Jump to content

Talk:Protests against SOPA and PIPA/Archive 2

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

There is no way to know whether the community supported the blackout

Because the blackout was only announced to the community (via prominent banners) once a decision was ALREADY MADE. This article makes it seem like this was the decision of the community instead of a few administrators. --35.16.55.80 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement is that of the 1200-some editors that responded a majority supported the blackout, leading to its implementation. It clearly can't be that be taken as a sign of the full community supporting it, only those that responded. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the community was not property consulted. --35.16.55.80 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't make that statement without a secondary source that calls out this situation. ("Proper consultation" in a community that uses consensus is vague anyway. How many editors need to participate to be proper? There's no framework or practical measure for that. We can note the opposition to this and if editors felt there was a problem, we can certainly call out to that, but again, sourcing needed.) --MASEM (t) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
From my point of view, I did not have enough time to make up my mind whether to support or object to the blackout proposal, before the decision was taken to implement it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the article; your opinions constitute original research, it must be discussed in reliable independent sources to give due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur. I mean, in you sentence you expressly say, from YOUR POINT OF VIEW. POV is exactly what we try to avoid. This is not a forum for us to discuss our opinions on the blackout. It's for us to discuss changes to the articles based on reliable sources.204.65.34.175 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we assume good faith, please? This is the discussion of the article, and as long as I don't put my POV in the article itself without a reliable source, where's the issue? In fact, my point was in agreement with yours - we should not make a statement expressing strong support or disapproval of the blackout, as the only reliable sources I have found to date have been mixed. Ritchie333 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. As far as I know, there's no framework (e.i. policy) at all for how to go about recommending, discussing, approving, and implementing a blackout. If there was one, then we should link to it to help our readers understand when and how Wikipedia will and or will not implement a blackout. Rklawton (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who's "the community". Usually when a discussion leads to a poll it is announced in the talk pages of related articles and Projects, which are watched by hundreds or sometimes thousands of editors, of whom tens or rarely hundreds respond over the course of a few days or a week or two, and the result is taken as being from "the community" of editors concerned with that particular class of question. That's what happened this time, and it was perhaps the biggest "community" poll ever, but is it equally correct in this case to accept as "the community" the few thousand who were informed that a poll was in progress? I feel it isn't, but absent a definition in precendent, my feeling no more applies to what we say in article space than contrary ones do.
The vote was announced for some days prior in a big black banner talking about a proposed blackout. It was short notice given that the idea was raised last-minute, but if you logged on in the three days or so prior to the blackout, it would have been hard to miss that banner. --Quintucket (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The banner was shown only to US readers for the first day and a half, and some readers never saw the banner at all until the decision had already been made. The blackout post-mortem acknowledges that these problems happened. I agree that it's not appropriate to say 'the community' decided anything here, given that such a miniscule fraction of the community actually participated. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I visit WP frpm the UK twice a day every day. The first banner I saw was at the weekend announcing the blackout would happen on Wednesday, and I found all the discussion pages had already been locked by then. I saw nothing earlier inviting me discuss the proposal, so I assume that banner was only sent to US editors. Dsergeant (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The blackout was the most discussed proposal in the history of Wikipedia (exceeding even pending changes). The proposal has been under constant discussion since early December, and was spread across numerous forums, at least 3 of which were linked from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (an RfC on December 10, a discussion page on December 15, and a formal poll on January 13). The claim that this proposal was "raised last-minute" is not at all accurate. Kaldari (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The vast majority of editors and readers don't browse noticeboards or CD. It should be clear that an action affecting the entire community should be advertised to the entire community, not just the people who know where to look. It's already acknowledged that the decision-making process was poorly handled, making excuses isn't going to ensure it never happens again. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Dsergeant: Though I'm an American, I live in Turkey with a Turkish IP address, and I saw the banner. --Quintucket (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd been reading Daily Kos you would have had the opportunity to be aware of what was cooking. The day right after Daily Kos announced its "activism plan" on Dec 11 Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative was launched and it was just two days after that that Wikimedia general counsel Geoff Brigham directed the Wikipedia community back to the Daily Kos’ “activism plan” as part of his “Call to action”. That same day that Wikipedia’s SOPA initiative page linked to the Daily Kos, the Daily Kos called Kossacks' attention to the fact a possible action was being discussed on Wikipedia and linked to the poll Jimmy Wales had kicked off.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I should imagine the number of people reading Daily Kos would be miniscule, especially outside the US. The point remains that there was nothing whatsoever on the WP home page to draw ones attention to it until the decision had been made. None of the technical blogs etc I monitor had any mention of it until that time. Agreed, it was poorly handled. Dsergeant (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Daily Kos gets on average more than half a million hits a day of which more than a quarter are from outside the US. That said, I agree with you that the fact many political organizers from off-wiki were better informed than "stay at home" Wikipedians raises questions.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Precisely, Dsergeant. Remember how PROD and AFD were extended (comparatively recently) from five days to seven for the sake of those who could only edit once or twice a week? Please remember that not everyone here is on the left side of the political aisle, and it's quite absurd to require anything other than Wikipedia participation of those of us on the right side of that aisle in order to be considered part of the community. Given that this whole event received far less publicity than most community votes, and given that it was rammed through over such a short period of time, we can't justifiably say anything about the opinion of the community as a whole. The only neutral solution is to restrict comments about Wikipedians to the small group of weekend editors who (unlike me) actually were able to be online between the time this was annouced and when the final decision was made. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Other physical protests

