a shame to see people making effort that is unlikely to produce any real outcome. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And also note the EU proposals which may be substantially more Draconian than SOPA is. I think too many here are caught up in the "make noise" concept instead of the "affect legislation" concept. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

collect, re: your claim that too many people are more about making noise instead of affecting legislation; I do believe you hit the nail on the head. Jersey John (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The WMF and activism

The WMF is clearly "leading" the Wikipedia community on this issue despite their official denials. The WMF's "Chief Community Officer" is Zack Exley, a long time left wing agitator and activist. It was in the context of this SOPA "Action" that WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner spoke favourably of Exley's experience in rousing the rabble with the highly partisan MoveOn.org. Donations are also being directed by Wikimedia general counsel Geoffrey Brigham towards Washington lobbyists, a lobbying effort that is not restricted to "Copyright/Patent/Trademark" but extends to "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties." In last month's Wikimedia Office discussion someone proposed "scroung[ing] up some bored Occupy D.C. people" and "giv[ing] them Wikipedia buttons", a proposal that attracted not a word of dissent or caution from Gardner since Gardner joined Occupy Wall Street in early November and afterwards not only called on Wikimedia to "copy OWS tactics" but advised readers to consult the wisdom of the self-described "flagship of the left" and Feministing. How keen are political conservatives going to be to donate to the Foundation and thereby fund the salaries of Exley and Gardner (with Gardner alone drawing more than $220 000 annually)? How much would it cost for anti-SOPA activists to BUY a Wikipedia blackout if Wikipedia just rented out its platform at market rates. This value is going to be handed over for FREE? Given that this market value was created by the cumulative labour of people from across the political spectrum and from all over the world I consider the WMF's willingness to call for the appropriation of this value simply shameless.

According to Brigham, SOPA is "very evil", adding that "I would not sleep at night if I were you." Either Brigham is joking and not taking the issue very seriously or he is engaging in hyperbole that only serves to help stampede the Wikipedia community. Having waved the red flag and gotten the stampede underway does the WMF now think there could possibly be nuanced reaction if the target legislation changes and the cause for outrage (if there ever was one) became obsolete? The WMF is already looking past this to the next opportunity for activism ("I think it does open the door for more advocacy" says Gardner).

The WMF does not necessarily understand and appreciate the rationales behind Wikipedia policies. Brigham complains that linking to the Pirate Bay is a "totally legitimate link" under Wikipedia's current internal constraints, such that SOPA could add a significant external constraint. Yet WP:ELNEVER says that "editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others..." adding that "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

For a long time I've tried to explain to POV pushers that Wikipedia is passive, such that if they want to advance an agenda, they need to locate reliable sources and (if disputed) convincingly argue that following these sources would have Wikipedia sailing in the mainstream as opposed to paddling out on a tangent or crusade. WMF seems to think that by pointing to some spot on the left bank and announcing that it looks like an attractive destination (from their San Francisco perch) they can deny "leading" anyone because they only suggested that the community put its oars into the water instead of ordering them to.

Who will have to deal with the consequences of politically activating the editing community in terms of future editing behaviour? Who is going to be citing the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy to problem editors after Wikipedia was disrupted to push a point? Long time content contributors with experience dealing with larger content policy issues, not the WMF, which will be all too ready to wash its hands of content disputes. Slapping the current banner on en.wikipedia.org that invites everyone to comment without having first read a summary of the best PRO and CON arguments (in the manner of an Economist's "Do you agree with the motion?" debate) ensures that the voices of these veteran editors will be drowned out by "drive by" activists.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay _is_ a totally legitimate link. Can you point to any copyrighted material available on TPB? No? How about a torrent tracker that leads to copyrighted material on some other system? No? Should we not link to TPB because a search on TPB can find torrents and trackers hosted on other systems? I can use Google to find those same torrents. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One possibility is that the "left wing agitator and activist" has manipulated and bamboozled the hundreds of editors who have supported action. Another, is that those editors have thought about the issues and support action because Wikipedia is based on free (as in liberty) access to legal and due information, and because lobbyist-driven legislation like SOPA really could damage Wikipedia (even if watered down). Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where were you people when I was trying to access Wikipedia in China (where it's, at a minimum, throttled)? You think Google isn't massively lobbying against SOPA so it can continue to stream video on Youtube created by others and sell ads around them? I got enough pushpack from the "community" (and no help from any WMF people) over at the Commons when I complained on multiple occasions about contributors using "custom licenses" to limit the free use of their contributions and in effect erect private signs on Commons property that I'm prepared to give up on the idea of a Commons to the extent that as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead and use the part of Wikipedia that you contributed to advocate for whatever you want. But what's being demanded here is the use of everyone else's contribution as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for "where were you people" generally, other than to say most English Wikipedians have no direct ability to do anything at all about censorship in China. However, in whatever small way that I have been able to help with that issue, I have done so. I have spoken consistently against censorship in China. I have done so in China, directly to the minister in charge of the matter, on multiple occasions. I expect to do so in the future as well. We have been consistently uncompromising on this issue. Whether and when it might make sense for the Chinese Wikipedians to take a more active role in defending their human right to build a neutral encyclopedia is a complex and interesting question that will be answered as it always has been answered: with discussion and dialog and thoughtful decision making.

As for why Google opposes SOPA, that's really irrelevant here. I am quite sure that there would be laws that Google might oppose but that we might welcome. That we happen to be on the same side here is a good thing, but if their motives aren't as "pure" by your standard as ours are, I don't see that as any particular reason for concern - and certainly no reason to actively support idiotic and over-broad legislation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I commend you for your role in founding Wikipedia as a non-profit, Jimbo, but I note that Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, who as head of a for-profit has less reason to be concerned about lobbying than Wikimedia projects do, says "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I now see a possible reason for why the WMF has been no help to those of us wanting to take action against non-free licenses over at the Commons. Because Wikimedia has its own custom license! The upshot of this is that the banner that the English speaking world is going to see on Wednesday calling for a "free" internet is itself going to be non-free (copyrighted by the WMF), and hosted on a Commons whose fundamental principle is supposed to be the hosting of material that is freely usable. If this isn't hypocrisy then what is?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"The WMF is clearly "leading" the Wikipedia community on this issue despite their official denials." - I am not part of the WMF in any capacity other than an occasional editor, and I think I had more to do with this issue than WMF did. I unilaterally created the "Full blackout" option without any influence from the WMF, and from there, nature took its natural course. The opinions expressed were not lured by the WMF, and could not have been since the WMF had nothing to do with it. In fact, the WMF [made edits that would slow its growth, that I disagreed with. I have seen no evidence of the WMF playing the role of outraged warhawk - that's the authentic feelings of the participants, including myself. Badon (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The WMF has been manufacturing consent about the politicization of Wikipedia. In typical net fashion, this is being discussed by simplistic knocking down of strawmen, e.g. that every advocate is an agent of WMF. But that WMF has been playing the role of warhawk here seems to me blatantly obvious, not the least of which is that using the Wikipedia site as a political tool is being done in itself. Use of the Wikipedia site for lobbying is utterly unprecedented, and a solid WMF stance (in public) to do such a thing means "the fix is in". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, the standard for determining what is true is evidence and logic, not "what seems to be blatantly obvious to Seth Finkelstein". The WMF certainly didn't manufacture my consent. On at least two occasions I have disagreed with Jimbo Wales about something, and in every instance he responded with a rational argument based upon logic and evidence, and zero hint that our respective statuses within Wikipedia have any relevance at all. Quite simply, there is no evidence that anyone at WMF has committed any malfeasance. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, post it. If the evidence is valid, nobody is going to stop me from criticizing WMF -- but I need actual evidence, not just vague feelings and sour grapes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "In typical net fashion, this is being discussed by simplistic knocking down of strawmen ...", you reply "The WMF certainly didn't manufacture my consent". I rest my case :-( . Regrets, this isn't the place for a seminar on the meaning and techniques of "manufacturing consent". I think our perspectives are so far apart we'll have to, well, not agree to, but just disagree. The next step is typically declaring victory based on not being convinced, but I'd say the impending blackout has moved the overall dispute to a different level. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I saw Blockhead spouting the "IWW Agitator" red-baiting fallacy, it makes me kind of nostalgic for Big Bill. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing admins

