User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Auto-archived question about cause of attrition

This was archived by MiszaBot III before Jimbo had responded. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think administrator attrition is causing editor attrition or more the other way around, on balance? Are there any ways that the more quickly declining admin ranks could be caused by decreased editor retention? There are several reasons that fewer admins cause editor biting. Consider how fast WP:ANI is archived compared to about five years ago during the fastest growth period. Is there any reason to believe that admins make better decisions under one fifth the available amount of time? If it were entirely up to you, how would you prefer Foundation resources be allocated towards editor retention and admin retention, in terms of percentages of the entire budget? My opinion is 25% for admins and 1% for editors. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As neither admins or non-admin editors get any resources that I am aware of, dividing zero as you suggest should not be difficult. Personally, I think the barriers of entry are higher standards (thus, anyone cannot just edit it, at least for an article which is watched, without a significant risk of being reverted for good cause) and too much drama (the subsequent condescending note or block notice left on talk). I happen to agree that we are no longer just looking for bodies with fingers, and it is more important to concentrate on keeping experienced editors (who get bored or offended, and leave) and giving them resources to do their jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but in fact according to [1] the foundation has decided to devote considerable resources to editor retention, which seems foolish to me as it has leveled off to a slope sustainable for decades, while all the admins will be gone in less than seven years at the rate they've been leaving. I hope that Jimbo will be able to address the question. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor attrition is likely to be expected for a project involving documentation of knowledge. At the beginning all the easy stuff that just anyone can do is done. Ahem, Barbie, Easy bake oven, Kim Kardashian

Then it is followed by the harder work of citing and rewriting the more complex and technical articles for accuracy and completeness. That work is not as much "fun" so not as many people want to do it (or due to the costs of published scientific papers and industry standards, not many people CAN do it).. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

In the end I think it'll be either the obsessed or the asbergers/autistics (or the in-field scientists/engineers -- which may or may not be classified separately from those already mentioned, heh) that really flesh out the niggly ultra-technical stuff.

So the slowdown seems entirely expected. It will likely never drop off completely, though it is possible for some articles to be eventually be "locked for completeness" at some point, just to reduce the vandalism hassle. DMahalko (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is broadly correct. By about 2007 Wikipedia already had articles on most things that most people care about. What is left is cleanup and QC, along with fleshing out more technical or esoteric topics. Those activities don't attract the masses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and believe that supports the assertion that the Foundation should be focusing on administrator retention instead of general editor retention. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Berkman Center banner ad

I'm sad to see this ugly banner ad at the top of Wikipedia. I thought ads had no business being here? Your close ties to the center shouldn't override our endeavor to be a neutral and adfree website. ThemFromSpace 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if there is not a strong community response, it won't be the last one, and there will be a decreasing amount of affiliation with WMF. However, I doubt that this is the most effective forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While this is not an ad per se, I was wondering about that banner as well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better for the project would be to maintain a page in the Wikipedia namespace (or maybe on Meta or the Foundation wiki) that lists studies such as this that are looking for Wikipedian volunteers (that the Foundation is happy are genuine and appropriate). This page could be prominently featured in the usual centralised advertising for internal pages. To offset some of the reduction in visibility, it could be part of a series of "Have you seen?" banners pointing to internal things and shown to users no more than once per day. Other things in the sequence would be things like Commons' picture of the year contests, Arbitration Committee elections, GLAM projects, etc. It's probably worth me pointing out that I clicked the banner and took part in the study (I like taking part in things like that) and my participation earned a small donation to the Foundation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm happy to see that banner. Because it's just that, a banner. "Ad" is from Advertisement and Advertisement != Research. Also ads try to sell stuff and could make a conflict of interest with the article of the product they want to sell or brand itself. Research doesn't have that problem. A banner from a research project is not less or more annoying that a fundraising banner, and if it helps to raise money to the Wikimedia Foundation then I'm happy. I just finished the experiment and if they indeed transfer the money (I'm skeptical by nature) I'll donate half of it to Wikipedia.--Neo139 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you feel as happy when the ads are for Wikipedia's "marketing partners".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This response is absolutely uncalled for and offensive. Your argument is incoherent and false and insulting to good people. The idea that the Wikimedia Foundation legitimately wants to support research relevant to Wikipedia by assisting researchers in recruiting participants implies that we are about to take paid advertisement is just mind-boggling and the exact opposite of AGF. Let me be clear about this: there are no plans to take advertising in Wikipedia, and no relationship between announcing on behalf of research projects and taking advertising. I strongly support such banners and think people should be ashamed of themselves for behaving in a silly manner about them. Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face serves exactly what purpose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What I said was fair comment and I stand by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I support the general idea of this initiative in principle, but I am also slightly concerned that there is an issue about transparency. I would like to know the background to the research and details of why/how the researchers and WP are partnered. This is just so that I can feel informed. When you talk about "Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face" you may well be making a valid point, but I have no idea because I don't know where to look for information about what problems the research is looking into. If it's very obvious that the research is likely to be of benefit to WP, then I am sure that would put a lot of editors' minds at rest. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm unaware of the Foundation being secretive about anything, so it seems like an easy enough thing to ask them. But I'd like to challenge the assumption here that everyone needs or has a right to be informed about every detail of everything affecting the website at all times. That's just not generally a good use of the Foundation's time and resources, and it also reinforces what I think is a very unhealthy conservativism in the community about change. We need to break out of the idea that every software feature (for example) needs get "consensus" support (defined as high as 70% in some people's minds!) for even some very major software changes. We need to break the idea that the Foundation needs to get permission to run banners in support of research projects. We really need to break the idea, which is preposterous nonsense, that if we don't scream bloody murder and get out the pitchforks, that the Foundation is going to start running paid advertising soon. Not every slope is slippery, and most things are better handled by getting informed before protesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see: we have an outside organization, unaffiliated with Wikipedia, paying a bunch of money (much of which will be funneled to the foundation) so that they can put a banner with their logos for everyone to see. If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of money? Where did you find that out? --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming Berkman actually come through, it's like $25 average for 2000 survey-takers, which works out to $50,000. I'm not sure how much of that's going to get donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's probably not insignificant. Buddy431 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, well maybe that wasn't a great idea. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that that effectively makes it a paid advert. It's sort of vaguely like a duck, but it isn't one. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be realistic though from the foundations POV it's close to chump change. Personally I suspect the amount coming to the foundation is likely to be under $10k (for starters I actual suspect the average for survey per participant is likely to be closer to $20 if not under) but this is true even if it's $50k. The revenue in 2010 was $21.5 million [2] so even $50k would be only ~0.23% of that. And the worth of a real banner ad is surely far higher. In other words, the financial incentive for the foundation is minimal at best and frankly if they 'sold out' for a slight possibility of $50k whoever did that was an idiot. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that WMF should have sought my permission for the banners and I don't want them taking down. But I would have liked for there to have been (for example) a convenient link to basic information about why the banner was there (e.g. "WMF is collaborating with Harvard and Sciences Po on a research project that we hope will..." etc etc). If there had been more information, then there would have been less protesting, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask me again when that happens. For the moment, I prefer a non-profit organization to be self-sustainable with a 5-hour banner about a research by a university, displayed to users only, rather than a 6 week aggressive fundraising campaign. I don't get mad at Mozilla Foundation because Firefox uses Google as default search engine. That way they can hire more employees and make a better browser while keeping it free software. You can change it to Yahoo if you want, or remove it. The same principle could be applied here. I use Wikipedia not because its banner-free (which I find amazing) but because it's contents are free and good. With more money, they could hire more employees and make a better encyclopedia. And if something can make Wikipedia better while remaining free without annoying the users (or with little impact like this banner) then +1 to that. (BTW, I agree we should discuss this somewhere else) --Neo139 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What ad is this? Can I get a link? I've long since suppressed the damned banners, since my contributions consist of my work as an editor and admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Harvard/Science Po Adverts. Note, though, that they seem to have been disabled for the moment as per Brion at Meta. They were supposed to appear to a small sample of editors, and instead may have been showing up for everybody. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only just noted this discussion... Jimbo; I see the point you are making (although having looked at the survey I am not convinced it will be of any material use to us due to various flaws in the design). However I think this has sort of brought to a head the dire lack of communication with the community. In this case, no communication :) I realise that the community is conservative and resists change (in a sense this can be an important defence mechanism) but that isn't necessarily solved by simply imposing change without discussion. That way puts the community and foundation on a collision course - not helpful. In this case a banner targeted specifically at English Wikipedia editors is something I think is reasonable for us to have given input on (without having to subscribe to every mailing list and keep a close eye on all the meta pages...). One element of feedback I have picked up from the "other side" (i.e. RCOM) has been that they have no policy or benchmark to pick up from English Wikipedia as to what form of Central Notices the community thinks should appear. Rather than leave it to a case-by-case basis I have opened an RFC to form some degree of guidance for committees such as RCOM wishing to post banners onto en.wiki :) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices Hopefully this will help iron out future situations! I know every time this happens I moan about lack of communication, sorry about that, but we are terribly communicators and I will continue to constructively moan till it improves :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add further, on this specific incident. A number of very reasonable concerns were raised by editors - many of these were later addressed by RCOM and the people conducting the survey. But this, I think, proves my point - simple communication and answering those concerns *before* the launch would have caused a lot less issues... and at least given the community time to react more calmlydifferently :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mebbe. Or the ad might not have run because of community opposition. Perhaps rather than invent something new, why not put it in the Signpost?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Errant, I would not suggest saying, even with smiley, that people on one side of an argument are something other than "calm". What that implies is emotion-based reasoning, rather than argument based on reason. Editorial boards and Rush Limbaugh use that technique all the time. It has no place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh ye gods, come on... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia spokespersons

Jimbo, I note in the BBC's coverage of the Bell Pottinger affair that they quote "David Gerard, a UK-based spokesperson and volunteer for Wikipedia". This seems odd, considering the recent statement made on this very talkpage by a WMF employee which states that David Gerard is not a WMF employee and appears to state that Gerard does not speak for the WMF. It might be helpful if you clarified who the WMF's spokespersons actually are. If Gerard is not a spokesperson, why does he continue to be credited as such? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when did the press let facts get them in the way of a news story? If DG is listed in someone's rolodex under that heading, that's all the "fact checking" they need. — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think most organizations would take steps to correct any such misconception. They would contact the reporter to set them straight and ask for a correction. They would ask the person involved to stop speaking to the press unless they make it clear that they have no official capacity with the organization. It not clear to me who the spokepersons for the WMF actually are, or if Gerard is the de facto spokesperson, which is why I asked here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, David Gerard is still a UK press contact. We have many press contacts, volunteers, in many countries around the world. David's been doing that for years. Now that the UK chapter exists, has funding, and has started hiring people, I expect that role will eventually transition into the chapter, but for now, there's nothing at all unusual or wrong about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty much the case. I started doing the volunteer press thing in 2005 because we needed someone to do it, and kept on doing it. As Wikipedia became ridiculously popular I cut back severely, as dealing with press storms and working a day job started to conflict badly, so WMUK do it and I'm backup. And my phone number is public so I still get calls, and stop by the OTRS queue every now and then, and so forth.

To answer what I suspect is Delicious' real concern, I try quite hard not to give my own personal views (you can get those on the mailing lists) but my estimate of community consensus and ideals. I also stress I don't work for the WMF and am speaking as a volunteer. So far I've yet to be lynched by the Wikipedians or hideously embarrass the Foundation - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning your ability or your impartiality, David, merely your status. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for being so touchy - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Delicious, you have a woefully uninformed (though unfortunately common) perspective on the press, and clearly didn't read the comment already there on the page when you commented on my talk page. I'd have hoped you'd have paid more attention to detail were the matter as important as you consider it. I must apologise, that's uncalled-for snappiness on my part and you really didn't deserve it. I'm sorry.

To quote myself: "Press quotes may resemble words actually said by the person they're attributed to, in some circumstances. (This is then called "reliable", while the person's own words are called "COI".) That was a 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence."

FWIW, I gave my title (as I always do) as "volunteer media contact". The journalist then wrote something, the subeditors then edited it some way, and what ended up on the page bore a familial resemblance to anything I said. This is par for the course. The process is one of throwing out as robust soundbites as one can come up with on the fly and seeing just what the press can do with them that time - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I merely noted the apparent disconnect between the BBC article and the statement by a WMF employee, and asked who the spokespersons for the WMF are. I did not read the discussions on your talk page when I left you that message. I take it from Jimbo's answer that you are one of several "press contacts". Is there a list of these anywhere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

David is listed here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the UK list - the Foundation one is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Regional_contacts - I'm there in "other regional contacts", and my phone number is in lots of lists and will probably be so for years (Alison Wheeler's no longer on that list but still gets calls) - David Gerard (talk)

David's also listed on the UK list, under Wikimedia community volunteers. (David, I'm not sure we checked with you before adding you there - hope that was OK?) In general, all of David's comments here get a +1 from me - it's fantastic that he's doing this media communication. I think those that view media spokespeople as having to be from WMF or a chapter, rather than from the community, need to change their viewpoint - the community can (and should, for a number of reasons) always have its own spokespeople too. Mike Peel (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you have raised an interesting point. Anyone who edits Wikipedia should be free to give their opinions and impressions of what the community wants. A "community spokesperson" is by definition someone who speaks for the community. Surely that person should be chosen by the community? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's more a shape of sentence that looks appealing on the surface than something that would actually get the job done. e.g. Volunteers for even quite important jobs on the wiki (e.g. arbcom) have a visible tendency to just vanish and become uncontactable as they will; the media always want to talk to someone locally by preference ("Is there anyone in XXX who can talk to YYY within the next hour?"; when most of WMUK lived oop north I did lots of the London radio/TV stuff just by virtue of actually living here); getting calls and saying "Sorry, not me any more, talk to ZZZ who's in a different time zone and won't be awake for eight hours" throws away the opportunity to deal with a story and try to somewhat alleviate someone writing complete rubbish; when a big media storm hits, it tends to be all-hands-in dealing with a flurry of calls. In practice, finding volunteers who want to do the job (public person, real name, somewhat public phone number) and fit the "local" criteria is harder than your suggestion posits, which is why the job tends to fall to chapters. And the media are, IME, utterly unable to distinguish the various internal roles and see the whole vast complicated movement as just "Wikipedia"; editor, chapter, WMF, it's all the same to them. But perhaps I'm being unduly negative and you have a more detailed plan that would actually do the job of supplying reasonable-quality media input from us, whoever "us" is, given the amazing distortions that happen to quite simple sentences in practice - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just responding to Mike's suggestion that there be a "community spokesperson". As you point out, there are very practical reasons why having "press contacts" is perhaps the most simple solution, but those press contacts have no status to speak for either the community or the WMF, apparently. If I felt there was any desire to change this arrangement, I would propose something, but despite the apparent inability of the press to accurately quote or credit you, everyone seems to be satisfied by the current state of affairs. My original question was an attempt to understand the disparity between what a WMF employee had stated and the credit most often used by the press. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd call it "better than nothing" rather than "satisfied", but I think it is better than nothing. The press have a hierarchical mental model of all organisations. Talking to them isn't necessarily actually a good idea at all times, but OTOH we are a top 10 website living off public donations so that we will talk to the world is not an unreasonable expectation. I think the idea is that somehow we'll get the ideas across if we keep pushing. Our media relations are mostly a lot more reactive than proactive. ("Our" there means the Wikimedia movement in all its sprawling glory.)