There was a small plane pulling a "Stop SOPA" banner flying over Lambeau Field before the Giants@Packers game on Sunday 15 January. I have not yet found a reliable published source, but I saw it while tailgating. Expect there were similar banners flying over other large gatherings. Jrgilb (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Reported via Twitter": http://twitter.com/#!/kevinokeefe/status/158649033378902016 (photo direct link: http://twitpic.com/87qfuz)
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Infographic, impact of internet blackout

http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/

from

http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update

Check this out. — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This has already been cited as an external link and included in the article. kencf0618 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Censor Bars

I've created the article censor bars since that appears to be the most common term for those black boxes ("redaction swath" being my own initial coinage). I was struck by how none of the sites I've viewed used pixelization whatsoever in their on-line protests, so the element of graphic design may well deserve at least some coverage in this article. The same goes for the faux redactions. kencf0618 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Last and First Edits

This is small beer in the larger scheme of things, but there must have been perforce a final edit and a final new article before the blackout began, and correspondingly a first edit and first article once it ended. Trivia, yes, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed anywhere that I can find, and the blackout must've been so bracketed! I've been digging through the logs to no avail... kencf0618 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of Wikipedia prominence in protests

I get the impression it's "common knowledge" or perceived that Wikipedia's blackout was the highest profile shutdown on 18 January, partly due to size and ubiquity, partly as it totally shut down. In terms of impressions it looks like Wikipedia's action in a way catalyzed the difference between "annoying protest" and avalanche, though that's mere impression from a bystander not cited fact. But do we actually have any sources where the 18th was analyzed which conclude or disagree with that perception? (that of the online protests, Wikipedia's was the highest profile or most noticed/significant/impactful)

FT2 (Talk | email) 06:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See Also

Should the 'See also' section have links to SOPA/PIPA and other significant websites that blacked out? I say yes. 74.33.74.96 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses

Do we have any evidence that other websites and physical protests were in response to Wikipedia's blackouts? If not, then these subsections do not belong under the "Responses" section. Rklawton (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this article is likely going to expand to be about the overall Internet blackout (see the above move discussion), then they will be there. If its decided not to move this and keep it strictly on the WP part, then we can move those sections. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The voice of the people came to their U.S. representative quickly and the House delayed voting. This morning, NV Senator Reid also delays action. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

More than 'in response to Wikipedia', it seems to me that there was pre-blackout planning, led by Wikipedia Sue Gardner and others. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Development of the Article continues.