Billinghurst (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) and I (Risker (talk · contribs)) will be closing this RFC no later than 23:59 UTC on 16 January 2012; that is approximately 24 hours from now. The three of us have been keeping up with the discussion as it is coming in, and will be in a position to make the close by the deadline established by the WMF in order for them to complete the technical configurations as determined by the community. For those of you who keep track of such things, Billinghurst is from Australia, NuclearWarfare is from the US, and I am from Canada. Risker (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's twitter feed suggests that it's effectively already closed in favour of a 24 hour blackout on en.wikipedia only (although I think this blackout is going to have negative, underappreciated consequences, this is just an observation, not a criticism of Mr Wales, who probably could have founded Wikipedia as a "for profit" and become a billionaire but didn't).--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's tweets aren't final. We are reviewing now and crafting a decision. Risker (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears the vote has been closed 1 hour early, at 22:59 UTC instead of 23:59 UTC. Badon (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&page=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative%2FAction – Badon appears to be correct. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. The WMF noted that it required a decision by 23:59 UTC; taking an hour to close an RFC with 1800 participants isn't, I don't think, excessive. Risker (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did the "1,800" participants number come from? --Mollskman (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding my support after the fact

I had wanted to come out of retirement to specifically support this proposal. It seems I was a few hours late. I am thus posting here that I would have supported this proposal. It will be hard to be without Wikipedia for one day, but the message needs to be sent. Basket of Puppies 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is a joke. I support the SOPA legislation - as a copyright holder and someone whose intellectual property is at perpetually at risk, I oppose a "free and open" internet and think it is long past time that reasonable controls were levied. Even putting that aside, blacking out Wikipedia is the equivalent of a six year old child holding its breath. And makes me glad I did not contribute a single cent during the recent, annoying pledge drive. I have contributed in past, but as a result of this, I vow never to give a single penny to WP or the WM foundation in future. 68.144.172.8 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright holders like you are what the world needs less of. A free and open Internet free of copyrights is needed. F**k the rich corporate copyright holders - let's download everything for free!--79.34.11.198 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a rich copyright holder. I'm a starving author who works two jobs just to pay his mortgage. I think you'll find many - maybe most - copyright holders are in the same boat. It's the dream of making it big that prods them on to keep producing. Without the incentive of seeing a reward for their work, why would they want to invent a new game, write a new song, draft a new book for your children, only to have some stranger come along two days later, and upload it to the internet? It's the reward of having feedback - not even the money but the feedback, such as counting the downloads yourself - that makes it worthwhile. If you want to fuck somebody, fuck yourself, not the people who are enriching your life with new music, books, videos, games, and entertainments.68.144.172.8 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also a copyright holder. I write software, including open source software, and I hold the copyright on the open source software I write. I am annoyed as everybody else if somebody, in my case usually some unscrupulous companies, violate my copyright, e.g., by using my GPLed software in their closed-source programs. However, SOPA and PIPA are wrong ways to fix copyright abuse. SOPA and PIPA do away with due process, and that's fundamentally wrong. For example, under SOPA, I could just claim, without proof, that you violate my copyright, and your website would then get shut down. Such stuff is unacceptable in a free society. So, please educate yourself about SOPA and PIPA instead of accusing everybody who opposes these laws as copyright violators. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This bill and our opposition to it is not specifically about copyright -- in my experience, Wikipedians are far, far more respectful of adhering to the letter of the copyright law than most people (including most academics!) It's about due process. Sites in general are already required to take down copyrighted material under DMCA provisions, and we specifically already have a very robust copyright-clearance mechanism; but the bill would remove due process from these processes, and proposes technical measures that would lead to much bigger security problems on the internet. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also belatedly adding my support. --kingboyk (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you!

The decision taken here is a shame. You have just killed, in just one vote, the neutrality we had been standing for for ten years. Shame on you! Thierry Caro (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, once "famous" for its neutrality, now has no geniune interest in intellectual freedom, especially here. Many of the admins are outright fascists - doesn't matter how well sourced your info is, if they don't like it, it's not making it into Wikipedia!--174.51.114.104 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it not neutral to take a stance in favor of neutrality? We need philosoraptor.--Taylornate (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

contact link

please leave up the 'contact wikimedia' in the sidebar, and related static pg, since this will draw much interest and comment from hundreds and thousands of people, who deserve responses. 66.31.200.47 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-protest protest

I'm disappointed that the blackout is going ahead, even more so that it will affect those of us outside the USA, who have no say in American politics. In response to this, if this goes ahead, I have decided to withdraw my support for Wikipedia for a period of 7 days, by not editing or making any administrative action, starting from 19th January. I would urge other users who feel the same to take similar action.

I, for one, am a beneficiary, rarely contributor, of Wikipedia outside USA. I recognise the danger posed this American legislation to the global Internet. I have just made a £100 donation in support of Wikipedia's brave decision to join the blackout. Do not assume that those of us outside USA have no stake in SOPA and PIPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.61.14 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I shan't be donating to the foundation this year.  An optimist on the run! 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawning indefinitely. See my userpage.--Scott Mac 09:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A sad day. Sorry to see you go - I wish I had the backbone and willpower to do the same.  An optimist on the run! 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to say "fuck America" instead. Lugnuts (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Superb decision

Sometimes the Wikipedia community actually votes for something I agree with! This brilliant decision to protest against SOPA makes up for all those AfD decisions which didn't go my way :) !

I fully support the blackout and stand by all our American editors in continuing to protest against it. I can't do much in the UK practically but I'm with you in spirit.

doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Opportunity to reduce backlogs?

Personally I would have preferred that admins could work during the blackout because a 24 hour stop for edits would be a good opportunity to get rid of some of the backlogs.

If some of you are worried what to do when Wikipedia is down you could help cleaning up on Commons for example here or here. Commons desperately needs help.

I hope the voice of Wikipedia is heard! --MGA73 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I plan to use the time to do some research in printed books (which I never seem to have enough time for). Helping in Commons would be good, too (something I've been lax about). -- Donald Albury 12:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Users don't have a choice in this. This must not go ahead.

