Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Proposals workshop

Action By the Wikipedia Community

This is the workshop area for proposed actions or remedies that would be enacted by us: add any and all proposals that might work here for discussion.

Full Database lock

• Lock the entire English Wikipedia to reading and editing for some period of time.

• I think this is the most powerful option. No one reads the Featured Article, and the banner at the top of the site goes largely ignored. If we want to get this information out to as many as people as possible we need to have a full database lock. Visiting Wikipedia could lead to a page explaining what is going on (what SOPA is, why we're against it), but access to content still be blocked.

• Also, there should probably be a link to a page with the entire bill along with proposed amendments. If we're doing this, we should to it in as drastic a way as possible. No point in resorting to halfmeasures. People need to experience what may very well become the permanent state of affairs in order to understand the gravity of the situation. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Although the most powerful, it seems to me to overreach in certain ways. First, editors are a tiny percentage of the general public and a tiny percentage of the readership and are likely to be already predisposed to take action. I see no reason to lock ourselves out of editing Wikipedia! (Indeed, since many anons won't figure out how to edit that day, it might be a nice holiday from vandalism. :-) Second, as long as we cover the entire "above the fold" area with our letter of protest, people will see it, and they can be offered the easiest possible way to contact their representatives. Remember the goal is not to punish the general public: the goal is to get massive press attention for the strike (so as to get the attention of Congress) and even more importantly to get the general public to call or write or visit their representatives. We should optimize for that while at the same time minimizing disruption.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not wish to punish the public, but you need to think of these things just like union action. If bus drivers go on strike, do they make sure that only those with their day-off participate, or do they cause massive disruptions to regular services, drawing public attention to the matter, and forcing the hands of those in charge?--Peter Dolkens

• Extend the database lock until 2050, at least. THAT will teach them a lesson! Oh, wait.... - Nabla (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Block the entire English Wikipedia for 1 month, replaced by a page with an explanation along with companies to boycott like GoDaddy. Give it an inclusive name if you'd like to encourage other websites to join the boycott. So many people use Wikipedia that an example of what restrictions to information feels like might encourage them to do something other than sit. --JackNapierX (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Extended lockout of IP addresses coming from the Washington, D.C. area. Blocking or redirecting requests made from IP pools held by Comcast, Cox, RCN, and Verizon that geolocate to the D.C. metro area. Webjedi (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is intended to be open to anyone, but I'd like to indicate my full support for a one-day blackout of Wikipedia. A simple 24 hours (or even 12, just the workday) would make for a powerful statement without being overly punishing, I think. --User:mRahmani87 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't punish me! I am a citizen of Romania, living in Romania (which is a country in Eastern Europe), I can do nothing about SOPA. I don't deserve to be punished with a MONTH-long (for goodness sake, an entire month?) ban on reading Wikipedia articles, which has become a pretty important part of my dayly activities. Like me there are so many readers and users of English Wikipedia around the world. I know that there are no actual "rights" for Wikipedia readers, other than to fork and to close the site and stop looking at it, but if you guys do this you will become exactly what you say you fight against: evil government. I was beginning to regard Wikimedia FOundation as a friend. To me, to others like me to the entire community. A friend does not do this to you. Not only I have nothing to do with SOPA and nothing to do with anyone who would even remotely profit from SOPA, I am powerless to do anything about it. And I have trouble understanding why I'm being punished for something that foreign politicians and corporatocracies are doing. I mean, again I understand the whole thing that WF does not owe any of us readers and editors, but please, this? Nabla (talk) is right with his irony: block Wikipedia forever, that would show them! Oh, wait a second have we just stabbed ourselves in the gut?79.112.59.92 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone else suggest a month-long black-out other than the above user (JackNapierX} so I wouldn't be that worried about it. I think the only kind of black-out which is being seriously considered would last for a much shorter period of time, perhaps 24 hours, or possibly up to a few days, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be world-wide. Having said that, as someone who also does not live in the US I don't agree with your viewpoint that the purpose (or effect) of a black-out is to "punish" users, that SOPA has nothing to do with anyone outside of the US and that those outside the US are unable to have any effect on whether the bill is passed. It is very important to get public and media attention world-wide. Public and media pressure from both inside and outside the US could definitely have an effect. And there may be a side benefit in that perhaps people outside of the US would educate themselves about similar proposed bills in their own country. In addition, SOPA will affect people outside the US. -MsBatfish (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nabla, it isn't true that you "can do nothing about SOPA". At the very least, you can write to Romania's ambassador to the USA, asking the ambassador to pressure the USA into resolving not to take actions (e.g. passing SOPA) that would unfairly punish not only Romanians but also users of Wikipedia worldwide. zazpot (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I support this if it is a few days or less. This is a serious issue and people can live without Wikipedia for that long. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