If you (or anyone else) feel inspired to dive in talking to your media locally and explaining what on earth we all do here - which, and this is important, is largely a mystery to the general populace - do feel free to join in ad-hoc if you think you can. People who can explain stuff well in distortion-resistant soundbites are always good, as is making Wikipedia not mysterious to the general public - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is a useful illustration that Wikipedia does press the way it writes an encyclopedia: ad hoc, volunteer, and somehow more or less works with rough edges - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Par for the course, like I said.

I'm going to sing my one note song again and wonder aloud "When the hell are we going to stop pointing at news media as examples of reliable sources?" – they are barely adequate sources at the best of times. I know we're never going to wean the community away from those rags as sources, but can we at least stop pretending they are somehow venerable or exemplary? — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a journalist I almost take offence to that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying news media don't have their place, BWilkins, or that they are unreputable. But as encyclopedic sources, they suck. — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia, as opposed to something like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, was that "current events" could be covered in-depth and be kept more-or-less instantly up-to-date. That, generally, means news sources. If and when the facts change, we change our minds (articles). So what's your alternative to using the news media? 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Use them, don't canonise them (as WP:V does) - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The worst thing is when the best books on a topic and a newspaper article disagree and an editor tries to use this one article to rewrite a page. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: SOPA and a strike

(Please help me publicize this widely.)

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 December 2011‎

(note: I added the request for comment tag and signature for the bot Crazynas ^t 09:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.

Before answering at Poll, perhaps read below, #Discussion. -Wikid77 05:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Poll

• Oppose. Stay out of politics. Advocacy by WMF on issues that matter to wikipedia is fine; using wikipedia to do it isn't. If Congress feels like passing this law on behalf of the American people, that's its prerogative. Politicising wikipedia damages its reputation. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note This would not be advocacy by the WMF. In the Italian case, the WMF was not even aware of it until very shortly before it began. It was implemented by the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And for precisely that reason, it's a bad idea. I don't have a problem with you going to the White House and giving Mr O a piece of your mind. But we have to draw a line between the organisational advocacy of the WMF and inappropriate advocacy by the "community" which would impair the encylopaedia. What about members of the community who happen to agree with the bill? --Mkativerata (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia will be impaired by the bill! (unbeknownst to the oblivious users). US-only Block is a good way to inform them. Schalice (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - and note that, aside from corporate fatcats who have never heard of the concept of revolution, the American people don't want anything Congress is cranking out (they are approaching an approval rating of 0%). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Duh WP:NOTADVOCACY. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support in principle, though not sure exactly what it is we'd be planning to do. But this bill has the possibility to have a significantly damaging effect not just on Wikipedia but on the free and open Internet as a whole. I normally would never be in favor of Wikipedia taking a position as political issues go, but I've got to agree with the Italians here—this one's a special case because it's a direct threat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Confused - what are we supposed to be polling over? The acceptance of the bill, or the striking of WP because of the bill? If it's the acceptance then Strongly Oppose, and if it's the striking of WP, then again Strongly Oppose as per WP:SOAP but also Support for the following reason: Think of it like this: The internet is a medium, as is a book. If an encyclopaedia can be written in a book, then why can't it be written on the internet? The law is not clear cut on these things at all. Just my 2 cents. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue has not been well stated, the community has not been well informed, and if I am going to pick up pitchfork and torch, I'm going to pick the issue to do it on. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support iff it eliminates the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, or sufficiently compromises it to jeopardize the Wikimedia mission of collecting and disseminating free information. This isn't about advocacy, but about us being free to act as the largest repository of written information ever assembled. I feel that SOAP is fine for individual articles or policies, but when we're advocating for our right to exist, well we all want to be able continuing to improve the encyclopedia don't we? Crazynas ^t 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Uneasy support if it drastically impacts the core mission or distrupt majorly wiki*dia operations then sure, some form of action might be reasonable. However I believe it's very important to use this only as a last resort, only if it's really needed. It's a powerful weapon, not to be wasted if it can be avoided. Also, it's a very polarizing issue, as we've seen with the itwiki, while the Italian community had a wide consensus, I've seen many others especially from this wikipedia be fiercely against it. I think thinks kind of action should be discussed on some kind of specific page on meta, to allow for input from all the diverse wikimedia projects. Obviously an enwiki strike would have to be discussed and decided on this project, but if the interest is in global actions or actions like this in general, it would be interesting to have input from other projects as well. An enwiki strike is very different, in my opinion, from an itwiki or any other project (except maybe for a commons strike that would disable image loading to the rest of the wikis), by its very nature, Enwiki is the showcase for the entire family, and is used in all countries, unlike a country specific issue, so if it would be an issue only affecting US, EU, Italian or Chinese editors, I would probably object to a strike here. However, if it would drastically affect the project itself, then some kind of action might be justified. However it's really important that it be a community driven initiative, not a wmf-driven one. I really think if the initiative would come from the wmf it might split the community, I fear. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  And it would need to have very, very broad consensus. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support; however SOPA has holds in the Senate, so why not strike for public campaign finance instead? That would remove the opposition to (1) reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act, (2) fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidy reform, (3) return to the marginal tax rates of e.g. the 1950s when we paid down the debt from WWII (four times as large as a proportion of GDP than today's) without surpluses because the greater income equality caused the economy to grow much faster, (4) universal health care, (5) sentencing reform, against the prison guards' unions, (6) patent and copyright duration reform, and many other beneficial reforms currently stalled by special interest campaign donations. Overturning Citizens United as several recently introduced constitutional amendments would do is not enough. We must not simply enable public campaign finance, we must institute it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  The problem with all those other causes is that they are US only and not immediately related to Wikipedia. Take me for example. As a German living in Austria and with much stronger ties to the UK than the US, I think all the other causes you mention are worthy, but it's not appropriate for a world-wide, community driven project to take a stand on them excep twhere they touch the core of the project's purpose. This is the case only for SOPA. Hans Adler 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is hosted and the Foundation is located in the US. All project editors are directly affected by the length of US copyright terms which have been repeatedly lengthened by special interest lobbying money in the US, and you might have noticed over the past three years that your economy is somewhat dependent on the US economy, too. But Jimbo already mentioned that this might likely be geo-specific if it happens. I just hope we make the most of it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support some form of dramatic protest, maybe something like the itwiki one, against SOPA and Protect IP. These bills make it possible for anyone who merely alleges copyright infringement to get a site shut down, pulled from search listings, DNS blacklisted, and its sources of funding cut off. Wikipedia has many enemies who would seek to exploit such a mechanism - besides the fact that the copyright infringement need not be proven, it is trivial to plant an infringement on Wikipedia that we cannot possibly detect (Alice writes article content in Word, sends it to Bob; Bob edits and adds it in). Moreover, Wikipedia may be required to remove links to accused sites, even if the sites did nothing wrong and such links are important for educational purposes. I would really appreciate Jimbo clarifying the actions under consideration however. Dcoetzee 10:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I was talking with some other users who suggested that we get a professional like Geoff Brigham to write a brief on the legal dangers SOPA/Protect IP pose to the project. His informed opinion would carry far more weight than armchair lawyers like myself. Dcoetzee 10:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I guess the practical implementation could be roughly as follows: (1) Gain a strong community-wide consensus that this is what we want to do, regardless of what the Foundation may say. (2) Create a template that explains the situation, to replace articles. (3) Make sure that no active anti-vandalism bot will revert edits that replace a page by this template. (4) On the correct date, run bots that replace articles with the template. (5) Based on the consensus, the community will handle premature restorations of articles in the same way that it usually deals with vandalism. Hans Adler 10:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support WP:ADVOCACY is not relevant - except to reaffirm our dedication to the goals of the project. Goals which SOPA seems to threaten to put at risk. un☯mi 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support NOTADVOCACY isn't relevant here - we're not proposing to change our article content to advocate a point of view, it's entirely sensible to use Wikipedia to try to influence something of such huge importance to Wikipedia, and our normal article content policies aren't written with something like this in mind. Hut 8.5 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It will add to our costs, and make us vulnerable to summary sanctions. All bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but I think there would need to be a proposal and discussion regarding the exact mechanics. --FormerIP (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support only as last resort. Such kind of action works best only if exceptional, and thus should be implemented only in exceptional circumstances, that is, when the proposed law would greatly hamper the operations of Wikimedia projects (e.g. a US law removing the safe harbor status of hosting providers, and thus making the Foundation legally liable for any problem in Wikipedia content). David.Monniaux (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support legal action. On the plus side, America has a constitution to stop things like this - on the minus, our politicians never back down from a dumb idea because of protests. If (when) this thing is passed there will be a lawsuit - WMF, please join it as a plaintiff. I don't support a site-wide blackout, but a teach-in may be useful. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A protest like this would be huge (many, many magnitudes larger than the it.wiki protest) and would surely get people to talk about the law, which I consider a good thing. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support; this law is destructive, and the general population isn't aware of how damaging it will be (the fact that it has been wilfully misnamed, and that public discussion of it is covered in lies and mischaracterisations does not help). Anything we can do to raise awareness of that law is a good thing, and even a brief "blackout" of the English Wikipedia is going to not only be directly noticeable, but is going to bring much-needed press attention to the issue. — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but ideally keep it a US-based block. No need to block the rest of the world. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Fuck knows How are people around the world expected to know the details of a parochial piece of US legislation? That said, there are relatively few resources on Wikipedia dedicated to fixing copyvios and those who are involved are relatively unsupported. [3] shows a POV-pusher being able to run a long-term programme of harassment against the COPYVIO project. Then User:Cptnono is able to engage in part of his own harassment programme against the blocking admin who soon after hands in the broom. So, Jimmy, let's see you get your act together and engage in a proper effort to support those engaged in fixing copyvios and managing persistent violators before you complain about how unfair the law is.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose. Although I oppose the legislation, this is the start of a slippery slope. If we allow Wikipedia to be used openly as a tool for promoting a specific political agenda, we're basically saying goodbye for WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY for good. Let's be clear what it would mean if we did this: any user who wants to use Wikipedia for their own political advocacy would be entitled to do so as long as they could get a local consensus to support them. What would be able to say to stop them doing so? Yes, the law is dangerous and a bad idea; but please Jimbo, don't destroy Wikipedia for the sake of a single act of protest. Robofish (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure why you would think that. Both NPOV and NOTADVOCACY deal with article contents - what we are talking about here is completely separate from article content. un☯mi 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• While it's not clear how this 'strike' would be effected, it would presumably involve either blanking Wikipedia articles temporarily and replacing them with, or adding to them, a large notice informing users of the strike. That is, by definition, changing Wikipedia's content. Now, technically speaking the strike might not take place in the article namespace, but how many of our users can make that distinction? What they will find is that every Wikipedia article contains or has been replaced by a piece of political advocacy.

Wikipedia's greatest strength, along with the anyone-can-edit ethos, is its neutrality. This proposal would directly and completely undermine that. If it happens, I hope no one who supports it will complain when I tag WP:Neutral point of view with {{historical}}. Robofish (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, not this. There are many valid arguments to be made against community action on SOPA; I see no need to push a false claim that this is covered by NPOV. --JaGa^talk 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point actually being made is not article POV, but public perception that as we support certain political causes (as some would have us do), we are biased on those issues, and possibly others. I am not an antique expert, but I now and then like to wander around antique fairs. If at a dealer's booth I spot one item of repro, I immediately stop shopping there. If he is selling one reproduced item, I really can't trust anything else he's selling.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but a "strongest possible oppose" beginning with a "slippery slope" argument is not very convincing. Furthermore, as I note below, this confuses neutrality and NPOV. The very idea of Wikipedia is inherently political and not at all neutral. NPOV is a rather radical point of view, grounded in the principle that it is better to be informed and aware of all significant views on a topic than to suppress or ignore views which are not compatible with our own or some prevailing dogma. Where else but on Wikipedia is "writing for the enemy" encouraged?