People rely on this site. They are also people who contribute. If this goes ahead it will be damaging for Wikipedia. People will look elsewhere for a service they can rely on - not to be dictated to and told when they can use it. The whole strength of Wikipedia is it's open-ness and reliability. Surely protests against the Obama act can be lodged in some other way. Significiant banners for instance (which will be seen all the more as all that day people will be USING the site). I think that this is wrong because an organisation which can take down an entire facility undemocratically cannot be relied on in future. I see people in comments stating this - that they will either not donate or start looking for alternatives to Wikipedia. 24 hours without gives them plenty of opportunity to do so. Think of the poor student - MOST students now use Wikipedia, up against a deadline - hadn't heard was set for a day of intense use (with corrections/feedback). Think of the scientific worker needing rightaway a formula reference. Hell no. Where to go to what to do? Wikipedia will constrict through this. You must stop this from going ahead it seems noble to be politicking but to use what seems to me a juvenile threat of taking the site away now or in the future is totally wrong, damaging; a strategically bad decision. PLEASE NO!!!!!! 86.156.139.52 (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Students can use those weird and wonderful things called 'libraries' and 'books' if they want. This blackout is vital. We must see it through. doktorb _words^deeds 09:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hardly "vital". — Joseph Fox 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Vital. SOPA changes the Internet in ways we can't imagine right now. We need to make a stand. This blackout is the best way to show our intent. doktorb _words^deeds 10:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I too am displeased, particularly at the narrow base of 2000 voters compared to tens of thousands who edit every day and millions who read. But yes, the bright spot is the chance the blackout gives to our competitors. Think of poor little Citizendium and Conservapedia. My own day will go to looking into those and fixing geocoords on Commons and processing pictures for upload. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Citizendium, they would have a better chance of surviving a law like SOPA/PIPA than Wikipedia would. For Wikipedia to survive something like SOPA/PIPA, we probably would have to become like Citizendium, limiting edits to logged-in users with confirmed identities, and taking down or hiding most material until it could be thoroughly vetted. -- Donald Albury 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

incidentally, these bills aren't from Obama; they are from bi-partisan members of congress (in the House and Senate). Obama has not made a strong statement either way but has indicated cautious opposition to it as is. And yes, I work in a library, and we are very happy to keep helping people during the blackout :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Three quemments

Hello all, not sure what I really think about this. I think that I'd criticise that this decision has been reached in a way so that regular but 'casual' users of Wikipedia (ie I edit on average every other day, and I mainly spend my time hanging around in article pages rather than pages titled 'Wikpedia:x') had no awareness of it - it's such a big issue that a banner informing people of the discussion for (say) a week might have been a positive step; it leaves a rather 'anti-consensus' taste in the mouth to it because of that, though I totally get that that's not intentional. Nevertheless, people clearly have their reasons and we can all live without Wikipedia for a day. Three 'quemments', which are mainly out of curiosity:

1. How will this affect the multiple Wikipedia mirrors that exist? The amount of disruption caused by this blackout will be dependent upon that. If those pages remain up, that might dampen the effect somewhat? Has any effort been taken to try and make sure that these mirrors are also affected (is such an effort possible)?

2. How does this affect the mobile site? There is no banner there, and there are often days when I only access Wikipedia via that site. Will that also be blacked out - I presume it will?

2. It's all a bit sudden isn't it? Surely giving a week-announcement would have generated more media interest? After all, if a strike is called in 'the real world' - and to all intents and purposes, this is industrial action - then a delay is usually put in place to develop media attention. Equally, not having a banner on the mobile site rather reduces the awareness of this strike.

Just thoughts, not intended to be hostile, would be interesting to hear some feedback though. To all of those who spend more time in the background of Wikipedia dealing with these issues - keep it up! You are the engine room which drives the shiny front of the website.Pretty Green (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• This action has been under discussion since late last year, IIRC November. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a response though is it? The point is that unless you were hanging around the correct parts of Wikipedia, there was no way of knowing about it. Maybe it should be that these sort of decisions are discussed only by those involved closely in the admin of the site, I don't know - I'm not necessarily complaining, I'm just saying that it seems a little unusual for a website that often makes every effort to get people on board. And the point still remains - by not putting a notice on the mobile website, and by doing little to promote this, you're reducing the impact that it will have, Pretty Green (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Publicity of the original 'vote'

I contribute daily to Wikipedia as a logged in user and an IP user yet I never saw any publicity for this vote. Why weren't there banners at the top of pages over the past few days publicising this vote? Such an important decision should have sought the approval of as many users as possible - although it does seem to have an awful lot of support without this anyway. I would have voted in support of the blackout but it would have been nice to have been consulted. How about a future discussion about moving Wikimedia OUT of the USA and to a more neutral and civilised country? I believe that this blackout will only affect English Wikipedia, right? So will Simple English Wikipedia remain online?--79.34.11.198 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL "more civilized" just had to get your digs in, didn't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Simple are making their own mind up Fifelfoo (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that this could have probably been better publicized. I am a regular here, but I only found out about the blackout today. I do however strongly support it, even if I didn't know to weigh in on the discussion. As for moving it to a "more neutral and civilised country", you could perhaps bring that to the Village Pump, but I am not sure what the logistics of that would be. How many of the Wikipedia employees would have to move, or else quit, and then what would it take in terms of expense and time to physically move the physical components of Wikipedia (servers, etc) to a new country? While you may imply that the US is not civilized (I won't disagree too strongly there), I suspect that it would be harder than it seems to find a truly "civilized" country. I think that, to do so, Wikipedia would necessarily no longer be hosted in an anglophone country - certainly not any of the ones that come to mind - even New Zealand is filtering websites. How would that change things? Not that I want to be English-centric, but that probably is a consideration. If it has to happen for Wikipedia to survive, then I would support moving it; but as long as it can freely exist where it is, I see no need. Falconus^{p t c} 11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that there were indeed banners at the top of pages over the past few days publicizing the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• cough* I saw nary a banner until the countdown began -- and I work on/reference Wikipedia multiple times a day, always starting anew from the main page. I have that main page set as my home page. Perhaps you mean banners that were visible if and only if you are logged into an existing Wikipedia account? - Tenebris 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on a banner and added my vote. That's all I know.--Taylornate (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I support the whole thing and am blacking out my own page starting today

with this:

{{User:UBX/Blackout}}

SOPA/PIPAThis user supported the SOPA/PIPA blackout!

--Amadscientist (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it :-). Falconus^{p t c} 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this userbox so much I blanked my entire userpage and posted only that userbox. Thanks! Akihironihongo (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking; I'll do the same. Falconus^{p t c} 14:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did too. Saw someone else did it as well. You may want to create a category for this, see how far it goes. freshacconci talktalk 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As an added plus, I figured out how to make my page black too. Falconus^{p t c} 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blanked and added the ubx to my page too. How do I make my page black? ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Use this code:

<div style="width:100%; margin-right: 1em; background: #000000; border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 1em;">

{{col-begin|width=100%}}

{{User:UBX/Blackout}}

@nbsp;

Replace the "@" in the @nbsp; with an "&" and put as many returns between the {{User:UBX/Blackout}} and the @nbsp; as you would like. It's not an elegant solution, but it works. See my user page to see how I have implemented it. Falconus^{p t c} 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the same. --Bhadani (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• And meanwhile, on Mars... SuperMarioMan 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey that's too cool!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Literally!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone good at making templates? I had the idea to make a template for userpages for after the blackout is over saying something like "This user supported the Wikipedia blackout against SOPA". Just an idea. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 19:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly did you want to do? It should be fairly straightforward, I would think. Falconus^{p t c} 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually plan to simply alter the template after the black to reflect past tense.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want a simple black template with a straightforward support phrase. I plan to put it at the top of my userpage after the blackout when I put my other content back so my support of the blackout won't be over. Also, I don't know how to create templates. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:Template is probably the place to get started. I can help you with the very basics. That being said, I think that Amadscientist is already planning to do what you are saying, so you may not need to also do one. Note that that user box is essentially already a template. Falconus^{p t c} 23:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout user box category

Sorry. Didn't know exactly how to create a category or where to find the right one to list. If anyone wants to create or locate the proper category I would appreciate it!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much point, actually. User categories that are political in nature, or which do not aid the building of the encyclopedia are routinely deleted at WP:CFD. Of course, that rationale is somewhat ironic in this case, but likely would hold true none the less. Resolute 20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I suspected as much. It's just a user box. It's even something I feel a little odd in having as my first user box to build...but it's there. I know the community does not all share the same opinion of the use or existence of user boxes. I used to have one that stated who I thought "Did it" in Clue and one that said i like hamburgers and one for pizza......--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TFA

This is going to be difficult. There are a *lot* of things to fix.