People can live without electricity for a few days too. I still wouldn't unplug the world to protest against some US copyright law. Seriously, this is one of the most used web services on the world. Closing it for a few days would harm millions of people, some of them using it in their work. You would also do really, really serious damage to a reputation of a project that is dependent on donations and user contributions. I hope the common sense wins here. ML (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I want to reformulate this. DO something about SOPA, make it annoying and in-your-face. But don't take the site down, blank it etc. Make the articles available after clicking a few links... It's not like we want to ignore this, but the purpose is to get the attention of the public in the US who would in turn pressure their congresspeople. But please, in the name of fairness don't punish us who can't do anything about it. And, MsBatfish, maybe opinion in Canada might have some impact on the US. But in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, South America AND even Western Europe, we're powerless to do anything about it. Powerless. We're almost powerless to lobby our own Euro MPs over European issues due to the system set up in the EU (well, in some countries public pressure works better than in others - think the ignored EU constitution referenda). But to think we could bear any responsibility for the public awareness of the US public? That we could do anything about it? Really? Could you please explain to me practically, other than writing about in online, what I could do from Romania of all places (or what someone from Argentina or Israel or Egypt or Turkey or Ukraine or Poland or France could do). To us, WF would just be adding insult to injury by harming us for potentially a rather long time (even a week is, I guess we'd all agree, a long time on the Internet). Again, WF doesn't owe anyone anything, but that's no way to treat a friend. Donors I'd expect, are friends. People who believe in your project and whose hearts are with you in your ideals, I'd expect, are to be considered friends.79.112.59.92 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong action = strong support ~ Things should be done well, or not at all. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do not support - We need to be mindful that Wikipedia has significant amount of medical information. It's availability can directly impact the health of the community (even if only for a day). Was your dad diagnosed with cancer and you'd like to double check the doctor's recommended treatments? Maybe you live in an area without doctors and your child is sick or injured and you want to look up his symptoms? We need to take seriously the health or other critical impact information can have in people's lives. Wikipedia is not only used for doing homework. It would be irresponsible to make this information unavailable. Mariod505 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• strong support - A blackout for 24 hours, especially if coordinated with other planned blackouts on January 18th, would get attention in a way that is badly needed. This bill is extremely dangerous, not just for US citizens, but for the world. As important as Wikipedia is, I do not believe that a 24-hour blackout would be crippling. But it would make the point -- Wikipedia is one of a handful of sites with the clout to really make this happen, and it is one which relies heavily on the on the freedom of the internet. And if SOPA were enacted, then Wikipedia very well might come under direct attack, resulting in censorship anyway. Recommend this whether a longer soft-blackout or protest is done or not. Digitante (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support - for a limited time (24 hours) world-wide blackout with a database lock and a strongly worded message followed by a non-dismissible "nag" redirect until the bill is defeated. I also support an extended blackout for the D.C. metro area and Internet service providers who support SOPA, as well as redirecting links from web sites hosted by companies that support SOPA, to a strongly worded message. I agree that if SOPA is passed, the shutdown of Wikipedia would make a blackout of any length irrelevant and inconsequential. Also, passage of the bill would embolden world leaders to do the same, making this is a "world-wide" issue. Everyone needs to understand and fear the consequences of this type of legislation, especially this particular piece.  Jim Reed (Talk)  21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - As it's well known, Reddit is going to do this one (granted for a limited time) yet unfortunately, most Reddit users are all reasonably aware of SOPA and will, if they haven't already, give some action. We have to do this SOON otherwise it'll be too late! Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and people HAVE to see what could possibly happen, if this bill passes, to their favorite websites! By shutting down Wikipedia for a day (a week) people will know for sure the grave consequences of this bill. If possible it would be ok to block US IP addresses so as to not affect the rest of the world (since this is a US issue) but there HAS to be a POWERFUL reminder, demonstration that shows people that this MUST happen BEFORE it's too late! :( :( :( Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very strong support: SOPA would have disastrous consequences on Wikipedia. We ought to inform and demonstrate to the world how it would be effective.--Nickanc (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong support SOPA will affect every aspect of how the internet now functions and how it serves people worldwide. A 24 hour blackout, though it may have many repercussions, is a necessary safeguard against the problems that will arise should this bill pass.