Wikipedia has a political agenda, and one that needs to be promoted and defended. That is completely different from using Wikipedia as a political platform to support other political agendas, and is not a slippery slope at all. NPOV is biassed towards no other viewpoint than NPOV itself. Geometry guy 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support Wikipedia is not Switzerland, I don't see any point in staying neutral if it is going to materially affect Wikipedia. -Kai445 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support (only as last resort) It will be a good chance to let the US people aware of SOPA and also to make everyone remember why they need us. It should very clear that this is community driven rather than WMF decision. But this powerful tool, should only be used once, only if Wikipedia is in danger. This maybe too much, too soon. I think something like changing the Wikipedia logo for something else with a link to a statement is more appropriate.--Neo139 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support This bill would likely be the death of Wikipedia, as well as much of the rest of the Internet that is actually useful. I also agree with Seraphimblade's comment below that it would be even better if this could be coordinated with other major websites that would be affected by this. Anomie⚔ 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support If SOPA passes, our ability to write an online encyclopedia could be greatly damaged, both short-term and long-term. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm far from convinced the bill is going to have any significant effect on wikipedia even if it passes, despite the servers being located in the US as we already go to lengths to avoid contributory infrigement. While technically the bill could be intepreted as requiring us to avoid linking to sites like piratebay etc at all, I find it hard to believe that will survive on first amendment grounds. Therefore given that this isn't something that's we have any real reason to believe is going to affect all people visiting wikipedia, I would oppose if it's not effectively geotargeted. I'm Neutral if it is. Since as I'm not an American, I don't consider it my business what they do in cases like this. (I'm opposed to the bill BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Copyright violation is not what we do. I don't see how this would affect us in any substantial way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• You are aware that if the safe harbor provision is eliminated from the DMCA it would open WMF to possibly frivolous, but still finically crippling litigation? Crazynas ^t 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support if we make it clear when blanking why and when it'll be over.∞陣内Jinnai 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think it's like spitting into the wind, but this does seem likely to be a potentially nasty swipe at crowd-sourced work. So much so that it's possible Wikipedia would be unable to continue in its current form. There are copyright problems here, and yes, they do get fixed (generally quite quickly) but the law might force us into pending revisions or something similar just so we are taking every step possible to avoid copyright violations. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I do think this should be US-only. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The proposed law is yet another step down the slippery slope towards political censorship. If the WP community wants to make a statement, they should use whatever tools they have available. A strike is a good tool. --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Extremely Tentative Support 1. If it could be clearly demonstrated how the law would affect Wikipedia, and 2. if that were to be stated on the blanked pages. Then it could be an effective protest, and appropriate. First Light (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. While I'd never condone copyright infringement, or piracy .. A government that tries to take power away from the people, and give it to themselves is a very frightening thing. There are already mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. — Ched :  ?  21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Promoting and defending the neutral point of view, and our goal to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available, is central to what we do here — as I have noted below. However, the case needs to made more clearly that SOPA threatens Wikipedia and our ability to do this before we consider taking action and/or what action to take. Geometry guy 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Full Support - I was right behind it.wp when they held their strike, and I fully support en.wp doing precisely the same. It's a matter of principal to me, that governments should not interfere with peoples interests in a democracy - taking the power away from the people, and giving themselves more. It's nothing short of crazy. Go Wikipedia.  BarkingFish  21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. To convey what I think, I'm afraid that I need to say this in a nuanced way, rather than saying support or oppose, because I'm actually somewhere in between. I very much support working to prevent the passage of any legislation that would hurt Wikipedia's mission. Therefore, I strongly support Jimbo speaking, with the backing of our community, against the legislation at the White House. Indeed, I think that a statement that a strike might occur will get attention in much the way (qualitatively, not quantitatively, in terms of the number of people reached) as would a strike itself. I would even support a press release from Jimbo and/or the WMF saying that a strike might occur. And I would strongly support WMF engaging as a legal party in litigation. But, on the other hand, I would oppose actually having such a strike. Our mission is to provide this encyclopedia, not to provide it only when we choose to. I agree with some of the editors above that this action could set a precedent in which editors might strike for reasons that become more partisan, and degrade Wikipedia's prestige. I would like our focus to be on fixing the legislation before it passes, rather than on reacting to it after. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Strong support If this is what we need to do to convince the public of the possibly drastic effects of SOPA, then so be it. I am all for this. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support developing options for en. domains. The anglosphere forms a cohesive political-economic unit, and regularly trial policies in one area for export to another cf the New Zealand experiment. About the only power which it is legitimate for the en wikipedia to use collectively, is to strike against attacks on the encyclopaedic process by outside forces. I'm not in favour of symbolic striking—the point is to disrupt the circulation of capital in a domain—if we strike, it has to be either for a set period (rolling set periods?) or indefinitely. One slightly more strategic plan would be to blank all US categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Factual information should be free to access and learn from. Anything which eradicates access to knowledge is an abomination. SOPA goes well beyond its target of combating internet piracy; when it turns to shutting down or criminalizing what is currently free, legal access to knowledge, as is present on Wikipedia, it goes much too far. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support right now corporate complaints about wikipedia content do not have the capacity to strongly influence the site as a whole. We earned this independence through years of steadfast commitment to our principles and refusal to accept advertisements. All of that can (and will) be swept away by SOPA. The intent of the law may cover filesharing and other activities unrelated to wikipedia's focus but the letter will undoubtedly be used to demand the removal of critical material or documents (even where those documents are in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed). Imagine the Rorschach Cheat Sheet scandal where SOPA was in place. The APA or the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods could have easily filed a SOPA request (even a trivially false request) and attacked our fundraising sources and DNS routing. We see fraudulent DMCA takedown requests on youtube all the time so the paper penalties for lying on a SOPA request are likely to have the same deterrent effect (read: 0). We need to commit to the open web and explain to our readers that the english wikipedia is in danger should congress pass this bill. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A few days without the sum of all human knowledge is worth it to send a message to keep the Internet safe. ZamorakO o (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, really bad idea. Blanking the site for a political purpose, even one that helps Wiki, is using power over content for advocacy. It's in the same class as deleting an article that might help a candidate or cause some subset of us don't like. Yes, not as egrigious...but in the same class. (And there will be some subset of Wikipedians that support SOPA. Heck, I hear they even let Republicans edit this site, occasionally.)

For that matter, I don't know the details of the law and many here don't (I expect, sure some do, but I'm not the only one, I bet). I'm not sure that the benefits from Wiki keeping it's legal fiction outweigh the benefits of stopping privacy. (And let's be real...it is big time fiction. This is an encyclopedia, not an ISP, not even a chat site.)

Lastly, I don't like being polled on this without more work and presentation by the RFC submitter and the argument by Jimbo with first person not giving him the answer he wanted seemed both weak in sophistication and annoying in the manner of hassling an RFA opposer. It's also really bad form to be posting this on your user talk page, which has some tendancy to be populated by sycophants. It would show more respect to the group to have posted this on Village Pump or some central notice board. TCO (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. That was the moral argument against (and I mean it). That said, if you just want to win a political battle, by all means use every weapon at your command (underhanded or not). And this is probably an excellent weapon in efficacy. I just hope you let me get my content off the site before downing it. (But in terms of efficacy, the shock tactic would be better.) Might even be good for keeping me away from this place (good for you and me). -TCO

Comment. Since we created the content, why should we not use our power over it for advocacy or any other purpose if we decide to? --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of that little message below the editing window, the part about " you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". It is not ours anymore. We deny access only to the site (or rather, we make the site effectively a single page advocacy message). The information's out there on mirror sites. Which do you think more likely, Google will support us on a matter of principle, or they will anticipate customer needs by substituting into the first page of search results a mirror site?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Google's so far up our arse we can see them in our bathroom mirror. They are not suddenly going to start preferring mirror sites because we take a position they undoubtedly agree with. Plus, that doesn't address my point. It's our content, we are free to do as we choose with it. We are also free to make a really bad choice in terms of search engine visibility, if we want to. --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply. We produced the content and donated it to a site that had 5 Principles, one of which was NPOV. Now we would be blowing that. Furthermore, it would become consensus on when we "strike", so that is one step to legitimizing consensus for which candidate we support or how we want to slant articles to win political battles. (I might be being dense and this was entirely your point?)TCO (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I ran a google search for the subject of one of the articles I've helped out on, Murray Chotiner. We were the first site linked too, unsurprisingly. Then I ran the search [Murray Chotiner -wikipedia] which exluded pages with the word "Wikipedia" on it. A mirror site with our content was #8. So we can't deny access to the information.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so? I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a strike. --FormerIP (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Educate me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's to bring to people's attention why you should be valued and what they will be missing. If they still have mirror sites, then they still have mirror sites. But I doubt many people will think: "Who cares? We've still got mirror sites". If an airline goes on strike, then of course there are other airlines. But that doesn't mean there is no point to the airline staff striking. --FormerIP (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because they are generally striking about pay and conditions of employment, a dispute between them and the airline. Loss of business is a factor that both sides no doubt consider. However, here you would be striking for an external issue not within Wikipedia's control.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Moral support Since politicians aren't likely to listen to us, I'm not sure what this will do other than raise general awareness of an issue. But it is an issue that directly affects us in a negative way, and one that (IMO) needs greater public awareness. This being said, I'm a tad hesitant to get Wikipedia directly involved with any political issue, which may lead to accusations of bias. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• A "what the fuck?!?" Oppose. We're an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Did somebody forget this? The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to collect knowledge, not some kind of a means towards political advocacy. We are not a Political action committee and honestly, this whole proposal just illustrates how out of touch with the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia - to build an encyclopedia - a lot of editors here are, including apparently Jimbo himself. Of course anyone is free to support whatever kind of measures they wish on an individual level. So go strike yourself. Put up some infoboxes on your user pages. Stop editing for a month or two. But this whole proposal is just so fundamentally at odds of what this project is about that it's actually mind blowing that this is being proposed with a straight face. Wikipedia is NOT facebook. It is NOT a blog. It is NOT a crusading newspaper. It is NOT a lobbying organization. It is an encyclopedia. How about we go and at least try to get the "encyclopedia: a collection of knowledge" part right first (which, given the low quality of a lot of our content has some ways to go) and then maybe after we manage to get that part right we can give ourselves the latitude to go off on off-topic crusades. Stop trying to be cute, write or improve some articles first. That's what we're here for.

And oh yeah. Why this particular cause and not some other? Volunteer Marek  01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is said that it threatens wikipedia's existence. That's why "this cause". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It had to be said: --Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thus my wording "it is said"; go ahead and accuse me of missing inline-citations, since the links are in the discussion below ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd fail at FAC, those links are hardly a comprehensive survey of the field. Might not even get to B class.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Marek, that's the most clearheaded thing I've read all afternoon. I've been sitting here watching arbs and people for whom my respect is slightly shaken support this thing and I was wondering if I've been ported into an alternate universe or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether one supports or not, saying that this is "fundamentally at odds of what this project is about" is not clear-headed, but confused. Suppose the law was instead to ban the collection of knowledge? Would that have nothing to do with the "purpose of an encyclopedia"? Geometry guy 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I just read TCO's first post. It's a tie.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And more: seeing as we actually have an article on Stop_Online_Piracy_Act, engaging in this kind of action would very obviously violate our core policies such as NPOV, not to mention guidelines like WP:COI (maybe someone could argue that it's okay to violate NPOV with regards to this subject in a "meta" kind of way while hypocritically making a pretense of observing "neutrality" on the actual article itself - but that shouldn't fly). We still have these "fundamental pillars" and this is still one of them, right? If so, why is this proposal even being taken seriously? Go away people. Find something better to do and stop trying to kiss Jimbo's (and at the end of the day he's just another editor just like me and he can make wrong headed proposals just as anyone else - but they're still wrong headed proposals) ass. And call me crazy but I happen to think that our core pillars take precedence over the "cause du jour", even if it is being pushed by the man himself.

And in response to some of the more reasonable editors whom I respect who - in my opinion - jumped on this bandwagon for the wrong reasons: look, I think it's a stupid law myself. But it's not our job to fight it. Next time around, it's gonna be some different piece of political phenomenon, and one in which your personal opinion might agree with it. If this precedent - of Wikipedia getting into politics with both feet - gets set, then next time around you might find yourself at the loosing end of community/Jimbo's proposals for political advocacy. Take a long term view and don't try to win a battle when you might loose a war. Volunteer Marek  01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As above, this confuses NPOV with neutrality.[4] If you think Wikipedia is "neutral", think again about the radical nature of its mission, and how unacceptable it is to some people, some societies, and some cultures to present viewpoints contrary to some prevailing dogma. Geometry guy 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• After hours of thinking: Support something, pending specifics about the form the protest will take. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  (EC) To be perfectly honest I'm having trouble discerning the sarcastic from the fanatic comments at this point. Which actually says something about the proposal itself and the level of consideration. So I'll just leave that there. Volunteer Marek  01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support If necessary at a critical moment when it may actually help prevent legislation that would threaten this encyclopedia's future. Our policy against advocacy is not a suicide pact, and one legitimate exception, in my opinion, is to advocate for our continued existence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia or the Commons actually being shut down by the government for alleged corporate copyright violations would bring down a hellstorm of public protest, far beyond what any local staged protest might do. We'd be back in a day or less, the feds would be backpedaling, and the corporation calling for the shutdown would be covering their asses at the speed of light. Such an event might very well lead to eventual repeal of the stupid law, and a career-ending calling out of every politician who voted for it.