Intro needs other POV added

I don't have time right now, but the intro needs to at least mention that some described this as political games, pawns of the tech industry, old v. new media, etc, plus cites. (and, probably, mention that these were refuted). FT2 (Talk | email) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The initial reactions are always couched in terms of the extant paradigm; it always takes a while for the powers-that-be to realize that the context has shifted. It's much more than Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley, of course, but that indeed is a part of the story (as is the perception of such itself). The opening paragraph can only bear so much weight, so we'll just have to see how the story unfolds. There are a lot of players in this game, some of whom for which the Great SOPA/PIPA Protest was an Out-of-Context Problem (to co-opt science fiction writer Iain M. Banks's trenchant phase). Some stunt. Some pawns! kencf0618 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Such is the line that Wikimedia Foundation staff have been pushing. Just because "we" supported their blackout proposal doesn't we need to support their POV here.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel the quote I added from Lamar S. Smith (visible here) should be restored to the lead. I'm wary of doing it myself because I fear it would cross the fine line between tidying the article up and straying into the territory of edit-warring, but its removal (and I have no doubt there were good faith reasons behind it) went a long way towards turning the lead into a largely pro-protest piece. My original draft, while flawed, was well balanced. In my opinion, neutrality trumps whatever improvements have been made since. —WFC— 03:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's a suitable quote. The reason isn't POV, it's that the quote in that edit is about the need for antipiracy measures (ie "why SOPA should exist"), not an alternative views on the protests - and this article is primarily about the protests. More directly useful quotes exist, I can look for them if you don't find them. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I added Chris Dodds' one about the protests being an "abuse of power" instead. —WFC— 04:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
If "why SOPA should exist" is off topic then why isn't "why SOPA should NOT exist" off topic? Remove the rationales for the protests if rationales for the bills are going to be kept out. The main point being here is that "great harm to online freedom of speech, websites, and internet communities" is and was DISPUTED. Here, the article is presenting this claim as if no reasonable person could disagree with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The rationales for both are carefully shown. See 'background' and improve if you wish. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is not the place to discuss the various sides of the SOPA/PIPA parts. some intro to them is necessary to explain why these protests occurred: it makes no sense to say people protests the bills without that explanation. In other words, we're starting with the "fact" that tech companies were opposed to this bill. We have to inheriently take that position to write this article, but that's why the background section is written to explain why the bills even exist to know that this opposition doesn't exist in a vacuum, but the rest of the article starts from the opposed tech POV side as required. That sets the framework for why there were protests. The rest needs to be careful with the POV since there was both positive and negative reaction to the protests, and that's where we need to make sure we're balanced. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis and the like

There should be a section on more thoughtful secondary source analyses - what does it all mean, what's changed, views on the matter etc. Some of this already exists, others will develop over time.

I've created a section as these exist enough now to start writing it. But it's late here - leaving it empty, please feel free to add. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This would require a major rework, specifically moving away from a roughly chronological index to a thematic index. I'm removing this empty section for now not because it's necessarily a bad idea but because it's enough of a project that someone should ask an admin to protect the page while someone pulled all commentary and analysis from the chronology for moving. See also a proposal for an alternative "Legacy" type of section which would use analysis to facilitate a segue into coverage of continuing or new protests about ACTA etc--Brian Dell (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge

The words on the Wikipedia blackout graphic make a good motto for the protest. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Congratulations to WP leaders.

This type of comment is better suited for Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action. This talk page is not a forum.--¿3family6 contribs 17:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I intended this comment to be considered for improving the Article; This WP page covers both SOPA and PIPA (and in addition, the Protest). The motto appears on the logo of the Protest and not SOPA Action/Initiative. Thanks for the suggest, though. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC) . . . PS, I'm not 'watching' the page you mention.
The logo (and motto) does not appear on Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action. Should it? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC) PS: My efforts are elsewhere.

(crossposted on Commons)

A number of notable screenshots illustrating the 18 January SOPA blackout online are uncategorized or do not have licenses documented, both on this wiki and Commons.