Support Last resort This is the nuclear option, and (IMHO) the best way to inspire others to take action. We are here to build an encyclopedia. To that end, we have to weigh the short-term annoyance of not being able to read articles against the long-term consequences of SOPA. I think if readers are able to immediately click past a full-page letter and get to an article, most will. Soft page blanking and banners are great early options, but ultimately we need to do something that can't be ignored. I see no reason to restrict editing on the other namespaces, but blocking the main namespace would really grab the attention of readers and the media. For those who have never stopped to consider it, going without Wikipedia might lead to a shocking recognition of how important freedom of information has become. Hopefully we will call our senators with the time we would have spent reading (and editing) articles. This action should obviously be taken early enough to allow time to do that. It worked in Italy, and we should consider how best to make use of it ourselves. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Soft blanking

Every 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

Seems like a reasonable middle ground, and IIRC this is what most other sites have done on the American Censorship Day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• support this will get everybody attention, without interrupting the work of editors and/or depriving readers seriously.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it looks like a good tradeof between maintaining wikipedia working and acknowledging everyone, it would not be serious enough to be taken into account. Mostly, users would only click and "waste" time reading the SOPA article if they would be really interested. Otherwise, would just ignore what they believe is "American's problem" and proceed to the article they were looking for. I encourage stronger actions, such as locks, or perhaps random hard blaking (randomly denying to show a page and instead show a message, with no option to see the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoyzz (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• support This is the sensible position. And make it very annoying. But let innocent users around the world who are powerless to do anything about it (not being US citizens) - and I'd think US citizens too but that can be debated, actually view the articles after clicking several links.79.112.59.92 (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Half support - I absolutely agree with the "soft blanking" concept but I don't think the message should claim this is what Wikipedia would look like - that's hyperbolic and probably not true in the literal sense. I also don't think the decision tree for the user should be: <read a message and then choose whether to read another message or go to the article>. One thing we know from the Fundraiser is that you want to get to the 'ask' right away. So the 'blank screen' should be a direct appeal to action - we want to get hundreds of thousands of people protesting to their representatives - and at the end of that appeal, you can continue to the article. (And optionally dismiss the appeal and not have it come back.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sir, about the dismissing the appeal and not have it come back -- I believe that even that can be up for discussion and I can see how having it come back every time might help. My opinion -- within the US it should come back while outside the States it should be possible to be dismissed (if that's something that's technically achievable). So yes we should protest it vigurously but I believe a hard blank would be wrong and self-defeating and we'd only harm ourselves. That's why the soft blank might be the best solution, i.e., the articles must be, in the end, accessible. 79.112.59.92 (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have another idea: blank screen with link to article about SOPA. In the article would be included instructions, how to unblock the site, so anybody, who will read the article, will be allowed to continue. I've once successfully done it on my site. There was agreement like: "I agree I won't share this video publicly... And I agree I'll prove, I've read this by clicking on the dot at the end of this sentence." It wasn't possible to just look at page and know, what to do - people had to read it at least until that sentence (but after that sentence, there was some unimportant stuff). So maybe good way would be dividing article into two parts - first important, second - less important and put instructions in between them, so people have to read at least important part. And instructions should NOT be in separate paragraph - to make it harder to find it, without reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.130.44 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak action = weak support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Do not support - We need to be mindful that Wikipedia has significant amount of medical information. It's availability can directly impact the health of the community (even if only for a day). Was your dad diagnosed with cancer and you'd like to double check the doctor's recommended treatments? Maybe you live in an area without doctors and your child is sick or injured and you want to look up his symptoms? We need to take seriously the health or other critical impact information can have in people's lives. Wikipedia is not only used for doing homework. It would be irresponsible to make this information unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariod505 (talk • contribs) 2:10pm, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The information wouldn't be unavailable. It'd just take one more click (continue to article). — madman 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition to the fact that it would be available, people shouldn't be doing that on Wikipedia anyway. See WP:MEDICAL. Allanlw 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support — with the stipulation that per Jimbo, we're not needlessly hyperbolic. It's pretty self-evident that, especially given the latest revisions of SOPA, Wikipedia would not be affected. This is a statement of principle. — madman 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial lock

• Allow some combination of administrators and registered editors read/write access.
• Restrict some combination of IPs or editors from reading or editing the encyclopaedia.
• Only allow logged-in, autoconfirmed editors to read and edit the encyclopedia. This would prevent editing and maintenance interruptions while still sending a message to the masses.
• Support--Hallows AG 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Phased lock

Start with a lockdown on editing, a warning that the site will be completely locked down soon, and a statement on the Main Page. Go to a full lockdown 24 hours later.