  Also the whole thing is a very good reason for the world needing a "backup root DNS" that is not based in the USA, and which therefore is not under direct political control by the US government. DMahalko (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid. — Joseph Fox 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia changed every page to edit as only "View source" for a few seconds before redirecting the page to a rant about why the website was blocking access to every page. Page source markup could only be copied by stopping the browser at "View source" and then just edit the text offline, until the Italian WP resumed access 3 days later. It was very frustrating, and pageview counts of most pages plummeted when people realized they would no longer see articles. -Wikid77 07:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support SOPA isn't the only act (of war) being taken against open and free dissemination of information online, though. It'd be good to attack the issues in other countries also. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support If Wikipedia sleeps on this and it passes, it will irrepairably destroy what we are doing here and we'll not have a chance to have a voice then. In this case, sticking to WP:NOTADVOCACY is damaging to the 'pedia. This would be the only case I would support this sort of advocacy though.--v/r - TP 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Strikes are what you do when all else has failed and there are no other options. Even if (hypothetically) a strike was a good choice it wouldn't be a good first choice. Cloveapple (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the legislation, but that's a political view. I don't ever want Wikipedia to take a political view, no matter how much I agree with it. Ntsimp (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Brad (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is one of those cases where it's for Wikipedia's own survival. There is no slippery slope to boycotting for gay marriage or other things. Those things don't stop WikiMedia from hosting pictures of Eric Cartman with gray sideburns at a blackboard in the Dances with Smurfs article. SOPA jeopardizes all of our photographic and audio database because a few things are considered copyright by some company while we consider we have WP:Fairuse. Those things don't open up Wikipedia to blackmail by industries who have their employees non-stop post copyright material here and then threaten Wikimedia Foundation with a shut down if Wikimedia doesn't open up it's top banner to advertising. You believe that some business won't play underhanded? Just wait... SOPA will be the law that at best opens up the top banner to advertising to get concessions from the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it's doors open from non-stop litigation. Alatari (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Lobbyists and their politicians always overreach and try to do too much, and it falls upon those that would be affected to clearly draw attention to the problems in advance. Editing some article does not cut it, while blanking Wikipedia would focus the minds of a large proportion of those who use the Internet. The outcomes of a bill like this are hard to predict, but the bill is intended to put the onus on websites to react to every kite-flying exercise and is not compatible with Wikipedia as it exists. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: SOPA would cripple Wikipedia's ability to function. --Carnildo (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Koko90 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious break

• Weak oppose. I thing that SOPA is really horrible, but I do not believe that it would be that disastrous for Wikipedia; the worst thing would be to filter our external links for copyright-infringing websites (aren't they already against out policies?). If you do this, please at least make it much softer, maybe do just a warning instead of total boycott like it.wp did. vvv^t 08:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious. If Wikipedia is really going to be this frightened by lawmakers' legitimate concerns about intellectual property rights, Wikipedia may as well put a big sign on the front door announcing it knows it will never be able to effectively police copyright, and it doesn't care. Townlake (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this has nothing to do with Wikipedia - the US government is not going to shut down this project regardless of legislation - and to remain neutral we must avoid taking political stances.
• If you feel really strongly about this go and protest in your own time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  There appears to be disagreement as to whether this has something to do with Wikipedia. Whatever your view, however, please don't confuse NPOV with neutrality.[5] Wikipedia is not neutral at all, but promotes a rather radical agenda to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to all. NPOV itself is far from neutral: many would regard it as harmful to present all significant views fairly and without bias. Geometry guy 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The appearance of neutrality is why we don't include ads - that appearance includes not making overt political stances on things which aren't obviously directly relevant to the project (e.g. the Italian thing) - this bill may be bad, but that's the job of American citizens to sort out - go and protest about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    Some people think it is directly relevant, as, for example, it might force Wikipedia to check all contributions for copyvios before they are posted, thus compromising the principle that anyone can edit (as well as being completely impractical). Geometry guy 15:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC) PS. There are many reasons Wikipedia does not have ads (freedom, for example) - that's not the basis of an argument.

• Strong Support I would have suggested a site-wide blanking of content like the Italian Wikipedia back in November had I not look like the lone crazy suggesting it. I withheld my opinion because I thought the U.S. government was smart enough to shoot this proposed bill down, but obviously I was wrong. This bill would subject websites to censorship akin to The People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea, and it would not only have an effect in the United States, but globally. It effects Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, and any other website which a corporation or the government itself felt the need to have information purged from it and blacklisted to prohibit copyright infringement. This isn't just for what's good for Wikipedia, this is for the good of the internet, because this bill will make it unable for us to keep it the way it is. A temporary redirect can always be taken off and reverted back once it's over. Allowing the government to blacklist and change our content because they want to protect copyright, is not fixable and shouldn't be allowable. — Moe ε 09:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest support in the world This is a direct threat to Wikipedia's mission, to provide the best knowledge to anyone free of charge. PaoloNapolitano 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• LOL How about instead, the WMF puts some of its skyrocketing budget into paying some professionals to make sure that Commons and WP don't contain any material that could be interpreted as violating copyright? Then you wouldn't need to worry about this bill. If WP has its house in order, you don't have to worry about the lawman. Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; until such a time as someone with proper legal training can explain, cogently, whether and to what extent this will affect Wikipedia in a material way. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Errant, don't have legal training but I've researched this. The primary concern for Wikipedia is: a number of legal commentators say it would make sites whose users post content research their posts to make sure that they do not infringe copyright. Under current law, the safe harbor provisions of DMCA say that if someone posts copyrighted material Wikipedia must take it down as soon as it is notified of the violation, but so long as it does do that, it cannot be sued for a copyright violation. There's much more, but that is the part most pertinent to Wikipedia vs anyone else. It mandates high-stakes user moderation, on steroids. Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - ErrantX, maybe it would be a good idea to ask Geoff (WMF Counsel) to study the text of the bill, and get a clear explanation from him as to the effects that SOPA would have on Wikipedia. Any thoughts from others?  BarkingFish  19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: as a citizen of another country. This is a international site (.org, .com), not a United States site (.us). ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The unfortunate reality is that US governmental actions affect us all. My country (Australia) follows the US slavishly, particularly in regards to IP legislation and I don't doubt that we'll follow along this time as well. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not advise you to tell your MHR and your state's senators (or territory's) that they are slaves to the United States. Certainly not in person, from my studies of Whitlam, I understand Aussie politicians are pretty feisty.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the Aussies--they come to all our wars.

Whitlam is a completely different species of politician against the gang we have in power at the moment. On one side of politics we have the "Liberals" (capital-L liberals) who are exploring new territory on the conservative/right side of politics. On the other, we have the ALP who, for the most part, are pretending to be Liberals. Seriously. We practically have a one-party system, and they're both in a completely sychopantic relationship with the US. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123 — .com, .org, and .net are U.S. domains. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support as a British Wikipedian: that it's only a US bill is irrelevant, as it will have measurable repurcussions on the rest of the world. And "only wrongdoers have to be concerned" is a shitty reason that has historically being used by authoritarian governments to roll back civil liberties. The fact of the matter is, it'll only be copyright problems at first that'll be blocked, then anything else The Powers That Be dislike that'll be blocked next. As much as I risk pulling a Godwin, first they came for the communists... this bill threatens the entire project, and the entire internet. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Then go and protest about it in your own time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    By posting a support comment here, at the weekend, that is almost certainly what Sceptre is doing! :) Geometry guy 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    • My MP (for the past year and a bit) is anti-FOI, pro-control order, so I don't think writing him would do any good... although I remain a member of the party that is using some clout to loosen up copyright legislation wrt: fair use. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, although if there comes to be a poll on striking I would like the implications of the bill for Wikipedia to be made clear to everyone who is voting. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Scratch the future tense:

• CarrierIQ Nov 2011
• Cryptome Feb 2010
• Black Box Voting 2003

Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per ErrantX: I have not yet seen a clear explanation, by a competent lawyer, of how exactly this bill would impair the operation of Wikipedia. If there is a convincing case that it would, I would support some form of protest.  Sandstein  14:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• LOL per Cla68. Watch out for that boomerang. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this threatens the very existence and survival of Wikipedia. One day is more than enough to get the message across then to spend several months teaching users how to get around US's version of Great Firewall of China. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose If I saw a clear explanation by wikimedia counsel or a group of legally qualified wikipedians that this law would harm the legitimate operation of wikipedia, then I would change my view to supporting any and all measures to oppose the bill. However, like several others above I have not seen that at the moment. From the very limited amount I have read on SOPA, although I consider it an odious piece of legislation, I have not seen anything that indicates it would harm wikipedia. Ajbp (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: As what I consider myself to be a netizen first and a US citizen second, I consider having sites that have committed to me (the average user) of being up and not being hijacked for every single political movement or money grab that comes across the owner's plate. Has the leadership or the Foundation considered the negative effects of the en community organizing a "Taking our toys and going home" temper tantrum on the largest wiki, one of the top informative repositories of data, and the reputation hit to the "Encyclopedia that anybody can edit" if we go through this? What about the editors in other regions of the world that use the EN wikipedia? If, next month Australia or New Zealand start the process that would put a great firewall in place will we issue another general strike? I'm sorry, but between this idea and the "Game Theory" research survey I ponder the need for a EN steering committee for the purposes of vetting proposed ideas that will effect the entire community. Hasteur (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Alternative Wikipedia's job is to explain SOPA (and the Senate's PIPA) so people can make up their own minds. Instead of a strike, which would remove all information, we should be focusing on providing as much information about these bills as possible - for, against, and otherwise. Going on strike would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would be an own goal. Currently, the article has three very limited External links. Not even the Official THOMAS site is included. I would include in-depth reports such as ABC News. I'm also confused by why PIPA has the Network Neutrality template, but SOPA does not. I suggest we get our own house in order rather than strike. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment —There are conflicting goals here. The side of opposition to this proposal is that our goals of neutrality and encyclopedism should not be compromised. The side of support is that SOPA's implementation could cause dramatic harm to the function or even existence of the Wikimedia projects. These are both reasonable points that I think can be broadly agreed upon. Where people disagree is in how we may go about minimizing the risk. Our position as a provider of neutral information precludes us from generally taking advocative positions: Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. However, I do think it's reasonable to advocate on issues that affect the project: if SOPA is implemented, Wikimedia might face trouble—so we can justify advocacy on the principle of the preservation and advancement of Wikimedia, rather than merely using our prominence to advocate unrelated changes. On the other hand, the proposed method of advocacy—effectively shutting down Wikipedia for some length of time—seems to go too far. It directly compromises our goal of encyclopedism: while the advocacy is in effect, we would be completely failing our goals. To be sure, it is a highly effective means of protest; but it is not justified when there are lesser methods that could provide nearly as much visibility for our issue without compromising other goals. For example, has anyone considered a simple click-through rather than an outright blackout? Has anyone considered US-geolocated banners in the style of the fundraiser banners, urging people to contact their local political representatives in opposition to the bill? There are partway measures that can be taken before the need for Italian-style drama. We should save that method for a case where we are more directly threatened: Wikipedia would fare comparatively better than many other social-media sites under SOPA because we already do extensive monitoring for and removal of illegitimately used content. While SOPA is still definitely to be strongly opposed (I personally think it's idiotic in many ways), it doesn't directly threaten us, as far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer). Save the big guns for the really scary cases. :P {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Guerillero | My Talk 18:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support do what you think is best. Gerardw (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• The WMF doesn't give a shit about all the copyright violations sitting on its servers. We can go on strike after the WMF takes immediate action regarding the thousands of copyvios on Commons and the two-year backlog at WP:CCI. That this is even being proposed is completely hypocritical and disgusting. Why the hell are we protesting anti-piracy legislation when we're hosting illegal content on our own site??? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got nothing but scorn and crocodile tears for CCI for running Richard Norton through a multi-week long proctologists exam. Seriously, CCI has nothing to do with anything in this department... Their purported "2 year backlog" is a product of their own making. And those people secretly love it. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