Depending on the site, screenshots may be freely licensed (or can be requested to be freely licensed upon email to site owners - they probably won't object!), or non-free. Some will need to be transferred commons -> en.wp where permissions are not held showing free licensing, or transferred en.wp -> commons where confirmed free.

We need to be sure which are which and start to sort this mess out before it lags, a mass purge is proposed, and it's all a 3 day panic.

A search in File namespace for "SOPA" will probably find all or most images on either wiki - category pages shouldn't be relied on though they are a good starting point. If anyone who takes this up could also check Commons for transfers inwards to en.wp, and perhaps prepare a list of any images where a request for free licensing might be needed, that would help too.

FT2 (Talk | email) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm questioning the need for a gallery in general - see WP:IG for the policy on the matter. While I can see the encyclopedic importance of a few more notable websites such as Wikipedia and Mozilla tied in with the text, I fail to see the importance of showing the blackout screens of 15 different ones. In addition, the images on Wikipedia engineers preparing for the blackout are entirely unnecessary and serve no benefit to the article whatsoever. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarification addendum: I'm not sure of the need for a gallery in this article specifically. I'm all for putting the gallery on Wikimedia Commons, where it makes sense, and linking to it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that here, the gallery doesn't make any sense. It can go on Commons (we can have a navbox to there at the bottom) and use a few screenshots to show what the blackout looked like, but it's not like people need to "see" these unlike, say, for a more tangible object. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine a reader who wants to understand or be educated on this topic, and thinking of WP:IG: the use of a gallery section may be appropriate ... if a collection of images can illustrate aspects ... that cannot be ... adequately described by text or individual images. I'm not sure "many sites blacked out" is adequate to convey what the net looked like or the immense impact of the blackout on the internet landscape and hence why it had the impact it did, but seeing the blackout screens juxtaposed does convey that. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that *no* images are appropriate, but a full gallery of sites showing "blacked out" websites doesn't help - one or two, yes, but as you add more, you gain no additional understanding while weighing down the page with the image. Showing the en.wiki blackout, and another wiki's front page blackout banner, are sufficient to get the point across. A link to a commons gallery for the rest is then appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed (I think) the "weighing down the page" issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the gallery is still there. There's no need for it, as part of this article; example images in the prose (As there is now) is fine, but not a gallery of blacked-out sites. It's also attracting some editors to add non-free images to it (eg Wired's homepage) which isn't allowed. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the difference is, I see this as a case where policy both agrees an exception, and one should legitimately be made. The article essentially discusses a web phenomenon - a blackout - and the images convey that blackout in a way that text cannot. The basis for usually disapproving of a gallery is (as you said) they can weigh down a page, or encourage irrelevance, which I agree. But here it's formatted not to do that. If it gets lengthy we can easily trim, but a set of 3 rows of thumbnails conveys the effect and therefore adds to the essence of the article. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"Conveying the effect" isn't the purpose here. It's to impart information. I fail to see how three rows of black screens imparts any more useful information than one or two images. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
One way to do this without using a gallery is to have a row of four images from four different websites with CC licenses (read: free images) splitting the Jan 18 section horizontally. Grouped together you get the effect of what the blacked out web looked like - but only with four images instead of 10 or more as given already. This would replace some of the images in use for the Jan 18 section. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That could look good. Part of the impact is to see (not just be told) the scope and scale of those taking part. I'll take a look, see how much thinning down can be done that way. The flips side is, education. For example Flikr's blackout differed as it was opt-in by user and therefore styled/worded completely differently. Google's was a logo blackout and is possibly one of the best known and largest net sites in the world. Reddit was the first to formally declare a blackout. Greenpeace shows public interest/advocacy groups that nobody connects to the tech world were participants; the digital library of America at Harvard with its screenshot states bluntly that in its view SOPA could lead to criminalization of librarians and other providers of information... We may have some thinning, but they aren't there just for show or because we have the pics. Each (almost) shows visually a specific educational point relevant to that site, as part of, and in addition to being part of, the portrayal of blackout front pages. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind: we can only do this for free images. Anything from the Foundation, yes. Most other sites: no, unless they also too put content under a CC license. Because we can't necessary replicate the images of these other sites here without introducing non-free content (which we really should avoid on principle for this article), we have to demonstrate how other sites did it by explaining their process, which is was my intent when I sectioned off that part of the article.
The thing to keep in mind: I think once you show WP's version of its blackout, its intuitively obvious what blacking out on other sites would likely entail - it is not a difficult concept, and thus justifying non-free use would be near impossible. Free images would be great, but again, seeing 8-10 images of black pages, particularly at a small size, is overkill for the intent of the section. I am going to take a stab at this shortly, but there's a balance to be made. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:I've added this 4-image row taking a random sample of how things were done. That said, I note the flickr image is really a case I'd love to show but I note its up for deletion at commons , though there's a chance of saving it.If we can't that would replace the FSF one, since we then have "blacked screen", "redacted", "black banner" and "unique" examples of how the blackout worked; there's possibly room for a fifth example, but it has to be unique, and as a free image, which I doubt will be easy to get. I'm going to go ahead and remove the gallery below (though it of course will still be linked into the article). --MASEM (t) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture copyright?