• Disagree. The majority of users do not edit and those that do are probably already well aware of SOPA. The only way to get attention is to lockdown the features that non power users use, and that is reading, not editing. Yahastu (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Partial Disagree. I think Yahastu has said it well. Editors are already active on this issue, and make up only a tiny percentage of the world. It's the readers who we want to energize. I see no reason to lock editing at all. The Italians didn't lock editing and if you knew what you were doing you could get around the blanking (it was done with javascript). I think we should make it easier than that to get past the blanking / open letter. Where I do agree, though, is that it could make sense to put up a banner for a day or two before the full blanking. The tricky part is going to be to time it well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Do not support - We need to be mindful that Wikipedia has significant amount of medical information. It's availability can directly impact the health of the community (even if only for a day). Was your dad diagnosed with cancer and you'd like to double check the doctor's recommended treatments? Maybe you live in an area without doctors and your child is sick or injured and you want to look up his symptoms? We need to take seriously the health or other critical impact information can have in people's lives. Wikipedia is not only used for doing homework. It would be irresponsible to make this information unavailable. Mariod505 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I disagree with above user. The fact that this has so much medical information would be all the more reason to actually do it. The point of this is for one day to show how bad things could actually be if the bills passed. Would you rather have one day without that information now or for it to be taken down altogether in a year because some license holder believes WikiMedia has violated their intellectual property rights? I'd rather take the shorter down time now in hopes that it will wake people up. rstreet (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Page Content 'Censored' With Javascript

Use javascript like stopcensorship.js to randomly replace text on the page with black bars. The black bars could be removed after reading about SOPA and PROTECTIP. Support. It keeps the site functional while also showing the masses a glimpse of what would happen if SOPA passes. Of course, the black bars would have to be very annoying and be either very long or a lot of them.190.25.95.239 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I support this proposal as it keep the site functional. As stated above, some people in very rural or very poor areas do not have reliable medical services, and rely on the Internet (and ofter WP) to provide some (albeit limited) medical diagnosis information. Mariod505 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Though, note Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer; there are lots of other sites that offer medical information that would not be affected by anything we do here, and people shouldn't be getting medical advice from us anyway. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal: If someone doesn't have access to medical care, and adequate information is not available elsewhere online (which is often the case), you must expect that they will turn to Wikipedia (which often has significantly superior breadth, depth, and accuracy). From a practical standpoint, the disclaimer is irrelevant to users who are ill and have no other infomartion alternative. In those cases, a complete white/black-out will negatively impact their health. Mariod505 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no real medical informations in Wikipedia. If you fear, that lives will be lost due to internet censorship, what do you expect will happen, if SOPA would bring Wikipedia down? --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mariod505 Wikipedia is not a medical resource! We must take drastic action otherwise it's very possible that Wikipedia may not even be accessible at all if there is, say a patented medical procedure that Wikipedia is forced to take down for whatever reason. We must take this quick painful vaccine of a blackout in order to prevent a total internet death. Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Seems like the most clear way to get the point across. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Effective and gets the point across. Will need a call to action. TNL (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Big Banner?

What about a massive non-closable banner at the top? This option may be used in conjunction with Soft blanking and Partial lock options. --Marianian^(talk) 00:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This action would go well with another temporary large scale action such as a Full database lock once Wikipedia is back online.Spitfire19 ^T/_C 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like the best approach for this action. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• support for similar reasons as for soft blanking--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support with enhancement It should encompass the full page and force, one or more, click throughs and/or timers. i.e. People in dire (maybe serious emergency, medical?) need of information can still get it, but it's somewhat painful to click-through. Mariod505 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide

The law will affect Wikipedia everywhere so any action we take should also be worldwide.

A worldwide block of english Wikipedia would send a very strong message, it would demonstrate the global impact of this legislation and wake up other actors/countries. For example, last month the European Parliament made a resolution stressing "the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names", in response to SOPA. This is quite extraordinary, but this issue needs more public awareness. A worldwide block would certainly raise questions internationally that would be directed at Washington. Preferably a worldwide block would be a second step after a geo targeted US only block of en.wikipedia. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