CCI is irrelevant. The fact is that the WMF is not actively or aggressively taking steps to address the numerous copyright violations it is hosting. It was at one point unwilling to even add a "not sure" license option to Commons' UploadWizard, because immediately putting a speedy deletion notice on copyright violations was too unfriendly to new users. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support a US-only block, but oppose blocking access to the rest of the world, since it's a US-specific issue.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Oh I love this idea. SOPA goes against Wikipedia ideals. Blanking would be a stunning event. Artem Karimov (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I think I don't have to repeat the reasoning for it, but I'd even make it world-wide, because the US position matters for many other nations in the world. People should be seeing that the passing of the bill has consequences around the whole globe. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I can see why many people would want to do this, I'd like to remind everyone of the consequences of both types of actions. If we go ahead and blank the site temporarily in an act of protest, we lose our standing in the eyes of many as a neutral encyclopedia, and become closer and closer to a POV-pushing PAC. As some might remember, one of the reasons for the Spanish Wikipedia split was because of the possibility of ads coming, and many felt betrayed at writing content that they thought was for non-commercial purposes, only to have their trust seemingly betrayed. If we want to risk editors fleeing Wikipedia because they thought they were contributing to a nonpartisan encyclopedia, then go right ahead- but we'll be making a huge mistake. Also, I don't see how such an action on our part is even necessary. Does anyone here honestly think that the US government will be able to pummel us out of existence with lawsuits? The public outrage on any serious attack on Wikipedia by the government would be enough to make every legislator deeply worried about his reelection chances. Unless someone can tell me, with absolute honesty and certainty, that SOPA will destroy Wikipedia and that any inaction on our part will lead to certain doom, I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal.--Slon02 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – As he has stated above, Jimbo already has enough influence to visit the White House. He doesn't need the the strike in order to speak to politicians, advisers, and the media. I'm not convinced that a strike would be the best way to attract the attention of the media and politicians. The Italian Wikipedia situation is different since they didn't have an Italian version of Jimbo to speak for them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to better understand how this bill would affect us, specifically. I know that the DMCA grants us "safe harbor" against copyvio infringement lawsuits - that is, as long as we are reasonably vigilant about removing copyvio content upon discovery, we're safe from being sued by copyright holders. Fine and good. From what I've been reading, I gather that the SOPA legislation removes that safe harbor, and puts the onus of copyvio policing onto the content providers. So I wonder, could we continue to operate as we do in this brave new SOPA world? Or would we be required to fundamentally change our operating model? Would a level 2 across-the-board pending changes implementation do the trick, or would even more stringent controls be necessary? I don't know. I would love to hear some specifics from our resident copyright law experts, or WMF legal counsel. --JaGa^talk 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support SOPA could very well have horrible consequences for Wikipedia, possibly because some Government official feels threatened by our commitment to free access of information. Access to potentially damaging information about persons in Government, as well as information about Radical political theory, could be blocked as subversive under the guise of protecting copyright. I could see it getting very messy for Wikipedia, and I believe we should take a stand. Wikipedia has been successful due to the web's open interface; anything attempting to impede the free-flow of information is inherently against Wikipedia's ideals. Perhaps we could institute a day of protest, where Wikipedia is inaccessible and instead replaced with information about SOPA? 68.195.21.220 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'd like more attention on this issue, especially because, as a Canadian citizen, I have no way of expressing my discontent to any political leaders in the U.S. Wikipedia taking a stand on a bill this Draconian is only fair if said bill could cripple us. m.o.p 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Assume what I've seen of the bill is accurate, it would allow others to shut down (or ban from US-based DNS tables) Wikipedia entirely. It is something the community should take a stand on. (Wikimedia might take a stand on it, as well, but that's their decision. This is ours, as the community.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Technical Neutral Not an oppose because I don't want to stand in the way if this is what the majority want however moving this direction from encyclopedia to political advocacy will affect my personal enthusiasm for the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - No sense getting worked up over every crap election-year proposal. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're a public charity and aren't allowed to engage in political advocacy. This would be a good way to endanger our status as a charity, I think. And I'm skeptical that the United States government would pass a law that shuts down the Wikipedia. They're not fools. And if they did pass such a law, it'd probably be corrected quickly enough. And if it wasn't corrected quickly, that would mean the United States government is willing to accept the loss of the Wikipedia as collateral damage. And if they're willing to accept the loss of the Wikipedia, then going on strike is not going to change their minds about anything. --Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALball and cannot post WP:OR original-research statements, including hypothetical-danger comments to defend a strike. WP does not allow gossip or pet theories to even flood talk-pages. Plus, the proposed SOPA law does NOT seem to apply to Wikipedia file servers within the U.S. and so move or keep WP file-servers within U.S. borders, where the article "Stop Online Piracy Act" emphasizes the intent of the proposed law is to allow the U.S. Feds to prosecute violations of U.S. intellectual-property rights when violated by other nations, as if being violations of U.S. organizations. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That really doesn't make sense. The rules you cite apply to articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR also apply to talk-pages, where editors should not post unverifiable predictions (or product claims, "I bought one and it even ran 100 times better") on the talk-pages, so that covers most pages in Wikipedia (plus WP should not rely on argument to authority with claims that some dire event will happen, but instead have corroborating evidence as verifiable for the claim). As for the implementation of U.S. laws, there is usually a long delay between the passing of a law and the effective date, which allows time to restructure to avoid many problems. I hope that clarifies the issues. -Wikid77 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Temporary whiteout now is better then permanent struggle in future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", not a lobbying tool. Incidentally, if we really want to use it for lobbying, there are countries where freedom on internet is seriously more threatened than in the USA or in Italy. French Tourist (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Do we really need to fork Wikipedia to ensure we keep a free encyclopedia available to anyone that cannot be used for lobbying? — Arkanosis ^✉ 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm all for WMF or individual editors advocating free speech, but this should not be done in the name of the encyclopedia or its entire community, or at the expense of every reader and editor. We serve our readers by providing content, not by advocacy. wctaiwan (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Though the extent of my support may just be me complaining loudly on Facebook. Marcus Qwertyus 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Jimbo, can you clarify this? I'm not sure that I'd be supporting or opposing; it needs some clear statement. I'm "interested", sure; I think it's an important issue. But how can I express that? I can't support/oppose because you haven't said what I'd be supporting.  Chzz  ►  07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Supporting the bill? Supporting "some action"?  Chzz  ►  08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Noting "Support" means to support the content-blanking. For the Italian Wikipedia, the "community strike" (made by admins) changed every page (articles, talk-pages...) to edit as only "View source" for a few seconds before redirecting the page to a rant about why the website was blocking access to every page. Page source markup could only be copied by stopping the browser at "View source" and then just edit the text offline, until the Italian WP resumed access 3 days later. It was very frustrating, and pageview counts of most pages fell sharply, when people realized they would no longer see articles. -Wikid77 08:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, great, let's go with it. Then after we run that, can we have a "Support gay marriage in Australia" type shutdown, to put pressure on politicians down here to finally do the right thing? Then let's not forget about people who have a problem with prostitution being illegal. Perhaps we can do something for them too. And then there is pot, let's not forget the potheads. Where will it end. Read WP:NOTADVOCACY. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  Irrelevant comparisons. SOPA directly affects all languages of Wikipedia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are telling me that my right to marry whoever I please is irrelevant? Thanks for your support. lol Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that in this case, your comparison is invalid. Gay marriage bills in Australia do not affect the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. SOPA does. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If there was community consensus to strike for gay marriage in Australia, then why not? It might be a difficult consensus to achieve, but... --FormerIP (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY, and neither does this, because we have policies in place that prevent unlicenced, copyrighted materials to be used on Wikipedia. Nothing has been shown that demonstrates how WP would be affected. So let's drop silly ideas such as this. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That we say we have policies is one thing, but are we helpful enough when someone asks for information to help them track down an individual who they purport to have infringed on them? Also - why do you keep repeating WP:ADVOCACY / WP:NOTADVOCACY? - they aren't relevant. un☯mi 10:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would WMF treat such requests differently from how they treat requests for information at present? I do not know what that policy is, but I imagine that they would reassess it if there is a change in law. Are you suggesting that WMF help will cause UN troops and black helicopters to show up at editor doors?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On a side note Jimmy, if you want this publicised widely, why not hire Bell Pottinger to run a successful PR campaign in relation to it. You could organise this when you do the chat to them. Of course, this is a total cynical comment, but is intended to draw the parallel of us looking idiotic for using WP at a tool for advocacy, only a matter of days after busting the balls of a firm for doing exactly the same thing. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Crazynas: Could you take a second look at your post? The "don't we" phrasing comes across as patronizing, though no doubt that was not your intent. And Snowolf is correct, and I do not believe any such consensus will be forthcoming. Wikipedia editors tend to be individualists, and I think you'd see a sizable minority try to edit more on a day of action. Unless Jimbo proposes to shut down the site, in which case I guess we are all along for the ride, like it or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think there is consensus either, from what I gathered at the time of itwiki actions, mainly from what I've seen on IRC, a significant if not majoritary part of the English-speaking community feels very strongly against this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Is that better? Yes, if the proposal (that this proposal is attempting to determine is necessary) passed (not commenting either way on that) the database would be locked as in... no edits, and every page would redirect to a single page about the issue (at least that's how the Italians did it) Crazynas ^t 10:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• If we take a position on an issue like that, we will raise doubts in people's minds as to whether we are in fact neutral. Shall we become Conservapedia-light? People would be entitled to worry not only about our coverage of that issue, but of every issue. As for the Italian job, I am not certain the Italians are a guide to us in anything except football. I think doing that would be ill-advised, forcing people to "join" the protest whether they like it or not. Maybe we could all block K Street while we are at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• By the same kind of argument, nobody can ever go on strike for their own pay. Most people are quite good at distinguishing between political agitation for the sake of it and exceptional action when the core of an organisation is under extreme pressure. SOPA would open WMF up to censorship by the US government. Relocating the WMF and its servers to a more appropriate place such as Iceland is extremely expensive and could not cure the danger that our content becomes inaccessible to Americans. Once you have laws in place such as SOPA, which make it possible to shut down practically all media (I am using this word in a loose sense that includes Wikipedia) depending on the discretion of government institutions, the media are at the mercy of the government and will comply with any hints about what will or will not lead to them being closed. That's a huge step beyond the very effective economics-based self-censorship regime that is already in place in the US media and makes many Americans go to the government broadcaster BBC for more objective news. Hans Adler 10:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• We could just IP block-exempt every American editor and let them in through TOR...</sarcasm> For the uninformed (and that is not meant as a slight) some light reading. Crazynas ^t 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The BBC is not a 'government broadcaster'. It's a national broadcaster. For many this might be a subtle distinction but in Britain it is highly significant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I apologise for using the wrong word. I am of course aware of this distinction. Germany adopted the same system after the war. Hans Adler 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• People who feel that we don't have enough "truth" in our articles already feel like that - be they supporters of Israels occupation, Intelligent Design or other groups that we unfairly discriminate against. What we are talking about here is activities outside of article-space, no one is arguing that our articles on SOPA must have a particular slant or flavor. We would stand little chance to convince people who are unable to appreciate the difference of our neutrality by rational argument in any case. un☯mi 10:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you are intentionally arguing the individual case rather than the general. Involving ourselves with politics will lead people not to trust us. As for the middle east case, with organized fight clubs on both sides, I do not look for serious article content from that sphere. Good luck getting Arafat or Ben-Gurion to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat is already FA :P--Neo139 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, if we don't involve ourselves in ensuring that we have an environment in which wikipedia can thrive, then there will be nothing to trust. wikimedia supports American censorship day. un☯mi 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Will this really and definitely affect wikipedia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently. un☯mi 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've read all this and more over the past month. What I'm getting is a could and I am skeptical that these scenarios are a definite will or must happen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Seb. That blog reads like a Washington post editorial. Does anyone have a link to a less frantic analysis of the proposed legislation? Has it even passed a committee, or a house of Congress?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Details of the contents and progress of the bill at govtrack.us, thoughts on the wider impact at Harvard Business Review. There are few facets of our lives that give us the luxury of absolutes, most of the time the rational actor must work in terms of risk mitigation. un☯mi 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most sensible approach here (given that this is just one small part of the US goverment move to stricter internet control) is to transplant the entire movement to one of the Internet "safe harbour" countries. This could be an interesting catalyst to help us do so. We have some small benefits being "based" in the US - but there are places with even greater benefits. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Such as ... (both countries and benefits)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the Nordic countries have particularly liberal approaches to internet freedom etc. And excellent internet connectivity. Iceland is a very liberal Haven. Finland is excellent, with some of the highest standards of freedom of speech in the world. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that could boost the economy through the sale of winter gear to the St. Petersburg crowd. God knows the economies in both countries could use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. According to Variety, he said: 'When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.' -- http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080 " -- http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/dodd/ 67.6.163.68 (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Emotional argument much? Anyway, the protest would hurt us and have little effect, the public would go to the mirror sites.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How would it hurt us? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It would hurt our reputation, esp. when the doomsday-scenarios turn out to be false. That's why I need to know whether this is really such a grave issue before I have any firm opinion on some protest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What worries me is that I am starting to realize that this may be mentioned and characterized on Monday, then mentioned in the media at a further remove from reality "Wikipedia editors vote to strike", say after "Well, I asked our editors and an overwhelming ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But not if those doomsday predictions aren't wrong. Given evidence of past how things go like this, it will be abused.∞陣内Jinnai 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For this reason, it makes sense to support a trigger but not an immediate protest. I agree it would be premature to have a flashy protest at this stage, given the number of hurdles that are keeping this bill from getting voted on in both houses. By setting up a trigger, we can decide now if we want to strike once we are at that critical juncture. By planning well in advance, we can act most effectively. hare j 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to parse that, Harej. How can we decide now what we will want then?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, how can we possibly strike? When we are (inevitably) questioned more closely, it will be revealed that we are studying our own filters. People won't fall for it. We'll need to close that chapter in our history first, before we can act with clean hands. (This is even more strongly the case in india, of course, but still applies to .us) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC) On the up side, I'm glad to see that Jimmy is back on the light side :-)

A collective will to act can be as effective in negotiations as any particular threat of action. I am also glad to see Jimbo standing up for the goals of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

IF we do (as a ... community? how much of a community are we really once we start imposing blanket "strikes" in response to controversial political issues) go with the "let's use Wikipedia to exert political pressure" thing (and honestly, my opinion is that this is nothing but an exercise in meta-narcissism) then supporting gay marriage in Australia is a helluva more worthy cause then this SOPA thing. So. Ok. I'm willing to strike on SOPA as long as we strike on gay marriage in Australia first and we actually manage to make that Australian government change it's policy. Otherwise I'd request that any article that I have spent oodles and oodles of time contributing to or created be exempt from these people's silly idea of a strike. IF we're gonna play this game, I wanna play a different game and who are you to have decided this? Volunteer Marek  01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is clearly an element that does not want this. The proposed plan does not admit of dissent. We are forced off the encyclopedia for 24 hours—blocked for a day, effectively—and we have done nothing wrong. For what? I have yet to hear any proponent articulate what they think would happen after the strike, both on wiki and off.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly while I'm in favour of political strikes, I don't see how 404ing en.wikipedia will force the Australian state and federal governments to reconsider various acts concerning marriage—there isn't a cogent link between marriage and wikipedia's "industry." In contrast SOPA directly attacks the encyclopaedic process, and so striking against this makes sense. Secondly: a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are. A strike would have to be indefinite or for an extended set period with the threat of future extended periods to have any effectiveness. And Wehwalt is correct, we would be removing our own pleasure in editing by striking, unless we restricted access to registered accounts with etcetcetc. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are - You're right, we got to be serious here. We should shut the site down permanently until they give in! Volunteer Marek  08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I see no indication that a strike would have any effect on the political processes. I did take the trouble, which I think no one else here has, to look into what happened in Italy. I would suggest adding a {{cn}} to Jimbo's comment, but if you read it carefully, he nowhere says the Italian strike was effective. He merely says that the Italian Parliament's "backing down" happened "immediatly". Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Volunteer Marek, that's exactly the point of a non-symbolic strike. Wehwalt, I agree that Jimbo's argument on that point is fallacious reasoning. Divisions within Italian capital itself over the appropriateness of their then Prime Minister, and other such factors extraneous to the Italian wikipedia were significant. However, the English wikipedia is much more closely involved in the circulation of capital; where it is incorporated to make other products look more useful. Taking down en totally, or merely to a defined unit of "outsider" would damage google search, national library Australia, non-caching marketing systems etc. Whether you believe this would be sufficiently disruptive economically to achieve its purpose is another matter—Jimbo's talk page isn't the place where such an evaluation could happen, and the current evaluation of the efficacy of striking is well below the standard of debate I'd hope for. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose a strike. I have no problem with the Wikimedia Foundation lobbying to prevent this bill from passing, or suing to have it declared unconstitutional if it does pass. But Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and blanking the content, even temporarily, would detract from its ability to serve its readers as an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a reliable summary somewhere of how exactly this will affect Wikimedia? Would transferring ownership and hosting of the websites to a non-American chapter alleviate some/all of the problems? If so, how difficult would it be to move? --Yair rand (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another idea: Could we coordinate this?

Wikipedia would be far from the only site threatened by this legislation. Many of the most popular sites on the Web today (Google, Ebay, Craigslist, Youtube, Facebook, etc.), would be threatened by this, as they are mainly user-driven. If we do plan a day of action on this, why not coordinate with some of those sites? Even if they weren't willing to shut down entirely for a day and say why (and some might be), they might be willing to put up a prominent sitewide statement telling their users: "This service will go away or be severely curtailed if this passes. Call Congress today, or encourage your US friends to do so if you don't live here". Can you imagine the outcry that could be generated if we could coordinate such a campaign, with a day's shutdown for some of the big ones and the site notice for most of them? Wikipedia is large enough, and they hate this enough, that we could at least likely get a sympathetic ear at many of those companies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a very fair article, I felt, to both sides, from the San Jose Mercury News here. Google and the other groups contented themselves with signing a letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing we ask if they're "content" with that. If they feel that's enough, we've got an awfully big megaphone on our own—but if even a few of the other behemoths will jump in too, we could amplify that an awful lot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think drafting a letter and "signing" it would be a good idea as a starter measure. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't all have to block service (although google blocking its search engine would be a major boon). I think even if they publicly alterted their website for a day, all coordinated, it could still send a message if it was attached with a reason (and how to contact your congress person for those in the US).∞陣内Jinnai 20:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone who supports this please explain to me...