I took a screenshot during the blackout and uploaded it. I am sure the copyright belongs to the wikimedia foundation, until someone has a better picture or is able to get approval from wikimedia; is it alright if I uploaded it? Pseudoanonymous (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

HA! funny...--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Technically the page contains a Wikimedia trademark (the stylized W and wordmark), but there are already uploads similar to what you're talking about in the category on Commons. Steven Walling • talk 06:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely Wikimedia has permission to use Wikimedia trademarks, so there should be no trademark issue with uploading it. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality, and the appropriateness of an encyclopedia boycott

There should be a section about how many people question the appropriateness of a purportedly "neutral" encyclopedia participating in a protest - a decidedly non-neutral (and downright hostile, in my opinion, to those users outside the USA) act. SOPA supporter (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that cover that topic? --Mollskman (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are your references: [1] ([2]), [3] ([4]), [5] ([6]). emijrp (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
To paraphrase Kat Walsh: Wikipedia's articles are neutral, but its existence is not. Wikipedia depends on a legal infrastructure that allows us to host user-contributed material. If that legal infrastructure is damaged, Wikipedia will have to change into something very different than what it is now. Kaldari (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the above statement is patent nonsense. Wikipedia has a duty right now to vet its content and keep artists - authors, illustrators, song-writers, you name it - free from harm by the theft and inappropriate use of their intellectual property by third parties. Quite frankly, I've been frustrated in the past by the hoops I've been made to jump through in order to upload material of my own creation, even when it is for release into the public domain. But that just tells me that Wikipedia is taking that duty seriously. I see no reason to believe that something as restrictive as SOPA would for a second "change Wikipedia into something different." WP's responsibilities would not change in the least bit. It would simply be held to an even higher standard of, shall we say, duty of care to the community of artists at large. And for what it is worth, WP is probably one of the most pro-active websites in the world as it stands, as far as helping protect the intellectual property of others. So whether you like SOPA or not, whether it passes or not, the hysteria about more restrictive regulations turning Wikipedia into something radically different are utter hogwash. WP has already demonstrated a high sense of duty towards protecting the rights of artists, so I don't see why that would change.68.144.172.8 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Trying to read what you're saying, this is what I get:
You think there should be a section or comment covering the views of those people who felt/feel WIkipedia should not have held a blackout, either because they see it as conflicting with expected neutrality (your main point) or some other reasons they might have had. There, we agree and I believe such views are in there quite prominently.
Your second statement says Wikipedia "has a duty ... to vet content". That we have to disagree on. They have duties to remove certain limited content, and to ignore takedown requests at their own risk. But even if you think they should, in fact they have no "duty" to "vet content". That, and the rest, is your personal view and while capable of discussion, not much can be done with it in an article.
Your final point seems to be "Wikipedia holds high standards so it won't hurt it anyway, nothing would change". There, we disagree. We do hold high standards but the extent of the legal wording is crucifyingly harsh and very one-sided. You're talking in a community of people who spend their leisure time checking that facts quoted actually match their source (= cited) documents, and views that lawyers who have advised many many others agree. When even the Digital Library of America blacks out saying SOPA would criminalize their librarians for providing knowledge, we have something many will oppose. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think "duty" there was used in an ethical sense, not a legal sense. That is, a statement like "Wikipedia has a duty to tell the truth about SOPA", would likely be attempting to convey that is the proper moral thing to do. And someone who responded "No, Wikipedia has no legal obligation precluding it from telling a lie to advance its own interests, that would be completely permissible under the law" might be missing the point (n.b. this is not a contrived example - it does matter with lawyers!). For specifics, I will note you apparently reject the legal view of Wikipedia's own General Counsel, who conceded regarding site take-down,etc. that "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours.". I would say the contrary view is very much WP:FRINGE, and would be recognized as such were not so many Wikipedians deeply emotionally invested in it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