English is not only the language of some states or the english-speaking world, it's the Lingua franca of this planet. And as this law will affect all states, the world should cry out. It's a global affair. SOPA: All Your Internets Belong to US -- Cherubino (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• The effects of SOPA are global, and I think if anything is going to be done it needs to be a worldwide blackout. Doing something that effects everybody will send the message to everybody, and the more people who know the better. Plus, if we can get worldwide support for our cause we'll be much stronger. Even if it passes, having worldwide condemnation of the bill could be very powerful.
• First choice. We should advise every reader of this threat, not just the US ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I second that. I say this is our first choice. We need to alert everyone, since this issue can (and will) affect everyone in some way or another. --DfizzleShizzle (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• As I understand this action, the point is to show people what would happen if this bill passes. So let's do it right. Global! --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Worldwide Action These bills affect users outside of the US as well. And whether or not they get passed will also affect similar proposals in countries outside of the US. I can't help but wonder if people in favour of a US-only action either do not understand the potential effects of the bills, or have some other idea about the point of a site blanking? If Wikipedia had to, for example, shut down or drastically alter its content as a result of these bills, that would be experienced by all users regardless of where they live. -MsBatfish (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If the point is forcing a US law out, then symbolic action only applies to the US. If the point is to disrupt the international capitalist economy to prevent the lobbing organisations and beneficiaries of the bill, then economic action would need to be global. US legislators do not deign to follow world opinion, see for example the international opposition to particular wars. In contrast, US capital relies on international capitalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• support As it is currently understood, SOPA will have consequences for all the editions. The Wikimedia Foundation as the operator of all the Wikipedias could face a ban from finicial services like PayPal, if someone would claim, that something was done on any Wikipedia. If someone would claim, that another Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia was doing something, that could interfer with his interessts, he could demand the censorhsip of that Wikipedia within the United States. SOPA is an american law, but it could affect the whole internet. SOPA makes it possible to prevent DNS-Servers from redirecting to sites, that do not compliy with SOPA. All the Wikipedias run under a .org-Domain, so they would have to comply with SOPA. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• No. We're a neutral and unbiased source by definition, and we should never, ever, risk breaking that vow. — Joseph Fox 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Trying soft or middle-ground protests will not work. We must aim for the strongest type of protest at our disposal, to expect a result from it (of course, as long as the protest is within the law) Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• support I use wikipedia almost daily; I rely heavily on it for instant and thorough information on any subject; I know the situation is the same for much of the US and the world. Therefore I completely support a worldwide blackout of Wikipedia to protest SOPA. All attempts to connect to *.wikipedia.org should redirect to a simple page explaining the consequences of SOPA, that the loss of Wikipedia and many other websites as we know them is what could happen to if SOPA passes, and perhaps even links to or an iframe with a way to contact Congress members. Wikipedia is and should be neutral. But this is something that threatens Wikipedia itself; Wikipedia doesn't break its vow to neutrality by campaigning for donations, why shouldn't it campaign for SOPA to be stopped? Phil.e.^{[ Talk ]} 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Needs clarification, but it should affect English Wikipedia. We should not screen who accesses it, too much technical trouble, and ironically, privacy concerns, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The purpose and goal of this campaign need to be remembered. Yes, SOPA will affect the entire world in many ways, but that doesn't mean (perhaps unfortunately, but take it up with the global system of sovereignty :-) ) they can do anything about it all. Here is what will stop SOPA: alerting ordinary members of Congress who aren't clueful on this issue that voters in their district oppose it with enough energy to have a pretty unprecedented (if we do our job well) volume of phone calls, letters, and visits. It is unclear to me what blanking Wikipedia for readers in, for example, Germany, will gain us. (Yes, it might gain a little, but it's also mainly pointless.) If we can geo-target (imperfect but pretty good) to US, to hit the maximum number of US voters, while giving as little inconvenience to others as possible, that'd be a good thing. It may be sad the the US Congress doesn't care about what Germans think (for example), but it is true: the US Congress doesn't care what Germans think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  The US Congress will at least have to care about protest notes from the European Union, which is aware of SOPA and has issued a protest note in November (A notice by netzpolitik.org, in German). SOPA affects every website and every internet user. Most Users are not US citizens, but this makes the problem even worse. Citizens of the European Union can only contact their local Members of the European Parliament and ask them to advocate further political protests. Even if they can not take direct actions, we should inform the non-us readers about the problem, as they will have to live with its consequences. We have organized a protest action at the german Wikipedia for this reason. There is also a majority at the german WP, that supports the blackout at the english WP. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. It is crucial that we act now before it is too late. InverseHypercube 07:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice ~ Yes, SOPA (and PIPA) will affect Wikipedia's readers (and editors) worldwide, but I prefer the solution below (a strong "and very informative" action for IPs outside the U.S. and the strongest action possible for those within the U.S.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - of a worldwide implementation for the reasons stated in my strong support of a full database lockdown.  Jim Reed (Talk)  21:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - of worldwide implementation. Many of you may not have considered that our government has a LOT of work contracted out to and with other countries and a lot of our companies do as well. Since most people use the internet in general to search for answers to technical problems, having a DNS block in effect could stop foreign allies from completing U.S. funded projects. This effects both the U.S. side and the foreign side of the coin. Remember that the control they want would allow them not only to shutdown a site but to also block traffic coming into or going out of the U.S. at whim. Think about China's current internet restrictions. --rstreet (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)
• Strong Support - SOPA will affect rest of world, because most of popular sites are in US. SiPlus (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support: I worked within it.wiki strike. Nothing more impressive than worldwide media to make the world aware of the problem, making Berlusconi be ashamed in front of the entire world. In my opinion, if this hadn't interested worldwide media but only italian ones, the strike would have not been listened in a such a way. Therefore, for similar reasons, i find worldwide actions necessary.--Nickanc (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support, blocking out only the US users will only have the same effect and logic of George W. Bush's relection campaign website blocking out all visitors outside the US. The consequences were still felt by the world four years later. Like it or not, SOPA has worldwide implications (e.g. [1]) and the world has the right to be aware of it. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Geo Targeted

This is a US law, any lock should target US IPs only.