What would be the difference between this proposed strike and rewriting the article Stop Online Piracy Act from an explicitly partisan, anti-SOPA position? Why is the former considered acceptable but not the latter? (If you say 'but the former would only be temporary', you're missing the point.) Robofish (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with temporary or permanent—doing so with the article (even temporarily) would be unacceptable. The difference is the same as having the banner at the top of the site encouraging people to donate to WMF (acceptable), as opposed to changing the Wikipedia article to say "WMF is an awesome foundation, go donate to them!" (unacceptable). One is clearly in an article that's part of the encyclopedia, while the other is clearly a message from those who operate the site behind the encyclopedia. And while it's unprecedented, this is quite literally an existential threat to Wikipedia, and to the free and open Internet as we know it, and it's currently flying well under the radar. I don't see a bit of a problem, given that, with Wikipedia shining a megawatt spotlight on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that Floyd Abrams does not oppose SOPA and considers the opposition political, according to a piece in today's Washington post, that seems a bit overblown, Seraphimblade. Here is the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you expect a senior partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, representing the Directors Guild, the Motion Picture Association and various entertainment industry unions to oppose SOPA? un☯mi 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As always, "follow the money." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not always agree with Counselor Abrams, but I have never heard that he was dishonest or motivated principally by money. If I was motivated principally by money, I would not edit Wikipedia, travelling to gain information and images to improve the project has cost me $1.28, or possibly slightly more.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List_of_prominent_cases_argued_by_Floyd_Abrams#Financial_Crisis Your mileage may vary. un☯mi 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said he is dishonest. He is simply representing his clients' interests, which is his obligation as an attorney. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And in fact, he'd be dishonest if he didn't, or actively went against their interests while representing them. But that makes what he says suspect—not due to dishonesty or malice, but from the simple existence of conflict of interest. Given that the people pushing this are his client, he is not likely to oppose it, even if he privately thinks it's a horrible idea. What if he said that, and then had to argue for it in court someday on his clients' behalf? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

He is no lawyer who cannot take both sides. But, yes? What would happen then?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"So, Mr. Abrams, in your Washington Post editorial of 12-10-2011, you said, I quote, 'This whole thing is a rotten mess and blatantly unconstitutional?'" "Well, yes, but..." "And now you're telling us that it's a wonderful thing, and we should rule in favor of it?" "Well, yes, you see, uh...". It would be highly unethical for an attorney to publicly attack his clients' interests while representing them. (That's aside from the fact they'd likely fire him and his firm—wouldn't you? Take both sides, perhaps, but not take an opposing one to your client in public!) Regardless, I'd much rather get my information from the engineers that design the Internet's infrastructure, and every one I've seen who has spoken on this will do significant damage, and all but kill DNSSEC (which should be a top priority if we're really interested in protecting the public). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, if he was called as a witness. Lawyers aren't as a rule. In fact, ethically you cannot be a lawyer and a witness in the same case, with very limited exceptions that don't apply here. You've been watching Inherit the Wind too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a more relevant point is that while perhaps it would be problematic for him to publicly oppose a bill he may later have to defend for his clients, it doesn't mean he has to publicly defend it in a non legal forum. Personally I would consider it unethical for him to argue something which is against his personal beliefs in a manner which suggests it's his personal belief. To me the editorial is presented more as a case of his personal beliefs then an attempted to defend his clients interest (it has a disclaimer at the bottom but that's to be expected). Perhaps he doesn't hold to the same ideals but I don't think we should be accusing him of such without evidence. This doesn't mean he's right, he may simply not understand the issues. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe he might not understand the issues? His discussion seemed cogent and informed to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just amazed that so many people feel that this wouldn't compromise our neutrality, while discussions of allowing advertising on WP have continued to show a consensus opposed to it. I can't understand how anyone could think advertising would compromise our neutrality while somehow a prominent message openly advocating intervention against a specific political proposal would not. Robofish (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Abrams said it, and you can believe it if you care to believe a man who accepts money for his work: it's become ideological. I am imminently expecting them to all announce for free silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two confusions taking place here. As noted already, there is a marked difference between what Wikipedia articles say, and what the Wikipedia community and/or the WMF say. However, there is another confusion clouding clear thinking: there is a marked difference between neutrality and the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a point of view: it is the viewpoint which seeks to represent all other significant viewpoints accurately, fairly, with due weight, and without bias, according to reliable sources. It sits alongside our goal to make the sum of human knowledge freely available.

That is far from being "neutral". To some people, in some societies, and some cultures, it is a radical and totally unacceptable viewpoint: information contrary to some prevailing dogma is often regarded as harmful, and suppressing it is considered desirable. Wikipedia actively promotes the idea that it is better to know and understand what those who disagree with you say and believe than it is to silence them or pretend they do not exist. "A more informed world is a better world." That isn't "neutral" — it is an extraordinary political statement.

Part of our role as a community is to defend and promote the neutral point of view. Political acts which might undermine our ability to do so can and should be challenged. Not in articles, where we should redouble our efforts to represent the views of those who disagree with our goals accurately, fairly, and without bias. That is the neutral point of view. Geometry guy 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I was enjoying your post, though not completely agreeing, but you disappeared into passive-voice vagueness on the second sentence of the last paragraph. Can you clarify?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The main point of my post was to address confusions which cloud productive discussion about what course of action to take, if any. The sentence you refer to ("Political acts...") is not at all vague, and could easily be rephrased as "We can and sometimes should challenge political acts...". I am asserting the legitimacy of making political challenges to acts that interfere with our goals. In any particular situation, such as this one, the case still has to made that our goals are under threat, and that taking action is justified: just because we can act, does not mean we should take a particular course of action. This may not be so far from your own view. Geometry guy 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably, though I suspect I am a bit more hardened on the no point. As of yet, I have seen nothing beyond generalities as to the "threat" to Wikipedia. We have a bill. As I understand it, it has not passed either house of Congress, and the Senate has gone for a competing bill. There will, at some point, be a conference committee. Withdrawal of service, or even the threat thereof, is a weapon usable once. If it is used too early, it is ineffective and we sound shrill. Please keep in mind that it is not very much of a weapon, it is the classic toy gun with sign "BANG!" because the public will simply go to the next site to get the information. I recall in one of James Hogan's books, they kept shutting a computer that could learn on and off. Eventually it wired around the switch. So will our public. All it does is rather dramatically declare our position on something. Will our public sit and ponder the evils of the proposed legislation? Will they follow the links and learn? No. They will say, "Funk this schiss" or something similar, page back and go to #2 on the list. Or possibly look at the cached copy on Google, not sure how that works. In other words, no one will be inconvenienced. But people will have learned two things: That Wikipedia takes positions on contentious political issues, and that accessing the site is not necessary in order to gain the site's information. Switch off, switch on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We licensed our data to the world. They took it. We can't take it back. Now, what would be in my view an effective means of doing it is a symbolic strike for 24 hours, editors refrain from editing. Possibly we could even plan non-wiki activities, post photos, have get togethers, invite the media, that kind of thing. Not everyone would have to participate, but you can't hide the fact that you edited during those 24 hours, so social pressure would apply.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on many points: you make pragmatic arguments, and I am a pragmatist as well as an idealist! I don't agree with your last point, as people find their information through search engines, and these predominantly link to Wikipedia. However, according to the hattext of this RfC, no particular action is being proposed at this stage, so the RfC is, on the face of it, concerned primarily with principle, not practicalities. However, the pragmatist in me sees more than that: Jimbo is looking for collective will, as such an expression of will could be useful leverage. Our support or otherwise should be based on whether we believe it is appropriate to bring our collective will to bear in this case.

If there is consensus for action, I hope you will take forward your ideas about how to act most effectively. Geometry guy 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. If the community decides generally to act, I will of course suggest what I deem the most effective ways to take action. I am a loyal member of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Geometry guy, this point has me add a support !vote in the sense of "something should be done". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said 'for example, perhaps he doesn't really understand the technical issues'. I'm not saying he doesn't understand the issues, rather suggesting it's a possibility. My point is more that even if you feel he's wrong, it doesn't mean he's being influenced by his need to defend his clients. And even if you think he genuinely personally believes what he's saying, it doesn't mean he's right. Of course people can disagree on stuff without either holding their views for the wrong reason, but I was specifically thinking of Seraphimblade's comment on engineers. I think there's a fair chance they will indeed understand the technical issues about the design of the internet and how certain actions will affect the internet then him. On the other hand, I also think it's fair to say he will understand the legal issues, like how the law is likely to be implemented, what it means for companies and users who have to respond to the law, and how it will interact with stuff like the US consitution then the engineers. One of the difficulties here of course is they both matter. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW one interesting slightly related example here is the 92A controversy mentioned in Copyright law of New Zealand. Concerns were raised about the ability for users internet access to be cut off based on three complaints and without a court case. Others were concerned about the effect on ISPs and particularly schools, universities, libraries and those operating public wifis (although these are very rare in NZ anyway) in dealing with large volument of complaints (particularly for ISPs) and also in identifying who was responsible (particulary for non ISPs). After an outcry including in blogs and other websites, the original amendment was put on hold and the law was amended again resulting in Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011. In this case it undoutedly helped that there was a new government who could conviently blame the previous government for the old law, even if the party behind the new government had supported the original amendment anyway. Also the MP considered responsible lost their seat in the election that lead to the new government and some suggested anger over the bill was one of the reasons.

Anyway in the new amendment, the ability to cut off internet access after 3 complaints had been put on hold for now. But fines can be imposed by the copyright tribunal. Also ISPs are allowed to charge to process complaints and While the new law has had an effect on traffic (i.e. what people are doing with the internet) [6] [7] it hasn't actually resulted in a large number of complaints to ISPs yet. Some people say the fee copyright holders get charged by ISPs to process complaints is enough to discourage them. Others say the involved parties (RIANZ etc) are keeping quiet either so they can complain in the 2013 review that it isn't working or so they can pretend to other government this is what it will be like if they have similar laws and they don't have to worry about an unmanagable chaos of complaints and internet users being railroaded. Some think it's still too earlier and copyright holders are still testing the waters and learning how to deal with the law (and perhaps wanting to avoid an outcry by proceeding too rapidly). Yet others say it's proof the earlier fuss was a much ado about nothing.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robofish, it's the same as the difference between asking people to help write an encyclopedia and editing the Encyclopedia article to say that people should write encyclopedias. The former is not a WP:SOAP issue, but the latter would be, and a WP:NPOV violation (unless we also included non-fringe views from people saying that encyclopedias shouldn't be written.) 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, better, it is the ultimate instance of WP:POINT.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ultimate" in what sense? Geometry guy 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a considerable disruption to make a considerable point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the alternative from inaction is the likelihood of greater disruption, then it is not disruptive on balance. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A rather remote possibility! Surely the revolution would come after they took down Facebook, even if it didn't start with Youtube.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see below: #What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are advocacy sites. They are not expected to be neutral treatments, naturally they seek to advocate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are very much mistaken. Business Insider and Ars Technica have always been considered reliable independent secondary news sources on Wikipedia. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Considerable" as in "worthy of consideration" or as in "too much, a lot of"? Geometry guy 01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As in, a significant amount.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Start a WikiProject

Wikipedia's greatest strength is in collecting and disseminating accurate information. Currently the EFF is largely supportive^[8] of an alternative bill, supported by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Represenative Darrell Issa (R-CA), known as the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act or OPEN Act.^[9] Note red links [now blue ;)]; in fact as of writing this no results come up here for the name. I would like to see this red link become a DYK and perhaps even a Featured Article. Thus there would seem to be a use for a WikiProject, dedicated not to advocacy but simply to ensuring that the facts as they exist are accurately reported, as the SOPA bill needs no herald to announce its stench. But is a new WikiProject definitely needed (rather than some recruits to WP:WikiProject Human rights, WP:WikiProject Telecommunications, or WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy, or simply a general agreement here to get cracking?)? If a new WikiProject is needed, what should its scope and name be? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've since gotten OPEN Act up to the point where I proposed it for DYK. Feedback welcome ;) Wnt (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. I'll be by.Elinruby (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a public speaker and sort of a celebrity

Have you tried speaking to the politicians? Could you try contracting one of the people responsible for the Republican debates and have them bring the subject up? Could you create buzz within the mainstream media without doing a strike? Have we exhausted all other options? Out of curiosity, on whose side is the man with the veto on? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year

We're too late, but it's still a good idea to oppose SOPA to prevent this from becoming more widespread:

1. Rosoff, M. (December 9, 2011) "The Feds Shut Down A Music Blog For A Year For No Real Reason" Business Insider
2. Lee, T.B. (December 12, 2011) "ICE admits year-long seizure of music blog was a mistake" Ars Technica

67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Actual scenario

DMahalko in the poll-section makes a damn good point — what would actually happen if US government shut down wikipedia along with youtube and so forth? The backlash would be enormous and as dramatic as it seems, the public demonstrations against it could maybe only be quelled by the imposition of martial law or something. So... (even though I !voted some tentative support), can the strong support-voters explain why we shouldn't just let this scenario take place and wait for the water cannons and pepper spray to appear on the news? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The US Department of Justice is already seizing websites. Google Operation In our Sites and ask yourself why the Department of Homeland Security is worried about counterfeit handbags when SCADA control panels are open to the entire internet and some reset user passwords to an easily-googled default if their users follow best practices on password complexity.

This is not a Chicken Little scenario. Copyright law was used against a security researcher who disclosed the presence of a commercial rootkit on millions of cell phones. Last month. The SOPA article contains several examples of unintended consequences caused by governments messing with their TLDs. (If they have not been removed) It's important to understand that the US controls all .com, .net and .cc domains, so this is not a parochial US issue. I have not managed to get that piece of information to stay in the SOPA article though. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Read it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you see much coverage of Occupy Oakland or San Francisco on the news? It's all been filed under "dirty hippies were a health risk, and the police did what they were ordered to do." Do you see much coverage of Goldman Sach's fraudulent derivatives? Do not expect critical thinking from the evening news.