• Main Page – >>>>>>>
• Wikipedia time-dependent processes – >>>>

Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Time dependent processes are to be extended by 24 hours, so deletion processes, for example, should still have 7 days. I expect that will get fudged a little, however. As far as the main page goes, if Raul et al wanted to be cheeky bastards, they'd list Jenna Jameson as tomorrow's TFA.  ;) Resolute 16:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • haha perfect way for them to get that one off the list without ever actually showing it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

today in history -- Jan. 18

(Please be aware that some people did not learn of the planned blackout of English-language Wikipedia until today because of holiday yesterday.)

Could you make provision for Jan. 18 "today in history"? Because of the planned blackout, it will not be available THAT DAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can just click on the January 18 link under the "more anniversaries" in the "On This Day" section. Falconus^{p t c} 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but we will not see the excerpted version that would be appearing on Wikipedia main page. Also, it occurs to me that the same thing will happen regarding current news. Newspaper microfilms have those occasional cases where a newspaper was shut down by a strike, so they make other arrangements to include news which occurred during a strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• But it will be available, the blackout only begins at 0500 UTC, and the January 18 anniversary module will be up at 0000 — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 19:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Extreme

Just who exactly IS "English Wikipedia" anyway? How exactly was the decision made for a global blackout of en.wikipedia.org? No matter how anyone may feel about SOPA one way or the other, this blackout smacks of special interest and subjectiveness. And why is it a global blackout? I think it goes ithout saying that there are a great many people outside the USA who frequent en.wikipedia.org, where SOPA has nothing to do with them whatsoever. Not only do I think this is an asinine course of action, I also wonder if those who decided this should be done considered any negative backlash. I fear this will not have the desired effect. That is to say, I do not beleive it will have more people critically thinking about SOPA, rather I think you will just annoy many people, and in the end, alienate them, and perhaps incite adverse and detrimental action against the english language wiki for a while. I will probably get slammed for saying this, but the fact of the matter is that users from the United States have a hard enough time on wiki as it is (don't believe that if you wish, but humor me a moment and follow along). I fear this blackout will cause more stress. If I am a user in the UK or Commonwealth nations, or I happen to be any person on this planet who does not live in the US but happens to, for whatever reason, primarily patronize en.wikipedia.org, I could see myself becoming quite agitated as to why a group of Americans are adding an unnecesary level of difficulty to accessing an information service, simply because they wish to take a stance on a socio-political issue that has nothing to do with me.

I feel this course of action is in folly. Note, I am not commenting on SOPA itself one way or the other. Perhaps I agree with protesting it. Perhaps I do not. Fact is, SOPA is immaterial here. What is real and concrete is that however it was decided for en.wikipedia.org to be globally blacked, even only temporarily, was made unilaterally. I would hope the Wiki community would not devolve into an agenda oriented meta-lobby, though I truly fear there were key people who decided from the very beginning this was going to happen, simply to suit their personal feelings, before any vote was cast or consensus reached. It seems hasty at best; arbitrary and banal at worst. Jersey John (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the English Wikipedia? We are. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's inconsequentual and insubstiantial quips like that, that lead me to believe this is just the pet project of self-important reactionaries. Your words may sound clever and deep to you, but to anyone who isn't taken in by whimsy and spectacle, they are what they truly are: empty and contrived. Jersey John (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't just Americans that this will have an effect on. There are a large number of ways in which this will impact people in other countries. That is why it had to go globally. Not all of the people who supported it were Americans. A great many were people from other countries as well. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So you can think globally when United States legislation is involved? Where were you when Italian Wikipedia was asking the same questions and conducted the same protest, and English Wikipedia actively decided that it was not newsworthy enough to merit a single word on the main page? And don't say it was not you who chose to actively ignore it then and belay responsibility that way -- you just said that we -- you -- are part of who English Wikipedia is. Individual responsibility is not a cherry-pick. - Tenebris 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It would not effect them to any appreciable means, and just because they got involved proves nothing more than they like pet causes. The general "fakeness" behind this whole thing simply disgusts me. This isn't about SOPA at all. It's about playing games, and pushing agendas. Jersey John (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's cheesy. It's also an obvious answer, and when you are asking questions like "How exactly was the decision made for a global blackout of en.wikipedia.org?" on the talk page of the discussion, obvious answers are what you get. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes repeating the obvious answer also serves to obscure a deeper reality. In this case, the deeper questions are the nature of personal responsibility in a Wikipedia context, as well as what exactly constitutes consensus -- not in the Wikipedia ideal, but in the everyday Wikipedia practical reality. (See group polarisation, deindividuation, and minority influence.) - Tenebris 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I get the impression that within the English Wikipedia elite, non-US opinions seem to be worth less than those of Americans. You do have a say, but a sort of lesser say. One of the few reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago, and have already started using alternative sources of information. Blocking English Wikipedia just inconveniences the rest of the English speaking world. Here in the UK, no-one cares about SOPA, and they still won't care about it after the blackout. We care about our own laws. I reckon it will just seem to most Britons and other English speakers as if it's "just the Americans throwing their weight around again". I think ANY official political bias damages Wikipedia irreparably. But it is fascinating to see how Wikipedia has evolved from being a neutral collaborative encyclopaedia with natural equality (for example 5 years ago) into some sort of American-centric social network with an "intellectual" leaning, perhaps that is what leads to both a political ideology and also some sort of social apartheid? 109.176.154.73 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got that exactly right mate. I'm from Eastern Europe and I feel the same way. What I felt first was betrayed. YOu see in may naivete I used to think that WF is my friend, given my time and effort and donations that I've poured into a shared dream. Now I feel mostly anger and resignation. Why bother with consensus seeking and research when it's all for nothing? I've never been really anti-American before actually, I thought that the whole arrogance thing is exaggerated. Obviously... we know what the answer to that is. But if you could possibly illuminate us on which those alternative sources of info are, we'd all be grateful you, since tomorrow we'll be forced to... use the competition.79.112.59.92 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebris, I think you and I are on the same page, but the way you formatted your earlier entry makes it seem like we were arguing lol. Anyway, good points. Jersey John (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but I really could not think of any other practical way to format that! - Tenebris 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries! I was glad to read your contribution. Jersey John (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As to same page, this is where I stand. This blackout will happen, no matter what is said here, other talk pages, or in blog comments. It will make the news. Those involved in pushing this agenda will believe that they are acting out of consensus in the interests of free speech and a free Internet (by which is meant freedom from government regulation, not other private forms of restriction). The action will accomplish nothing whatsoever wrt that intent, but will further push English Wikipedia toward dominance by United States interests -- and because a few across the world will have supported the action, that push will remain largely invisible. Oh, and despite official words to the contrary, any legislation outside the United States will still effectively be invisible to the United States and therefore irrelevant to English Wikipedia, but never the other way around. I speak up not to change today's action -- for I know that will not happen, no matter what is said -- but to ensure that the forces behind it are clearly seen. I value what Wikipedia represents as a whole, but I cannot be blind to its clockworks! - Tenebris 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am mildly disappointed with the result of our deliberations. I sympathize with the conservative viewpoint against SOPA and their ilk, but also take a conservative view for keeping the faith despite hardships and provocations. I prefer standing by our commitment to illuminate the world.