IF we target US IPs only (and I'm not advocating that, I sympathize with a worldwide lock), we should advise the blocked American visitors to use a proxy to access Wikipedia from a foreign country (just like Syrians, Iranians, Chinese and other Internet users in repressive countries) - and, at the same time, inform them that the use of these circumvention techniques will be banned by SOPA's anticircumvention provision (just like in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the US government itself (by IBB) sponsored anonymiser / web proxy services for Chinese and Iranian internet users in 2003, so that "people in the countries that are suffering Internet censorship can bypass the government filtering and access all the pages that are blocked". Good old times. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I like the idea of encouraging users to use proxies to access the information and informing people that these very proxies will be blocked by SOPA. I think that approach would work just as well if the blackout was worldwide, too.

• Second choice. If that's all we can get consensus to do, it's better than nothing, but this issue will have effects far beyond the US. The English Wikipedia is a worldwide resource, and if we decide we have a duty to inform our readers of a threat to it (which I believe we do), we should inform all of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• "'Strong support - I hope to persuade people to this view by asking them to rethink it. It is absolutely true that this is a worldwide issue. It is also true that people in Egypt, for example, can't do a damn thing about it. The people who can do something about it are the people we need to energize and that means voters in the United States. We have enormous power, we should use it as gently and effectively as possible, not punishing people who can't do anything about anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Jimbo, you are an American citizen and voter living outside the United States. Do you think it's fair that under this option you would still be able to access the site? Would you at least promise not to access Wikipedia from wherever you are in the world on that day? Also, I'm a permanent resident of the US, not a citizen, and as such I am not a voter and have no a small voice. Why should I and other legal residents who are not citizens (and also can't do anything about it) be punished for choosing to live here? Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per above ~ plus some notes.
  On the 4th, 5th, and 6th of October 2011, the Italian Wikipedia has blocked access to its contents as a protest against the paragraph 29 of the "DDL intercettazioni" (Wiretapping Act). On the 7th of October the Italian Wikipedia pages were available again, but a notice about the proposed legislation was still displayed at the top of all pages in the mainspace. This "protest" then gave the expected results and it has been widely covered by media during that period.
  In my humble opinion, we need to show a BIG message/notice on top of all pages of the English Wikipedia and sister projects (Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, and etcetera) with at least a link to Stop American Censorship website (I'm not sure this is the right place/website) for U.S. citizens (and all others) to take action against SOPA and PIPA. For IPs from the U.S. we must take the strongest possible action to induce them (U.S. Representatives and Senators) not to pass the bill(s), while for all others IPs, a statement (with that same message/notice or a similar one) at the top of each page should be enough.
  All the best, happy 2012, and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support with enhancement Agree that area of impact should be limited to those able to create change - US only. However, I would prefer a smart bomb; i.e. a SOPA page which specifically lists the US Senators and Congressmen (with phone number) in the location of the user's IP address, and that politicians position on Protect IP/SOPA.
• I support this method, but we'll also need a way to inform non-US users. Alexius08 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support for this plus an extended lockout of the Washington, D.C. area. Webjedi (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Triggers

What if any should our triggers be for implementing this?

• Has passed both houses of Congress, waiting for signature or veto
• Has passed committee and been scheduled for debate on the floor of either the house or senate.

• Passage: A strike on our part is the nuclear option, and should be saved for when the Rubicon has been crossed and the Rhineland has been re-entered (OK, subtle violation of Godwin's Law ... I apologize) but it's not yet too late. We could do other things, like the themed Main Page suggested above, first. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• If we leave this to the last second, it might not have the greatest effect if we leave it to the last second. I think that we should do this a week or ten days before the vote in the Senate or the House. This could bring enough public attention to the issue to kill the bill. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I second that. We should do something before the bill is passed, because once it's through our battle is going to be much harder. In light of the announcement that the hearing has been rescheduled for December 21st, I say we take action on that date or before then.