I agree that there needs to be more content within the article discussing opposition to the blackout. And there was opposition. Don't know about calls received, emails, etc, But I know what was said on the "street". I have seen news accounts about the opposition. Almost all were "for" the reason, but disagreed with the way Wikipedia went about it. Very few had/have any support for SOPA/PIPA.

I will be more than happy to research and author a section covering this. I would like to know, so I can include it, how many calls, emails, messages, etc. against the blackout Wikipedia (at large) received. I would also like to include any information on staff, employees, etc that were against the blackout.

Therefore, 1. Is there a mutual agreement that a section needs to be placed? And if so, 2. Can someone provide me with the above statistics and information?

I will await your overall opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry still learning how to sign! Thank you for your patience. --Mt6617 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. As mentioned twice elsewhere, if you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here.
The following discussion has been closed by Belorn. Please do not modify it.

Only a neutral source can provide a neutral opinion, In taking a political stand Wikipedia has abandoned it's neutrality and can not be viewed as a balanced and neutral source of political articles. Washuchan (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Connecting ACTA protests

the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is beginning to garner similar, if not essentially identical protests as SOPA and PIPA, and mainstream media is just now starting to clump all three together into one topic. So folks. New title warranted? New section? Might as well get a head start on this. Sloggerbum (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think SOPA/PIPA protests are chronologically and causally prior such that there should be a "Legacy" or "Precedent" section that notes that, for example, Polish Wikipedians began to debate an ACTA protest in the wake of English Wikipedia's SOPA/PIPA protest, etc. A new section would be preferable to just folding ACTA protests here and there into this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Bdell555. While connected to a longer historical context and other protests, the SOPA/PIPA arena as an entity was huge, self-contained and stands in its own right. Think Tunisia, Egypt, Libya. Each can stand its own article, some huge, others not. Possibly if history sees this as "a collection of similar matters" then in a couple of years we'll have an article Internet freedom protests covering the background (DMCA) and the 5 years the protests took place (2011 - 2015), with historian analysis and legacy sections, and each of SOPA/PIPA protests, ACTA protests, etc will be a subarticle. But we're not there yet, that's not how it's (yet) culturally seen. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate article

We need a separate article for Protests against ACTA. --Aleksd (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sad

WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here, as stated at the top of the page.
The following discussion has been closed by Elektrik Shoos. Please do not modify it.


Thank you, I have moved the discussion to the appropriate location — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


This is the discussion page, so I hope this does not get deleted. Note I did not make any edits or changes to the article, nor will I.

I think the blackout was sad. The photo of the "Wikipedia team" celebrating as they took a source away that many of depend on, and through donations have paid for, was frankly, disgusting.

Is the proposed SOPA and PIPA wrong? You bet it is, and I am the first to tell anyone. I have written my representatives, long before this became "big news" However, is it also wrong for large internet sources such as Wikipedia and Google to suddenly block or interfere with our use of the internet? Absolutely. What you did that night is just as shameful as what SOPA and PIPA is 'trying" to do.