In contrast, my disappointment with the process is deep, even to the point of resentment though not quite outrage. A greater effort is often made to solicit opinions on proposals of lesser reach such as Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. Most of the several hundred editors who responded to the poll said yes, but respondents were a minority of those who were alerted that the discusion was underway. They were a large minority, and it is usual for only a minority to respond, so this doesn't bother me.

What bothers me, what deeply disappoints me, is the smallness of the effort to put out the alert, to solicit participation. Every day, several tens of thousands of users edit some little thing or other, and millions read, but only a few thousand were alerted. By the chance of watching one of the peripherally related talk pages in which it was mentioned, I was one of those who noticed when a little group of a few dozen tried to pull off a midnight coup. I immediately spoke up about the need for due consideration. Agreement on this question quickly ensued, so I didn't pay much attention, trusting that the Admins and other dutiful editors who organize the various decision making processes would handle it with due deliberation. I pursued my happy little photographical and geographical activities.

Next thing I knew, a big black banner came up, no matter what page I was viewing, saying the decision had been made and the blackout was xx hours away. Oh, too bad, I though. That may or not be a wise decision, but if it's the will of the community then it's okay, but why wasn't the discussion more widely trumpeted beforehand? Alas, a look into the process revealed its scantiness. Yes, it is more than the effort that has gone into the question of whether geographical coordinates should be outlawed (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Proposal for the closure of this project) but only a small fraction of us can be expected to take an interest in longitude and latitude anyway. Much more should have been done for a proposal to shut down the whole Wikipedia.

First, that bold black banner telling all readers about the closure should have been shown to all a week ago, with different wording, or at least to all editors, and two or three days ago to all readers. Second, a poll on such a question should bee organized in a way that can accept tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of votes if need be, not just a couple thousand. This should be something similar to the recently implemented page rating software, though of course accessible by clicking on the banner among other methods.

Alas, the process I trusted wasn't there. More important, the trust the outside world holds for Wikipedia, never complete of course (why should it be?) is going to be seriously eroded. The saving grace is, maybe our Wikicompetitors will be strengthened. Even if we were more trustworthy, we shouldn't be a monopoly. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I think you make the case quite eloquantly. Jersey John (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside of the USA

Why are we all affected, by that I mean those of us outside the USA? I am Canadian and have no legal say in what the American government does, only my own. Same as I suppose the UK, Ireland, India, etc, etc. Seems a bit harsh that we all have to pay a price for something that our own governments have nothing to do with. And actually I find it odd that the English site in Canada will be down, but the French one will still be operating, in the same country! --RobNS 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize with you, and as an American wiki patron, I must say I feel embarrassed by all this. If you see my post just above, labeled "Extreme," you'll see my two cents on why this is happening. I am not saying you should adopt my opinion, rather that you can glean the opinion of an American wiki user who happens to not only disagree with this blackout, but makes a point to state that a global blackout of en.wikipedia.org will affect people who do not care about SOPA one way or the other. No matter what spin the agenda oriented users try to put on it. Jersey John (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, but if this bill passes and the English Wikipedia is forced to shut down, everyone will be affected, including us Canadians. Gsingh (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a terrible strawman argument if there ever was one. Were SOPA to pass, how would that shutdown Wikipedia?! You are SEVERLY misinformed my friend. Jersey John (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Most French natives like me just begin to know about this matter and such a voting process has not started yet on different .fr wikis and it's getting too late by now and imho next time this kind of action is initiated, a better coordination is needed between major wikis: the French one --- I should have said francophone, sorry Gsingh above --- has reached the 1 200 000 entries gap last week. ONaNcle (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I've vowed to never write a line on WP ever again, but I can't help myself: I am against SOPA but I am also an Eastern European. Maybe SOPA will in some way affect me too. Ok let's assume that. So what are you hoping to accomplish by doing something so incredibly hostile to your users and editors outside the US. What can I possibly do to prevent this? How could public opinion in Poland, the Ukraine, Argentina or Jordan possibly help with the fight against SOPA.

People, (I'm speaking now to the WF and the WM elite) you have no idea what is the standard operating proceedure in government-citizen relationships in some parts of the world. In the EU when the Irish voted no in a referendum that the government wanted to pass they just said: "ok we'll put it to the vote again and then again and then again, untill you'll vote yes". And they did. And this is WESTERN Europe. Not to mention Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America etc. The fact that you people have this chat-room view of the world, that you don't believe us when we tell you that we're powerless to do anything about it, that worldwide public opinion doesn't matter at all and the only thing that can turn this around is pressure on the congresspeople by their US voters... Come on! Is that so difficult to get through your head? Let me spell it out for you: you are sadistic; you punish us innocents who can do nothing about it.

Blacking out WP for us will not accomplish anything. Anything other than to show us how incredibly hostile, unfriendly and uncivil you are to your users, editors and donor. To show us what fools we've been to ever trust in your words, in this dream. To show us that joke's on us. Message received and understood. The behaviour of WF and the WM elite relating to this issue was a huge eye-opener, I think, for everyone. My trust, at least, in this wonderful project has been, I am afraid, quite permanently shaken and shattered. WM was not supposed to be run on votes, but on consensus. And especially not on the votes of such a small basis of WF elite, without notification to everyone of the discussion by banner prior to the decision, and not in a conversation so heavily moderated by WF. 79.112.59.92 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, if you are reading this and oppose this course of action, please speak up, as others are starting too. Whether you are against SOPA, support it, or are indifferent. If you disagree with this carte blanche global blackout, please speak up. People need to see that there are wikipedians out there who are not shills for other's agendas. If you use the english wiki outside the US, you ESPECIALLY should speak up. You deserve to have others know how this is unfair and extreme. The ones in favor are the most vocal, so people get a false impression that this is popular. But that might not be true. The dissenters ought to get just as vocal. I am pleased to be reading your contributions here. I say that as an American wiki user who is embarassed and ashamed by what WF and WM are forcing down the throats of en.wikipedia.org patrons. Jersey John (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried. I've taken part in the discussion and supported a soft blackout (i.e. the articles should be evenetually accessible after a couple of links) and, if possible, just for US users. The First Citizen Jimbo Augustus Caesar Wales himself answered confirming that was, too, his opinion. But the People's Commissioners and other Comrades at WF heavily edited the discussion several times and my contribution, and indeed Jimbo's is now gone... somewhere... hell knows where. I've tried to "lobby" moderators that were pro full blackout but seemed fair minded. The opinion seemed to go in the direction of a soft blackout. But alas the what can editors and readers do when the Soviet decided already?79.112.59.92 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald is gaining support on his user page. Whilst I probably won't be going to that extreme, I will be withdrawing from working on Wikipedia for a week if the blackout goes ahead. See User:Optimist on the run/Blackout protest. If other people decide to do the same, perhaps we can make our views known.  An optimist on the run! 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I support this global blackout. SOPA and PIPA does not affect us directly, but we will feel the impact. The MPAA and RIAA, along with their Canadian counterparts, are very active in their lobbying efforts to try and drive similarly harsh legislation here. For instance, Bill C-11 is wending its way through Parliament now. And while it does grant several personal-use exceptions in allowing people to copy copyrighted works, it also makes it illegal to break DRM. In a world rapidly moving to digital domain, the government's proposed law contradicts itself as it would actually make personal use copying illegal, even as the the bill itself says this is legal. It also intends to lead us down the path of the DMCA, and erodes our private property rights. That said, the fault in the global blackout is not that it is global, but that it lacks a concrete message for non-US citizens. Namely, everyone should be encouraged to look at how organizations like the MPAA are lobbying their own governments for laws that will eventually be just as dangerous as SOPA. Resolute 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Playing the shill. You don't care about SOPA one way or the other. You just like noise spectacle.Jersey John (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite confident that you lack the ability to discern what I do or do not care about. But if randomly lashing out at people who disagree with you makes you feel better, feel free. Just a word of caution, what you say says far more about you than it does me. Resolute 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point Rob. Why the hell should I care about politics in America? I live in Australia. What has any of this got to do with me? And even if I did live in America, why should I care? Why isn't wikipedia complaining about the Chinese government and their restrictions on the Internet? 58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