No, that's not as called for in the trigger. The most that would happen that date is that it would be reported out of committee, not approved by the full House, and I think a blackout on our part would be more effective if it coincided with a vote by the full House (Doing it Wednesday would make it get lost in the pre-Christmas news rush, and it would be forgotten by the New Year). And, I further suggest, since Wyden has been holding it up in the Senate, even approval by the full House is largely symbolic. Perhaps if Wyden should be pressured into releasing his hold, and the Senate passes it, and it goes through conference to be reapproved by the House, the day of that vote would be the best one to make our point. We can only have an effect doing this once; if we do it let's not waste it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if it does manage to get to the House (which would be a display of how congressmen now represent corporations rather than people) we should do it then, but not the day of. That would be cutting it too close. No, I think that the blackout should be 2-3 work days before the vote, allowing for more media coverage. On the other hand, if the anti-SOPA side is winning in the Senate, and the bill is struggling to pass, then perhaps that would be the time to strike. The whole point is creating a public outcry great enough to put the majority of congressmen on our side. We cannot waste this chance to cause some real damage at the Committee vote on Wednesday, as it will most likely pass that. We have only one chance at this guys, so let's make it good! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we have the site blacked out while the House (the full House) is debating it, a Congressman who is opposed can say "Mr. Speaker, at this very moment we are seeing the consequences what might happen if this bill passes ..." Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think action should be taken before the bill is voted upon. Once it's signed, it's too late. We need to show our discontent beforehand.
• Okay, since it's been announced that the hearing is scheduled to resume on December 21st, if we're going to act, it needs to be now. Either before Wednesday, or on Wednesday. If we wait until after the bill has passed then it's too late. They're trying to get this passed before opposition for it mounts even more, so if we're going to do something it needs to be now.
• As of right now public awareness of the dangers of SOPA is frighteningly low. Step away from the internet and you'll find that few people you talk to on the street will know of the bill, and even if they do, they likely don't understand how it will affect them personally. Unless wikipedia takes action on a large scale- be it just in the US or worldwide, the uninformed majority will not have the opportunity to be exposed to the information which will allow them to actually make a choice, because while many of them browse wikipedia, they do not normally browse the sites providing said information. If the hearing really is scheduled for December 21st, Wikipedia must act soon, allowing as many people to form an opinion and take action as possible. Every second, and every newly enlightened person is deeply important to this matter. If action takes place too close to the day of the hearing, word might not spread fast enough.
• Exactly. The only people I know who have any idea what this bill is are techies like me. Step away from the internet and awareness is frighteningly low. Everyone I've explained the bill too, though, has been completely against it once they understood what it is, so spreading the word is the best possible course of action. Blacking out Wikipedia for a while would send the message to everyone. Moms, teachers, students--everyone uses Wikipedia, and shutting it down would spread our message to a huge number of people. We need to let as many people know what could happen, and a blackout on or before the 21st is the best way to accomplish that, I think.

People seem very anxious to establish the precedent of Wikipedia acting in an activist manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is because they believe that the less dramatic measures that have been suggested so far would go mostly unnoticed by the audience they are trying to reach, thus having no effect. Other alternatives should be explored more in depth, but if nothing more suitable is found, is it unfit for Wikipedia to act in an activist manner to prevent potential harm to itself?

Potential is too vague and is subject to hysteria. Actual harm, we'll talk. A cruise ship out of Tampa could potentially run aground in Saint Petersburg and destroy WMF in its, er, wake. I do not advise firing torpedos from that bridge to ward off potential threats to Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

On the other hand, if Congress were about to open up a cruise ship route, despite being told by multiple ship captains, oceanographers, and navigators that it was a bad idea and would lead to disaster, it wouldn't be "hysteria". We have two choices here—let it happen and see if we wind up on the rocks, or oppose a bill which has very high potential (not far-fetched potential, as in your scenario) of doing harm. Harm would be done—and even if you're right and censorship would be rare, it's still censorship. So let me be clear—even if we would only have to remove the link to The Pirate Bay from the associated article, even if that's all the harm that would be done, we ought fight this on principle. I think that's far from the only harm that would occur, but if it would censor at all, it is antithetical to what we do here—providing open and public access to information on everything we can source reliably, including, when material is on the Internet, information on where and how to find it. The potential for harm is not "vague", or at least our GC thinks not. The only question is how badly it would hurt, and I'd rather not let this through to find out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• How about we trigger the protest at every stage? Win-win, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