Wnt's explanation somewhere around here is essentially correct. The DoJ is not going to seize Wikipedia. It will instead require it to take active measures to make sure its users do not post anything that could be considered to violate copyright. At a minimum this is an unfunded mandate for a huge staff increase that would probably make Wikipedia's business model untenable (and YouTube's, and Twitter's...).The Chinese equivalent of Twitter employs hundreds of people to screen user posts. But since copyright law is *already* being abused to criminalize First Amendment material, the chilling effects will be far, far worse. SOPA also makes illegal tools for evading penalties for copyright violations. Goodbye to the open source projects that brought you the Arab Spring. These tools are very very broadly defined, in a manner that could cover widely used privacy tools such as SSL and VPN. Passage of SOPA would endanger the implementation of DNSSEC. That's not me saying that, it's Sandia Laboratories.

But nobody is going to arrest Mr Wales tomorrow...it will just gradually become harder and harder for him to keep this site in existence. Oh yeah and, speaking from the heart of Silicon Valley here, which currently leads the nation in job growth--the uncertainty about the effects of the law will very likely cause venture capital to dry up. That's not me saying that, that's venture capitalists.

That's why.Elinruby (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting anything from the evening news, or any news for that matter. I am expecting protests from all those who use wikipedia and other sites, and that (unlike the Occupy-movement) is a broad base of people.

As for the part that requires wikipedia to enforce copyright-law more aggressively, I am completely for that. People who engage in copyright infringement here should be blocked and banned for life upon first violation without recourse or discussion. But that's just me I guess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean to point my finger and say *you*. People, in general, should not expect an outcry about really bad proposals. A single Senator kept this from poofing into law as is, and it still may if the sponsors can get sixty votes.

If a tree falls in a forest, though? The reason I believe you are mistaken about this is that they have already been seizing sites for a couple of years, and nobody paid attention because they were just torrent sites. Except some of them weren't. And some of that illegal video wasn't. And at least one site they seized was totally legal in Spain, where it had its offices and servers. But see, it had a .com domain name. The legislation also does away with this pesky jurisdiction stuff -- if someone in the US reads your site, it's affected by the bill.

And by the way, I'm not against protecting copyright at all. Just don't think SOPA is the way to do it. And your proposal is a little drastic too, LOL. We don't have to argue about that, but let me tell you a story. I am currently involved in an AfD that says that a screenshot of an open source browser running on my own personal laptop may be a copyright violation. Who knew? I posted why I thought it wasn't, and as far as I know it's still open for comment. I will be ok with the results either way it goes. But I am telling you this in hopes of showing you that if the person who filed the AfD is correct, it was an innocent error made for all the right reasons. And under SOPA, Wikipedia would have been responsible for it. Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not going to happen that way. The bill doesn't appear to propose shutting down Wikipedia, but possibly restricting its freedom and the freedom of the sources on which it relies (if I understand things correctly). There would be no public demonstrations, no pepper spray, just an Internet that is less open. And, without wanting to breach Godwin's law, I believe some people died in the Holocaust having had a similar faith that if you sit tight and stick to your own business, bad things just don't happen because something else will always intervene. --FormerIP (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, FormerIP, obviously we don't agree, but isn't it a good idea to wait on the Nazi analogies until you've grasped, at least generally, the statute? Even with the ritual nod to the dear departed Mike Godwin.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and just work past the analogy. The point is that let's sit tight, because something always comes along if you do nothing is a poor policy to live by. If you think the bill is actually not so bad, then of course that makes it a different matter. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Very clever recasting, I salute you. However, what you are actually doing is very solemnly assuring us there is, there is a wolf coming despite significant evidence to the contrary.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, this could be cry wolf. And sometimes, it can be better to actually let the wolf appear so people can (often for the first time) see what a wolf actually does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is cry wolf, then by all means oppose it on that basis. But not on the basis that the idea of taking action to defend yourself somehow doesn't make sense. If there's really nothing to worry about, then I too support inaction. Seb: I feel I must add, though, that in the "cry wolf" scenario there is no wolf. Keeping quiet about a wolf so that it can maul the villagers is a different story that no-one has written yet. --FormerIP (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, the cry-wolf scenario is to bore people into submission when the wolf finally comes (see: The Boy Who Cried Wolf, on when the wolf arrived), hence, "psychic numbing" was the danger. There should be real sourced discussion about the expected danger (including primary sources which state the danger, not argument to authority raising fears, but real evidence in legal wording affecting U.S. websites). -Wikid77 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There might not be a wolf here, either. Moreover, the villagers in the story know by experience what a wolf does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The effects would be more subtle but more pervasive than an all-or-nothing block. Once the U.S. government gets into the Great Firewall business, many decisions would end up being made more after the fashion of totalitarian nations. For example, there was a flap here a year ago about Wikipedia displaying the FBI seal on its page, which Mike Godwin concluded was legitimate. There was recrimination against his outspoken response because some people felt that whatever the law, antagonizing the government was not a safe thing. That sentiment would be much, much stronger if people felt like at any time the DOJ could act on a specious third party complaint to block all access to the site without trial. Such intimidation might start at decisions of which content to exclude on the basis of pseudo-legal theory, but it would quite readily extend to excluding mention of political views or facts that the government found inconvenient. For America to surrender to the Chinese model and abandon its mores against censorship would greatly demoralize the resistance to such tendencies. Wnt (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I really wish that some of the people here who understand that these laws endanger Wikipedia would come help patrol the articles on the subject as they are plagued by contentious editing and repeated removals of sourced material. I have not yet succeeded in getting the problems with DCMA to stay in the article, for instance. I just got a lecture on advocacy by an administrator I'd asked for help. Opinions of first amendment lawyers get moved to an opponents section, and their presence there is then used to say that quoting about the impact of the bill is not NPOV. Und so wieder. And by the way, I support a strike. Whatever it takes to get people to understand that much of what is special about the internet would wither and die. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have to look at the article in some detail, which I lack the time to do, I have someone annoyed at me for not implementing his peer review comments on another article, but from your description it sounds to me like you wanted the opinions of opponents of the bill to be stated as fact, rather than as opinion. Even if they were stated by "first amendment lawyers", they are, nevertheless, opinions. Hope this helps. I could not act as an admin regarding that article due to my participation in this discussion, but if you have specific questions on content, I'll do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It keeps getting cast that way, that's true. But when you ask a lawyer "what will happen if x" (the law passes as is, for example) what you get for your money is called an *opinion* whether you or I like the term or not ;)And that name does not make the result invalid. Kind of like the theory of evolution isn't just something someone made up one day in the shower ;) even if it *does* have "theory" in its name.

Or, if you can think of a better way to forecast the effects of this bill, I am open to any suggestions you may have. That categorization of "opponents" and "supporters" is someone else's idea and a bit arbitrary in my opinion, because it loses many shades of grey. The EFF as I recall for example gives the House sponsors credit for trying to get away from rigidly prescribing a technical solution that won't work, but says the language proposed instead is so vague that *anything* could go into the court order, leading to the uncertainty I mentioned elsewhere on this page. That's quite a bit more complex WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lawyer's opinions are all we have to work with and at least better than the language of the legislation, which says it's protecting motherhood and apple pie by preventing people from ordering their drugs at legitimate Canadian pharmacies. I usually hang out on technical and obscure pages where there's zero controversy, but I am pretty sure that AGF doesn't require us to buy any bridges in Brooklyn.

And besides, weren't you yourself citing Floyd Abrams a little while ago? Silly Wehwalt:)

Meanwhile, if you are serious, I may indeed have questions for you about how to apply policy. Thanks. Seriously. (For instance some specific issues around how to fairly give both sides without whitewashing when the consensus is *so* much against it...) But I can assure you that the article as it stands contains statements that are simply wrong but keep getting reinserted. Needs help and I don't care whether the people who help it agree with me, as long as they do in fact help it, mumble. Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to go out shortly, I will answer your policy questions on my talk tonight (separate discussion, people) I will confess I did think of how powerfully people were crying out against Floyd Abrams fand then citing to first amendment lawyers, but it did not seem worth mentioning for tactical reasons. I may have been wrong, but no big deal either way. You tell me that there is no certainty in the future; I heartily agree and suggest you mention that to the people who are utterly predicting the sky will fall and there will be a Great Firewall across America. And the burden of proof is not with me, it is with Jimbo as proponent and backer of the RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Welp, the Great Firewall of China uses precisely these techniques, so if this law passes that's what we will have. That's another fact. So is the number of small internet companies that would go out of business because of the monitoring requirements. But I digress. You asked me about Wikipedia and the most pertinent to Wikipedia is what it does to DMCA. Tonight is fine. At your convenience. If people let me ask them questions I am not going to go complain about how soon they answer ;) As for Abrahams, mmm, I have a fair amount of disdain for Citizens United but I can't evaluate his legal abilities. I just feel like it's one way or the other, yanno? Either lawyers are experts for this, or not. He's not quoted in the SOPA article because I think his opinion is about PROTECT IP, but I'm ok with adding him anyway if it seems like a good idea. Would have to also mention his client list in that case, mind you. Talk to you later. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

my apologies to Elinruby for accidentally zapping the above comment, and thanks to Risker for alerting me - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...

Volunteer Marek is explicitly requested to desist from personal attacks on others or stay off my user page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this here? What relevance does it have? Can I start a RfC on *my* user talk page over shutting down Wikipedia for a few days over some pet cause of mine and if there's a couple of "support" votes, we gonna shut down? This is not the venue for this kind of discussion and even less of a venue for what has turned into a voting poll (to put it charitably). So stop freakin' voting. I know you really want to show Jimbo how much you love him but this whole endeavor goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and no matter how many people write an empty "support" on it, there's not going to be a strike. At the end of the day, we've been told over and over again that policies such as NPOV are fundamental - and this proposal goes right against that. Also, Jimbo has always made a pretense of being "just another editor" (and for the most part has stuck to that, until now). This means that Jimbo has no more right to start this kind of a "poll" on his user talk page than I do. Now, giving Jimbo a charitable interpretation of the events it looks like he posted a comment on his talk page, which he hoped would get taken to another venue (this is AGFing the fuck out of the "Please help me publicize this widely" comment). But a whole bunch of people who think that agreeing with Jimbo is a way to earn brownie points on Wikipedia turned this into a "Poll". That's not how Wikipedia works. You want a 'strike', propose it in an appropriate venue (village pump, ANI, separate RfC page etc.). Stop wasting time here. Go write an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  07:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC) It was posted on AN and RfC, and you're welcome to post about it anywhere else you think it should be publicized. As for me personally, I've disagreed (in some cases strenuously) with Jimbo on more than one occasion. I couldn't care less about earning "brownie points" with him. I agree with him in this case because I believe he is correct. I believe that is true of most, if not all, of those who have agreed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Maybe but people are "voting" here. And yes, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the support votes are due to the simple fact that Jimbo is the one who proposed it. Volunteer Marek  08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Wow. People who disagree with your particular position are out to earn brownie points with Jimbo? Argumentum ad Hominem much? Maybe you need to read WP:NPA. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Wow yourself. What do you think is happening? Are you being daft or naive? There's absolutely no reason or justification in Wikipedia policies for this kind of proposal ... strike that, Wikipedia policies explicitly prohibit this kind of thing, if it was anyone else but Jimbo trying to pull this kind of a stunt they'd be banned for disruption. Assuming that these aren't naive <1000 edits newbies voting above... yeah, motives do come into question. Volunteer Marek  08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Wanna start an RfC on your talkpage? Go ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC) At best this is a blatant grab for power, naively supported by folks who can't think beyond "Jimbo said it, it must be true" or "SOPA bad, so support" (SOPA might be bad, but two wrong don't make a right). At worst it's a perfect illustration of everything that can be wrong with Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC) If it bothers you so much go away and ignore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) How about you go away and ignore it. What kind of bullying bullshit is that? Obviously this is something that would have very widespread implications across Wikipedia, and affect lots of editors myself included. So, no, I don't think I'm going to ignore it. That's a very nasty thing to say to somebody. Typical though I guess. Volunteer Marek  08:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Typical? You're the one attacking people and ranting when all this is is a poll because Jimbo wants to know what people think. You told him what you think and he'll read it. Other than that, it will not have implications. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Go away Seb, you're not welcome here and you're embarrassing yourself. More seriously, I just got to ask. If "it will not have implications" what is the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Obviously the reason people are voting here is because they believe - rightly or apparently wrongly - that it WILL have implications. Right? Volunteer Marek  08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC) No. At least I didn't. If they do believe that, they got it wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC) So apparently there's just an excessive amount of internet ether out there and you're just doing your part in preventing it from reaching some kind of critical mass and blowing up the internets as we know it by wasting bandwith with "comments that have no implications". Kudos. For me, as disagreeable as some of my comments might seem to some, I *do* post them with the hope that they do carry some implications. Volunteer Marek  08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose Jimbo's proposal, as I made clear, so perhaps I have a slight bias. But one reason it is highly unusual to have RfCs on user talk pages is that we allow users a bit more privilege over their talk pages than over the average page. It is not, however, unusual for words to get a bit heated in an RfC. But is this an RfC? Or is it just a straw poll? If the former, I suggest we move it out of Jimbo's userspace, though keeping a link of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my personal request for comment in order to guide my thinking and talking with politicians over the next few days. I am also speaking to the Foundation, Foundation attorneys, our paid lobbyists, fellow traveller organizations, etc. Because the Foundation has requested, reasonably due to negotiations under way and the impact that I might have on that by accidentally creating a public furore, I'm not able to say a lot at this time. Part of my job here is to represent the wishes of the community to all these parties, hence the straw poll. As I said before, nothing here is binding - if and when we would do something like this, there would be a much more formal proposal. Right now, what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators. Do not underestimate our power - in my opinion, they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that. Back room politics over cigars and promises, or a vigorous public debate? I know what I want, and I know what the other side wants, and they aren't the same thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Paid lobbyists"? . --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction. This is your "personal poll", but it's your "job" to represent the Foundation? Sue is the CEO. Did she ask for this poll? Did the board formally vote and ask for it? Are you speaking for them, when you talk to the President, or for yourself, or just trying to have it both ways like a wave-particle duality? No one denies that you have a big Q rating, but the akward straddling of personal advocacy with people who think that you really still are in charge of Wikipedia is wrong. It would be more noble if you were more self-effacing here.TCO (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at Sue Gardner's page asking whether statements to Barry O by Jimbo will represent the WMF's position.TCO (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm a bit puzzled by your comparison of cigars and promises, and vigorous public debate. As I see it, there is very considerable and open public debate on this question. If indeed this is decided in back rooms with cigars as in a Homer Davenport cartoon about Mark Hanna, I find it difficult to believe, if they are truly so contemptuous of the public, that they would be swayed by Wikipedia. On the one side, we are taking chances with our reputation for neutrality and availability to take a stand which is already being taken by other people amid considerable publicity. On the other, we'd be doing the same thing, and not making any difference. Either way, we will have altered people's perceptions of Wikipedia in an unplanned way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If I could break in with a fact here for a sec -- they were *trying* for the backroom. They did not invite any internet engineers to the hearing on the bill. Many many internet and tech companies wanted to testify but got the cold shoulder. Google was allowed to testify but got berate quite a bit for carrying ads for Canadian pharmacies a couple of years ago. Sorry for the interruption, I'll see myself out now ;p Elinruby (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, Elin, but I don't see that it materially changes the question. You tell me they showed bad faith, I will take your word for it for now, but just from what's out there, this issue is under klieg lights. Whatever happens will be debated in public fora. Similarly, even the threat of action by Jimbo, tomorrow or later, will have an effect on public perception on how we are seen. I routinely see newspapers and blogs casually mention information gotten from Wikipedia. I suspect that if we are viewed as being within the political spectrum, that will change. I don't see many casual mentions of information from Conservapedia, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is *now*, yes. It wasn't in early November, and this spring the Senate version would have passed without a whimper if Ron Wyden had not put a hold on it. Even then it was getting no coverage at all, apart from specialized blogs and the odd story in the New York Times music section about the some of the rap sites that got hit. I think you express a legitimate concern about impartiality, but I also don't think impartiality requires Wikipedia to keep silent when its survival is at stake. You can have an opinion on what should happen and still stick to the facts you know, or nobody would ever be dispassionate enough to cover the news. But I'll shut up now and go do just that. Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"survival is at stake". Yes I know. I've seen at least two invocations of the Nazi Party, and any number of predictions so dire that I look up and am amazed the sun still shines. I have yet to see a clear and present danger to Wikipedia, explained cogently and unemotionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see that too. Elinruby's explanation above is that the effective removal of the safe harbor provision might force the WMF to vet every contribution for copyvios before it is posted. That would make the crowd-sourcing method that drives Wikipedia completely impractical, and undermine the principle that anyone can edit. Geometry guy 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, all this is too dependent on "mays" and "might" and "coulds". I could be hit by a meteor tomorrow. Barry O could change parties on Tuesday and world spin backwards on Wednesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some things are more likely than others. :) But, you're getting vague, now, Wehwalt: "all this" what? "too dependent" for what? Geometry guy 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The alleged threat to Wikipedia is the "all this". Many of the comments, even in support, contain such language. I am looking for evidence on three points: That the proposed legislation is a real threat to Wikipedia, that the proposed course of action (blocking the site for a day) would significantly help alleviate this threat, and that the course of action would be worth the down side (public perception of loss of neutrality). I have seen much passion expended in support of these point, but few facts cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Patience, patience, Wehwalt. I'd like to see more evidence too, but a definite course of action has not yet even been proposed, and action may prove unnecessary. On the other hand, there is evidence that the legislation could negatively affect Wikipedia, and it is a sensible objective to ensure it isn't a real threat and/or prevent it from becoming a real threat. The time to raise concerns about the possible impact of legislation is before it is enacted into law, and the time to influence policy makers is before they become too committed to a course of action. It's no good waiting with fingers crossed, comforted by the fact that the sun is still shining, until the court injunction arrives, and then saying, "I now have evidence that this legislation is harmful to Wikipedia, and therefore now oppose it". Geometry guy 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all mainstream publications, with some well-respected tech sites thrown in:

• CNET
• San Francisco Chronicle
• ITWorld
• San Jose Mercury-News

Elinruby (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So... would anyone like to see RS for the First Amendment concerns? I actually posted some earlier but will post some more if you like. They are thick on the ground, and hey, I just noticed this new one: Feds admit they seized a completely legal domain name last year. Note: they *just* admitted it. So sorry you've been out of business for a year. I can also post some RS for the breaks-the-internet concern if that's of interest, or the posting-infringing-video-becomes-a-felony concern...The human rights concerns? But we should take this elsewhere if we do that. Those four are some of the better explanations of why the law is a threat to Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another idea: Black background

So there is a lot off opposition to blanking the site for various reasons, one of which is that removing content, even for a day, is against what we should be doing. While I don't agree entirely with those people, I admit they do have some valid points. I think after a night of pondering that we could achieve a similar level of hype by doing a white-text-on-black-background instead of a site blank. It might not be quite as effective, but if we link it prominatly on every page (because there will be people wondering why we changed our colors), then it has the impact of informing people as well as not removing our content. We might have to go through some images (like the logo which has a white background) and make alternate ones for main site images (article ones aren't worth it) so it still looks proffessional. Obviously this won't appease those who don't think we should do anything and I do admit it won't have quite the same impact as a site blank. Thoughts?∞陣内Jinnai 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While the impulse is commendable, such showy gestures are best used where a site has a greater depth of emotion than research available to it. I would prefer to have a simple banner inviting people to learn about and discuss the issue - especially if that issue includes WMF joining as a plaintiff in a lawsuit to obtain injunctive relief and ultimately to overturn the legislation. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That banner will be ignored unless there is something showy.∞陣内Jinnai 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's power isn't as a medium, but as a reference. Our business isn't really herding eyeballs where we want. But every week I see forums where people reference Wikipedia to back up political arguments, and for example I must have directed people from discussions on the occupywallst.org forums to Wikipedia entries a dozen times, and it often seems effective. Now it's important for Wikipedia to take a stand - to share its internal experiences with the public, to make clear to the country that this bill would be a real problem. But for that it doesn't really need bold fonts and fancy graphics; it needs news reports. And news reports almost always come out when lawsuits are filed, which is one of several reasons why I hope Wikipedia will join other academic and civil liberties organizations in suing for an injunction against the law if/when it is passed. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly save electricity. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed replacement text

What about replacing all pages with "Our mission free knowledge for everyone, but the U.S. Congress and their proposed Stop Online Piracy Act might put an end to our mission. To show our disapproval, this, and all other pages at Wikipedia have been blanked."

It is not by any means perfect, but I think something along those lines should be added. It should also ask for a donation and contain a picture of Jimbo. PaoloNapolitano 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternate "Blanking" Proposal

What if the page came up blank with a message that said "This might be what Wikipedia would look like if Congress passes the Stop Online Piracy Act. Click here to learn more, or click here to continue to this article." The user could pick if they want to go to the SOPA article or move past the blanking. So the entry is a blank article, but they can go on to the article they've requested if they choose to continue. We could set up a cookie so this only happens once per user per computer.--v/r - TP 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope we won't get to the point where actually taking action is necessary, but if we do, this is a much better approach than denying access to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I don't like any of the proposed message texts, because they play into the hands of those who would use this as an opportunity to attack Wikipedia. However, getting the text right (and indeed the precise form of action) is something that we don't need to do unless action proves to be necessary. Geometry guy 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If any action is to be taken it should be a strike. Because "Wikipedia have put a notice on their site" is not news in the way that "Wikipedia articles are inaccessible" would be. And because we risk a boomerang if the story ends up being about edit-warring and slanted coverage on SOPA-related articles. If they're not visible, then that can't happen. --FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really like your idea and think it would be an effective alternative to complete blanking of Wikipedia. 68.195.21.220 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good, less radical proposal (if/when) we get to that point. Crazynas ^t 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is for a symbolic action. As it will not effect the economic use of en.wikipedia, I do not believe it would be effective in forcing a major English language state to change its law. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proportionate and effective responses

1. The WMF should seriously investigate moving WMF operations out of the US. Publicise this. Embarass the US government, possibly affect SOPA, probably not. If necessary, have serious contingency plans ready. As a first step, of course, review the legal risks of SOPA and publish the conclusions. (Without this, the current discussion is pretty weak.)
2. The community should do whatever it wants, but it should be a grassroots community response in order to be effective (like the Italian case) not a WMF move. Because of the discussion on this user talk page, that is now impossible, so the best thing is to do nothing, as a community. As individuals, of course, people can do what they like. Rd232 ^talk 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What should they do, see if Sealand is for sale? Honestly, this entire affair is reaching new levels of absurd surrealism. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up surrealism. What exactly is absurd about moving outside of a hostile legal jusridiction, or seriously investigating the possibility of moving when a previously hospitable one risks turning hostile? Rd232 ^talk 07:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If the WMF moved out of the US, it would no longer be a US charity. Thus, US donations to it would no longer be tax deductible. It's a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are Wikimedia chapters in the US that American donations could go to, just like for other countries... --Yair rand (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is certainly possible in a highly theoretical sense for the Foundation to move out of the United States, it would be highly problematic for a number of reasons. For many reasons, even under SOPA, the United States would likely remain the best jurisdiction for our work. The First Amendment provides very strong protection for our work. The physical infrastructure of the office and the main servers are in the United States, and it would be extremely costly to move either. So while leaving the US is a theoretical possibility, it is not a threat we should make idly, and it isn't a very plausible threat unless things radically change. (Which they could, of course!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A Bit of Humor

There is a lovely elderly lady who sends me information on her family which goes back to and even before the Battle of Poitiers. Her information is all verifiable though I have to search reliable sources since her research would not be considered RS on Wiki.

She is the sweetest lady and loves that Wikipedia includes her family members; but I have to laugh because she calls us "WikiLeaks".

Thought this page could use a bit of humor. Mugginsx (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have run into that, people who think we are affiliated or the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I should, but I don't have the heart to correct her. She really does not know what WikiLeaks is. She is a lovely lady. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Friends of mine have been similarly confused. What is more annoying is when libraries or archives incorrectly make the association, or think it has something to do with google books' scans and they get all hostile.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never had that experience. Sad to believe a library would not know the difference. Mugginsx (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The confusion began when people called Wikipedia "Wiki" for short. That led people to assume everything beginning with "Wiki" was related. In some cases, that confusion was done on purpose and encouraged. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobbyists

Jimbo, above you mention lobbyists working on behalf of Wikipedia and/or the WMF. Could you please give the name of the lobbying firm or the registered lobbying agent who is doing this work? Is the expense for theses lobbyists itemized in the WMF's annual report? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I also ask for answers to these questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be only in the EU at present.[10][11] 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Most interesting. However, Jimbo referred to paid lobbyists in the context of an American bill, so I would imagine that is DC-oriented.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I answer, I'd like to spend a moment, as usual, and likely without positve result as usual, calling Cla68 out for his persistent tendency to be hostile in his tone, and to assume bad faith at every possible opportunity. The name of the firm is Dow Lohnes, and they were recommended to us by Mike Godwin. And of course all the accounting will be done properly and reporting done according to the best practices of our accountants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You want clout?

Threaten to move WP's servers and WMF to the civilized country of Canada from The Evil Empire. THAT would get the attention of the pols (and the news media, which is another way of saying the same thing). Carrite (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is censorship in Canada about "hate literature", which means that Wikisource archives of manuscripts such as Henry Ford's The International Jew would be prohibited. I'm not absolutely sure which way the balance would tilt - Canada apparently has made great strides since the 1990s when they would confiscate gay magazines at the border - but even if they could match or exceed the U.S. on free speech, there's still the question of whether having main offices in the U.S. and servers in Canada just means that two different countries have a whack at censoring any given material.

If WMF were to consider "moving the servers" in response to some issue, perhaps it should do so less literally and rather devise some less centralized storage scheme with multiple synchronized copies of articles in various countries where they are legal, or even TOR archives, users communicating directly with Wikipedia web sites in several countries at once to start their searches in each and see which is allowed to answer, etc. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Donations to foreign charities are not deductible. Tax law is not my field, but I would expect the IRS to be rather shirty about maintaining WMF as a US charity if the bulk of its operations are elsewhere, especially if the WMF leaves loudly. I would not expect any cosmetic changes to the proposal to impress the IRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a tax lawyer, but donations to Canadian charities are sometimes deductible for US purposes. The censorship in Canada problem might be more serious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As a practical political matter then, I find it unlikely that the WMF would keep its US tax exemption if it leaves amid controversy, burning causeways as it leaves St. Petersburg.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, here's a link to a copy of The International Jew at the Toronto Public Library [12]. WorldCat is a handy website for finding the locations of hard-to-get books.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

congrats.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto#Why_do_you_waste_my_time_instead_of_helping. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto#User:Nancy_from_Yellow_Springs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.70.29.39 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

An update on SOPA and answers to some questions

First, I am not in Washington today, having been advised that a phone call later in the week will be as effective. The meeting at the White House today is not with Obama, but rather with various senior advisors to the President.

Second, a "Founder's letter" is going out in the next couple of days from a variety of co-signers. I'll be a signatory to that.

Third, I am hopeful and optimistic that the OPEN Act is a viable alternative, but apparently the supporters of SOPA are going to try to ram it quickly through the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and that will make it harder to stop and/or significantly improve the bill before it goes to a full vote. Time is not on our side here.

Fourth, a couple of people had questions about what we are doing so far, and in particular about our lobbying firm. Geoff consulted with Mike Godwin who recommended Jim Burger of Dow Lohnes, and we've retained them to help us with this matter. We will of course remain well within IRS guidelines on acceptable levels of expenditures on lobbying. And of course this all goes into the accounting in the normal way. I'd like to note that there are no restrictions on the community lobbying, which is part of the point of my starting the poll up above to begin a conversation and an initial "pulse test" for what the community would like to do.

Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)