http://infojustice.org/archives/6182

"After the initial statements had been introduced, Chairman Smith asked Maria Pallente (U.S. Copyright Office) to clarify her comment that the U.S. copyright system would fail if Congress doesn’t take action to address online piracy, and whether or not she believes authorities have the necessary legal tools to address it. Pallente said that the copyright system is based on system of exclusive rights, and if those rights can’t be enforced, then they will become meaningless. Currently, authorities do not have the tools they need, because criminals set up overseas to sell goods online to Americans, placing their activities are outside normal jurisdiction. However, Congress has always updated copyright law as needed, and SOPA will give authorities the tools they need to fight overseas piracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzing_Matilda#Ownership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_issues_and_public_performances

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/precedent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Proposed_future_legislation_.28mandatory_filtering.29

If you don't want to read that, a good summary is that powerful companies who illegally copyright content that does not belong to them want more options to take punitive action against people they deem to be violating their IP. Which doesn't actually have to be violating anything, just someone they don't like. They can also shut Aus off from the USA if they want to, IP blocking by region already happens, this just gives them greater options to do that and also sets a precedent. Note that even if the bill only lets them block one way, foreign sites coming in, it will be easier to add an addenum later which allows it to go both ways. Imagine waking up and not being able to log into Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo because you're in Aus. You can log in if you purchase a license. This license should only be for you though, so we'd see a reintroduction of:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/identitycards.htm

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/accesscard.html

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/proof_of_citizenship/

Think of the frog in boiling water example, if you want to control the internet you introduce everything slowly. It's the first initial action which has the greatest amount of resistance (Newton's laws of momentum still apply :P), after that it's an uphill battle which is never truly won. Starting a bit late, but if you can stop measures like this going through it will be at least another five to ten years before they try it again and it will slow down other measures to control the internet. On the Chinese issue China is currently incapable of censoring the entire world, the USA to a greater or lesser extent is.

See http://ttthings.com/images/uploads/note_to_skippers_main.jpg or just think of how many pages you go to that end in .com, .org, basically anything that isn't another countries label such as .au (which are usually hosted in the USA anyway), .nz, .co.uk, .fr, .ru, etc.

Think of it like this, our current prime minister who bought her way into parliament with tax payer money she didn't have access to has teamed up with a minority party who currently control parliament due to an election which didn't result in a majority lead and should have been dissolved... They would like to put a filter and an identity card system into Aus, people don't like that. But in the name of copyright protection the USA wants to put one through, and if they do it then we should too given that the USA was established on the principles of freedom, has saved the world twice (including Australia, has done more for Aus than the Brits ever did.), and are generally People To Look Up To. If they pass this, we're screwed. :P Chrissd21 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand what discussions like this are trying to accomplish. All of you have had the chance to vote no against the blackout, but support for a global blackout won by a very large margin. I haven’t counted how many of the for votes are from non-Americans, but mine is certainly one of them. Do you really think you can stop the blackout now, after such a successful vote and so close to the event? — Timwi (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I support the blackout and appreciate your time to discuss this, your straw poll and letting the community make the decisions! Thank you sir!

SOPA/PIPAThis user supported the SOPA/PIPA blackout!

--Amadscientist (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What "Sir" are you thanking? And to what "community" do you refer? The WF and WM elite who were carefully screened? Don't be a shill. Jersey John (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "carefully screened"? I honestly ask, I really don't know anything about WP politics. Dan Gluck (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This unfortunately changes everything

I can accept there's an apparent consensus for this although 1) it was unprecedentedly led by the WMF and Jimbo Wales (who otherwise mainly refuse to lead the community) 2) the polling was over an unprecedentedly short period (72 hours) and 3) there was no watchlist notice which is also customary, particularly as many regulars disable banners (granted this appears to have been an oversight - nevertheless that demonstrates the rushed nature of all this).

However, my main problem is that this offends against the core of what I've always understood Wikipedia was. I realise a lot of Wikipedia's founders are free-culture ideologues, who have never been that keen on copyright. I've always respected that, despite not entirely sharing that ideology. I've been able to work with it, because the project was not about ideology. We were united by the narrow commitment to editing an encyclopedia in line with the five pillars of the project. That was enough - and that was all. There was nothing else I needed to negotiate.

Jimmy Wales has never made any secret of his own randian ideology - but that didn't matter up until now. I took to heart what he once said [let us]"encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral" (Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005). The project was for all, left, right, American, European, as long as you wanted to write an encyclopedia, you were a full member. Well, that seem to have gone now.

By posting this, some will assume I favour SOPA. However, my views (or lack of them) on SOPA are beside the point. My views on any political subject should be beside the point. We leave them at the door of Wikipedia. My relationship to the community is not about ideology or politics, and I do no wish to have to identify with or disassociate myself from the community based on its new-found desire to express its ideological preferences. I do politics, I very much do politics, there are political issues I will live and die for, but not here.

I can tell those of you who support this feel really, really, strongly about SOPA. I respect that, I really do. Maybe I'd even join you in political action - but not on Wikipedia - because that's not what defines us. I can tell you earnestly believe SOPA could destroy wikipedia. I think that's somewhat moral panic, but you could be right, you could even convince me, but it is still (at best) an opinion - and political opinions isn't what defines Wikipedia or its community.

You say there's consensus here. OK. But what other things might we find a political consensus for? Are we in to the game of finding out? You say this is uniquely important. OK? So what else will consensus say is important? Now, we are a community not just involved in Writing an ideology.

We tell all new Wikipedians: here we are neutral; and here, no matter how noble your cause seems to you, no matter how exceptional, no matter how life or death, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble causes; Wikipedia is NOT your soapbox; and you must not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - not any point, not ever, no matter who you are, or how many others agree with you. That has now all gone.

I respect your passion, but you have broken something, and I regret that. It changes everything, and I do not know where it ends.--Scott Mac 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I support that view. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a different view about what defines Wikipedia, Scott. I see it as being about community-generated activity. Within certain boundaries (slightly ill-defined, I might grant you) that activity can be anything the community decides it should be. What else might consensus deem to be as important? I don't know, but part of what makes Wikipedia work is the notion that, whatever consensus decides, it will be within the bounds of commonsense a tolerable number of times out of a hundred. This time, you feel like we got it wrong, but all Wikipedians (at least those who get involved in these sorts of discussions) have to take a turn in that chair.