To me and many others it was seen as a childish act. Upset about the "game" so taking your bases and going home. For me I have decided to invest and purchase a reliable source for an Encyclopedia. The money that I have donated to Wikipedia will go toward something that is more dependable, and can't be taken away at a whim.

Yes it is your home, and you can do with it as you like. However it is a "home" that you have invited others to help maintain. Just weeks previous to the blackout you begged for donations. I suggest that you not solicit donations in the future if you plan on more blackouts.

You see the problem is, you have a project here that you can do as you like. Legally you have every right to do a blackout, or completely shut down. There is nothing stopping you. But is that right? Is it fair? When you ask for other to contribute, either financially or through their time, you become obligated to them. Perhaps not legally, but in other ways.

And finally your actions have even caused some to re-think government control over the internet. And not for the good. Some (in the real world) are questioning if perhaps there does need to be regulation, to prevent someone from doing just what you did and have done. Allow the common person to become dependent on a source that can easily be taken away by a few in control. Imagine what would happen if the power grid suddenly shut down at the direction of a few? Of course we know that can't happen, and some say that is due to government regulation.

I hope you seriously re-think any further actions.

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards

I don't know how to sign. But will give my real name. Mark Tate, Orlando, FL. If someone can tell me how to "sign" I will be glad to do so.'''Bold text''Bold text'''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.33.229 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think, I'd ask you to think on this. Understand we ourselves are creators, authors and writers - we give up our free time to give this to people. Thousands of hours, not a cent asked. We did this - communally - because we felt we needed to. We saw this place would be at risk of being taken from the world, and not just this, millions of other sites. That's literal by the way, not a random figure - over a hundred thousand websites joined the protest and that's a tiny proportion of those capable of being affected. SOPA, PIPA and their related laws would make it impossible to run the web and all the good it does. We were sad too. But when you are one of the few with enough who care and trust you - trust you aren't doing it for money, or fame, or humor, or impulsiveness. We talked for over a month trying to see what we felt was needed. I join you in hoping we don't need to again. I think it's an example of the price of freedom being eternal vigilance. There are no sure answers. But we have sought honest, responsible ones, and now... we are heading back to writing articles on frogs and films and pokemon and shoes and pop stars and philosophy.... it's been a week that with luck will be able to be left in the past as we move on. Sometimes not stopping to raise a voice when one could is worse. If we hadn't, everyone here would have only themselves to blame if the consequences were as we felt they would be. We're used to looking at documents and seeing if their claims add up or not... here, we felt they truly did. I hope we did right. I hope we never have to find out. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Over 11 years - we're in our 12th now - we have learned to come to decisions by discussion. Usually, anyway. Here one learns to listen and respect others, or at least one can if one wishes. I see that you care, and it means something that you comment here, explaining why you are concerned. It's meaningful. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
(And try this: sign by adding four ~ in a row: ~~~~. It signs your IP and the date. If you have an account and log in, it'll sign your name and date instead) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your reply and help with signing in. I now have an account. As to the subject, I fully agree that SOPA and PIPA needed/needs to be stopped. Although slowed, I think they are still very much alive, and will resurface after the election in November 2012. My issue was not your purpose, I applaud you for that! But the way you went about it. The blackout, I still say, was wrong. As I do not like people that complain and offer no solutions, I will propose some alternative solutions to a black out. Some I will even help with.

1. You did wonderful, thoughtful banners during your fundraising awareness. What's wrong with putting a banner on full time against SOPA and PIPA, and change it (roll) so folks will not get use to seeing the same image.

2. Wikipedia is accessed by millions. Great exposure... use that to organize peaceful, legal, protests all over the country... the world. THAT I can help with.

3. Have a SOPA/PIPA "Click Here" icon on full time. Clicking the icon would lead to a "diary" discussing updates. Having daily updates as to what is going on is helpful. If someone can set it up, I will be glad to keep it updated.

I am sure I can come up with more. My point is to have Wikipedia be a shining example of the free internet. ABOVE the chaos, above games, and above and better than what SOPA and PIPA proposes. They can play ugly, you... we... need to be better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How many participated?