I also don't think it's about Jimbo's ideology or that of WMF. I don't know what the Randian position on copyright would be exactly, but I doubt it would be very coherent or that it would be consistent with the decision that has been taken. And the idea actually came from our Italian colleagues, who didn't even consult WMF before blocking their project. --FormerIP (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if consensus decides to endorse congressmen who support the right positions on SOPA, is that OK? What if consensus then decides to discern the community's position on other issues to decide what the community endorses? I didn't sign up for this. I signed up to write an encyclopedia - nothing more.--Scott Mac 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Purely in my opinion, and purely as a theoretical question, that would be OK, yes. It wouldn't happen, of course, partly because many Wikipedians will disagree with my view on that and would vote the proposal down on that basis. In other words, it's better (as well as more realistic) to expect that we are restrained by our reasonably predictable collective behaviour, rather than by an idea that we can't, in principle, do this or that. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It may seem from recent comments that there is an overwhelming negative opinion about this, but that is simply an artifact. Those who got what they want have no reason to complain, and those who opposed the ban but think that losing Wikipedia and having to rely on mirrors for one day isn't worth getting excited about have no reason to complain. So the nature of the result guarantees that most of the comments will express strong negative feelings, even though it is demonstrably true that the majority of those who voted support a worldwide ban.

As for Jimbo Wales, I would note that yesterday we had a cordial discussion where we disagreed about the US-only / global issue. I got my way and he didn't. If Jimbo wales is "leading me" or otherwise pushing his POV, he certainly has a funny way of going about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, nice shill routine. Truth is, you CAN NOT POSSIBLY know if the majority of us support this. You only know a majority of the, ahem, "votes" support this. And the entire process is suspect. And no, people from Wikimedia may not contact someone like you personally, and they may not even had talked to ANY of the "votes," but you can be damn well sure they were going to make this happen, regardless. Jersey John (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "the majority of those who voted support a worldwide ban" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just not true, because if the initial proposal from WMF had been successful, there would not have been a blackout. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell me you're not that naive. WMF put out something they expected to be shotdown. To maintain a charade of "consensus." This was going to happen the way it is happening, no matter what.Jersey John (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so John. There's always been a vocal minority opposed to the blackout, and I think they felt at that time that they were more likely to get consensus for a compromise half-measure. I can't read minds, of course.

Let's say they actually did expect it to be shot down, though. Surely this can only be true if they knew that the idea of a blackout had overwhelming popularity? --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I put 500 kids ages 5 through 10 in a room and ask "who is in favor of replacing dinner with chocolate ice cream?" I'm going to get a consensus that yes, we should replace dinner with chocolate ice cream. What's my point? that majority means nothing, and, in fact, it's usually the lower number of people who have a wsier outlook on things. WMF was pandering to a crowd they already knew existed. Spend a month perusing Wikipedia, not just the articles but the discussions behind them, and it should be blatantly obvious that a large number of users and editors (mainly editors) have leanings that predispose them to things such as blacking out a webpage as a form of protest to something that disagrees with their model of what society can be. As many have pointed out, Wikipedia was NEVER intended to be a tool for that. Wikipedia was to informed, as best as we can, and not cast its own judgment. The WMF has blatantly discarded this, conveniently so. Jersey John (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott Mac has made an excellent point, far more eloquently than I ever could. I support his statement completely. This undermines all Wikipedia's efforts at neutrality and dedication to building an encyclopaedia. From now onwards we will instead be viewed as a campaigning body, and I'm not sure that's something I want to be associated with. Modest Genius ^talk 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my profound regret over this hastily made shortsighted decision. In one fell-swoop Wikipedia has become a hijacked political entity with an agenda that seeks to advocate rather than inform. This action has not only tarnished Wikipedia’s supposed unbiased stance but also set it on a slippery slope where the only direction is down. With this move, Wikipedia has metamorphosed into an entirely different creature; in this case one that has lost its wings. Veritycheck (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I wish to note that the WMF specifically requested (two staff members) a watchlist notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Community_consultation_on_SOPA_act I note that it was not implemented. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I could swear that I went to the vote through a banner. Resolute 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the eloquent message, Thierry Caro; I agree wholeheartedly. What ever happened to WP:SOAP? Tomorrow will be sad day for Wikipedia. Even sadder was the decision to enact tomorrow's "blackout." BroadSt_Bully ^[talk] 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Impact on mobile site?

I notice that the regular version of the English Wikipedia site now has a banner warning people of the impending blackout. However the mobile version does not. Does this mean that the mobile version will be unaffected by the blackout, or is this an oversight? If the intention is to black out the mobile site too, then there should be a courtesy warning there too. Ghalse (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are currently no plans to blackout mobile site. vvv^t 21:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. That way I can still keep reading during this stunt. 72.193.42.119 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Glorious Leader Implores us to Act

Jimmy Wales, why am I not surprised? The problem here is not so much that wikipedia is being transformed (as it was put elsewhere) "from the 'free encyclopedia', to 'the crusading encyclopedia'." The problem isn't even so much the disconnect between the collective, which is wikipedia, and the hierarchal political structure, which exists at the Wikimedia foundation. The problem is more troubling, for me at least.

The effects of a wikipedia blackout might actually be significant. People WILL take notice. The other sites around the internet that are considering/planning similar action will get their responses in turn. Is this the right time? Is this the right issue? Is it being lead for the right reasons?

It is a very familiar theme, for those who study history, that people leverage political influence in a manner inconsistant with how that power was gained. Jimmy Wales is leveraging his, and the community here is forming ranks behind him.

So behave like every political structure in history. Form around a powerful individual. Be his army. Authenticate his power. Take up his cause.

It tickles me to watch the otherwise intelligent contributors here allow and endorse this grab for control and influence. Groups of people, "societies", behave in ways as predictable as the elements of chemistry. That is why "the history of western civilization is the story of war punctuated by periods of peace". By the way, poor choice of leader. Have a nice day. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

“This is going to be wow” -Jimmy Wales via twitter. The rush of power feels good, doesn't it? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

People from the foundation should resign. They didn't understand what a neutral encyclopedia is. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes me think of the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott when the United states didn't attend the Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet war in Afghanistan followed by the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott with the Soviet bloc not attending the Olympics in Los Angeles. In the end the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I don't think the Olympics is a venue for political maneuvering. I don't know if that is the case here, but it does remindme of it. The Soviet war in Afghanistan had little to do with the Olympics, but SOPA and such legistration has a lot to do with Wikipedia. I didn't vote on the issue either way. I don't want Wikipedia to become a political tool, but I don't think it should sit back and let goverments dictate Wikipedia content. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what ticks me off the most, that some of the advocates for this action are grossly misinformed. SOPA< whether you are for it or against it (and I still will not say where I stand on that) is about copyright and intellectual property. It is not simply "big bad government is going to control my internet experience and make me shut down my website." That's idiotic.

Yes, people will notice. Especially people (like me) who aren't regular editors to wikipedia, i.e. the 99.9999% of the population. The blackout is a total farce and leaves wikipedia's credibility in tatters.58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We are the 99.9999%!--Taylornate (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

lol

55%???