As of now, the second paragraph has the statement: "In all, over 115,000 websites and unknown tens of millions of individuals joined the internet protest." The 115,000 claim is supported by the sources. The 'unknown tens of millions' claim is not. The citation [2] just leads to a footnote: "At least 10 million emails were received and 24 million tweets are documented; reliable sources do not estimate how many participated but it can be identified from sources as being at least "tens of millions"." I checked all citations for the first three paragraphs and none of them support this statement or the 'tens of millions' figure.

The '10 million emails' claim appears to come from citation [6], which actually says that 10 million voters contacted lawmakers. The same source that made the '115,000 websites' claim (citation [1]) says there were three million emails, not ten. I am not convinced it is NPOV just to pick the highest numbers from different sources where they contradict each other.

As for the '24 million tweets' claim, I can only guess that it is a misreading of citation [4] which refers to "2.4 million SOPA-related tweets", not 24 million tweets in support of the protest. Next paragraph there is a claim of "1⁄4 million tweets an hour concerning SOPA" for "several hours" but it's unsourced.

I think with a bit of tweaking, the numbers in paragraph 3 would actually speak for themselves, and we don't need the 'unknown tens of millions' claim in paragraph 2 or its footnote. ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, in the absence of objections. ~ Kimelea (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Citation

"In January, Anonymous helped lead the online protests against SOPA and PIPA, the despised congressional antipiracy bills." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/ff_anonymous/5/ How can I cite this without getting censored by Wiki-Authorities? -ARKBG1 (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wired is fine for a source. I would not phrase the statement that way, as the above is editorializing. Get rid of the last sentence fragment, "the despised...," and you should be okay. Wikipedia is not censored (something I personally am not entirely comfortable with), but it has certain standards that it maintains to make sure that it is an encyclopedia and not a news or editorial aite.--¿3family6 contribs 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As the above statement you want to cite is a direct quote, that is certainly acceptable if you put quote marks on it and attribute it to Wired.--¿3family6 contribs 12:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

History of "Blackout" protest?

Was the idea of a blackout protest taken from the internationally popular New Zealand internet blackout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:130:0:1000:224:81FF:FE5F:B1D2 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Twitter's Participation in Blackout

In the section on websites that participated in protest, Twitter is mentioned to have participated in the blackout. However, I cannot find any mention that this is the case. In fact, I have found sources that state that Twitter did not participate [1]. Can anyone clarify this? --131.156.236.193 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Civil Conflict?

Is the civil conflict box really necessary to have on the page? This seems a lot more like self-congratulating than something that's actually needed. BoxofPresents (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Other proposed laws" section outside the scope of the article.

I think it ought to be removed. 2600:1015:B11C:9C8:4C5:A674:D01B:AC68 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I authored those articles, and therefore per WP:COI I don't want to add them myself without a second opinion. I believe they are relevant as scholarly research on SOPA protests and would improve the external links: [7], [8]. Alternatively, they could be used to source a following sentences I'd propose for the Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community section: "Approximately 90% out of the 2097 editors who took part in the votes supported joining the blackout action. It is estimated that only less than half the voters were from the USA, which suggests that Wikipedia acted as a platform for international community to express its opinion. The most common rationale expressed by about a fifth of the editors was the sentiment that "SOPA was perceived as a worldwide threat"." and for the last paragraph about some editors resigning, "Majority of editors who opposed the participation were concerned with the perceived dissonance between Wikipedia's encyclopedic ethos, neutrality and active participation in a political issue (sentiment endorsed by about 4% of the vote participants); only 0.3% of participating editors suggested they support a tougher copyright regime.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I made a mistake on this request earlier, I'll pass this request back to Altamel for review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually going to mark this as unclear. @Piotrus: 2097 has not happened yet; is this a typo? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jd02022092: 2097 is not a date, this refers to the number of editors who voted. Is the sentence unclear? I c/e;ed the proposed sentences so I hope they read better now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Finally answered! I've rephrased the second sentence in a way that makes the paragraph flow a little easier. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA/Archive_2&oldid=1164840569"