I keep reading that there is a consensus for this....am I misreading, or do the closing admins say that a global blackout commands 55% support? Since when did Wikipedia ever do anything on 55% support? Let alone take such an innovative and controversial step? Really, flagged revisions was blocked for years with more support than this. One can only conclude this is treated as an exception because the powers that be want it so. Is 55% now the new norm?--Scott Mac 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again I think you hit the nail on the head. 55% is good enough if it is convenient. Jersey John (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the closers of the RFC got that 55% number from the sum of the first two options: US only blackout or global blackout. Lower down, a question was asked specifically about support or oppose for a global blackout. Result was 763 support, 104 oppose. Not withstanding the fact that polls are evil, I think the consensus was pretty clear on that one. Resolute 21:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clear my arse. This is a botched close of a totally unclear poll. Nearly 500 people said "US only" blackout, combined with those who wanted none. What happened, options removed until you got the result you wanted? This is no clear mandate for such global action at all. We demand clear consensus to make things clear.--Scott Mac 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are fully aware that support for one position in a multi-option poll should not be taken as implied opposition to all other options. None the less, nearly 900 comments in a poll that was specific: "global blackout, yes or no" with 88% saying 'yea' is a clear result. Resolute 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott let's not forget how the fact there was even a vote going on was quite a surprise. This was an underhanded tactic that you would expect from the looneytunes over at Conservapedia, where they have secret little groups that vote in amongst themselves. Jersey John (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Now this is a legitimate concern. That said, I think it unlikely that the overwhelming support for a blackout from 1800 users would have turned into overwhelming opposition if it ran a few more days and had 3600 make comments. Resolute 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're misreading, Scott. The support for a blackout was over 80% of all who expressed an opinion, which is a rather overwhelming consensus. The issue that we, as the closing administrators, had to consider most carefully was whether there was sufficient support for a global blackout. One way or another, there was going to be a blackout of some form. Some of the things we took into consideration in determining the global vs US-only blackout was the fact that the banner pointing people to the discussion was only pointed to users geolocating to the US for the first 30 or so hours of the poll; I cannot speak for how that decision was made. What became clear was that once the banner was shown to *all* users regardless of location, support for a global blackout started to rise rapidly, with a significant percentage of non-US users supporting a global ban. Support for a global ban was rising at a rate of 1% per hour in the last few hours of the poll; as well, many of the supports for a "full blackout" mentioned global blackout as well; while we didn't run full comparisons given the short time we had to close the discussion, it was clear these votes weren't overlapping completely. It's not an exact science, and we gave it our best effort to come up with a defensible and balanced interpretation of the combination of discussion and polling that took place here. Risker (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I supported a US-only blackout, but I think the closers made the most sensible decision they could. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Risker, first of all, I'm not misreading. I can see, and don't dispute, that there was evidently a consensus for a blackout of the US (although in Wikipedia 80%, certainly is a clear, but not overwhelming consensus - 5% or so less and we'd be in debatable land. But that's semantics I'll admit.). However, there was simply not any clear consensus for any global action. The bottom line is Wikipedia has a strong default of "no change", which in this case means no global blackout. The onus was clearly on those wishing a global blackout to demonstrate consensus precisely for that. If the advertising of the polling was rushed and (in some ways) botched, that ought to count against being able to claim consensus, not for it. If the enterprise ran out of the time it required, that ought to have counted against being able to claim consensus, not for it. In any other poll, we'd have concluded consensus extended only to a US blackout -and then perhaps, given the faults with the poll, offered the possibility of re-testing consensus on the global question (which for now lacks consensus). You didn't do that. The time pressures, and publicity faults, were read as strengthening the case for seeing consensus and you used extrapolation to declare consensus. Since when have we ever done that? The point of requiring consensus is that even if people don't like the result, they can't possibly claim it is in doubt. That's just so far from being the case here. Why not rerun the thing? Well, it is self-evident why not. Can you point me to any precedent for what just happened? When I asked NuclearWarfare how he'd read 55% (your figure) as a consensus, he couldn't remember - indeed seemed not to have noticed it was only 55%.--Scott Mac 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sad day for Wikipedia

This is a very sad day for wikipedia. With the black out action Wikipedia is taking a big step backwards. The blackout was decided on a vote? Unbelievable! I wasn't aware that wikipedia was even considering a blackout until I heard it on the radio while going to work this morning. This is a disaster for wikipedia. Although I've always believed that wikipedia was biased in favour of leftist ideology, this unprecedented action proves it. Wikipedia can no longer claim to be neutral. RIP NPOV. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what is "leftist" about defending the free access to information? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're distorting things. This was never about access to information. It's about copyright laws and intellectual property. You purposely misrepresent the issue to fit your agenda. Jersey John (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the bills are multipartisan and are pretty much universally opposed (reading comments online in other sites), how is it leftist? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the bills favor corporations, not people. We're fighting for people by doing this.  Marlith (Talk)  22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're fighting for people? Seriously, get a grip. I can fight for myself and I don't need Wikipedia lecturing to me telling me what I should and should not worry about.58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

People who attempt to shoehorn the SOPA/PIPA debate into the tired old left/right dichotomy that dominates American politics are going to encounter significant difficulty. There are some awfully strange bedfellows being made here; on one side you have Hollywood and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and on the other you have the ACLU and the Cato Institute. It is possible to be opposed to SOPA/PIPA without being in favor of rampant Internet piracy. The problem is that in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. Seventypercent (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I actually care about SOPA? I didn't even know what it was until this morning. I live in Australia, do you think I take an intense interest in American politics? This is what is so frustrating about the blackout, it assumes that everyone actually cares about what happens in the US. This is more proof that wikipedia revolves around America and the rest of the world is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You made the claim that opposition to SOPA is part of a "leftist ideology", which is not supported by even the most cursory examination of the facts at hand. Seventypercent (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And as an American I sincerely apologize. Believe me, there a lot of us who think this is folly, and I understand your frustration. Don't thnk it isn't part of what WMF wants to happen either. I just beg you please not to paint us all with the same brush. Jersey John (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello John. I assume you were talking to me. Sometimes I use hyperbole on the Internet to achieve some cut through. I do know that wikipedia does try to maintain a world-wide view, and I also know that not everyone in wikipedia supports the blackout. Don't apologize. Perhaps it is me that should apologise for being so angry about the narrow-mindedness of it all and not being able to properly express myself. What a lot of people don't get is that this protest makes everyone on wikipedia look political. It's a step that is retrograde and works against the very essence of wikipedia. It's too depressing to even think about. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning The Wikimedia Foundation’s notice

As found in the notice, English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout published at Wikimedia Foundation and linked from Wikipedia's homepage Blackout popup.

To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director

“This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation.”

The level of participation does not illustrate concern about the proposed legislation but rather the concern over the proposed Wikipedia BLACK OUT. Veritycheck (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Participants in the discussion favored the blackout by about a seven to one margin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it strike you as concerning that maybe three people in support of the blackout have contacted their elected representative regarding this legislation? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So what?58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an outlandish personal attack, Jersey John. I urge you to withdraw it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is where the true face of WP admins is shown. Jersey John (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok... The Goebels comment was unnecesary. The point I wanted to make it, she was clearly putting a spin on things. As was pointed out, the bulk of these discussions is about the efficacy of blacking out en.wiki, not about SOPA itself. Jersey John (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say, I am not a particular fan of Sue Gardner (although she probably does a fine job) and I view this whole thing as outrageous. However, personal attacks on Sue (or indeed anyone) are uncalled for, and Nazi analogies quite unacceptable. I am happy to see they've been removed.--Scott Mac 01:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)