48-hour trigger

Action should be taken 48 hours before any voting commences. This would allow enough time to get the word out about SOPA and have the shutdown of Wikipedia reach newspapers before voting commences and would do the least to interrupt Wikipedia's operation. Personnally I would support a 48-hour shutdown prior to all votings. (House, Senate and Presidential signing) with banners being displayed before and during committee hearings.Spitfire19 ^T/_C 20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tim1357 ^talk 17:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One thing I think we should do here is vote in advance on triggers and time-tables, with some flexibility built in. It is very difficult and slow to get consensus votes about something in a short period of time. What I would recommend, but many other options are possible, is that we elect a small group of people to make the fast decisions when needed (when to launch, when to stop) with the proviso that they should do so upon their own judgment and taking into account advice from the Foundation and their advisors. The decisions to be made should be to the maximum degree possible "steward-like". If this gets out of committee (chances are it will) then at some point it is going to come to the floor for a vote. As I understand it, we may not have a lot of warning about when. So the stewards, led by the Foundation and their advisors, would be asked to turn the thing on '48 hours before a vote' (or similar) and to turn it off the moment that we win or lose.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• 48 hours before is not enough and few people would be made aware of this. Starting a month or, at least, one or two weeks before the vote could be the right time. Maybe, we should ask ourselves whehter it is better to start an action immediately and in the strongest possible way (or in another way) and then, in case of good news, let our guard down. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. 48 hours is not nearly enough. Frankly, I'd support blacking out now and staying blacked out until the bill is killed. causa sui (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support 48 hour trigger; I agree with Jimbo. Electing an executive committee to make decisions quickly is essential. upstateNYer 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support a pre-emptive strike. That should bring about the maximum pressure.--Hallows AG 09:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This is a project to determine what our action would be, if you feel this violates our principles, great! Oppose any proposal this page makes. However, this page is about things we could do, not why doing anything is a bad idea.

When I first stumbled across this, I thought it was one of those humorous material things that are kept. As I read on, I saw this is not the case. I was very shocked. This goes against the very heart of Wikipedia's principles. "An encyclopedia that anyone can edit or read" Also, Wikipedia hates copyright. This bill only deals with foreign websites that would be already illegal in the U.S. So basically, it's extradition for websites. If these websites were in the U.S., they would be gone in a heartbeat, how come nobody rejects that. Also, the idea of compiling the ips of supporters for action is a hate crime. You would be censoring them just for vouching their views. A lockdown of Wikipedia? A message in front of a blank page stating "this is what Wikipedia could like like if SOPA went into effect"? Wikipedia would be just fine if SOPA goes into effect because Wikipedia hasn't broken any laws. Any lockdown is WAY too drastic. It would severely disrupt Wikipedia's credibility has a professional organization. You don't see any others shutting down their website. I severely oppose ANY reaction to this. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with WP becoming a political party, as such I can no longer be an admin and thus have resigned. Nabla (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Guidelines to WP activism. I believe that this sort of WP activism is acceptable if it remains within certain boundaries.

1. That WP content/functionality not be blocked outright. To do so seriously underestimates the criticality of information for it's millions of users worldwide. ...in extreme cases, it can even be lifesaving.
2. That any notice/inconvenience is limited to the geography of the people who are impacted and can produce change. It is important that any advocacy not dilute the brand of WP by spamming areas of the world which have no impact or interest. Mariod505 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is beginning to look more and more like Anonymous Ramaksoud2000 ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any action on SOPA

SOPA is currently a bill in committee. There are hundreds of other bills that never make it out of committee. For this and other reasons, it seems very unlikely to pass: see the NearlyFreeSpeech.net analysis.

If Wikipedia takes this most severe protest action against a minor bill like this, then protests againbst future legislation which really does propose a direct threat to Wikipedia will have a limited impact. It's the "boy who cried wolf" problem. Let Reddit take its stand against this one, and Wikipedia can stand with it if the danger of SOPA passing becomes more serious. Shii (tock) 01:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

defcon 4 mate this has a serious chance of passing and when/if it does the inter net is f**ked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.32.128 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 January 2012

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/obama-administration-joins-the-ranks-of-sopa-skeptics.ars – I'm starting to believe that Shii is right on this one. SOPA has once again been delayed, and now Obama is speaking against it. SOPA seems fated to die at this point. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Michaeldsuarez is an encyclopediadramatica admin and a strident defender of the GNAA self-referential troll article. Selery (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ban linking to SOPA supporters' websites from Wikipedia

Companies and organizations supporting SOPA should not be rewarded with internet traffic flow. By removing direct links to them from Wikipedia, we could impact their traffic. TNL (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alternately, we could redirect those links to a Wikipedia entry with all the banned links in it and this entry would have an explanation of why there is an extra step to get to the site.
• Oppose. Whatever we do, we must be careful not to insert activism into the content of actual articles. Wikipedia articles are a source of neutral information; if we abandon that principle to punish our political enemies, we might as well be Conservapedia. —Brent Dax 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought SOPA's cardinal sin against Wikipedia was that it might prohibit certain links. You're seriously proposing to use links and articles as a political weapon??? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the correct action IMO. Some supporters may consist of reliable sources - are you going to block The Whitehouse, or Go-Daddy's SOPA statements, for example? It is a free-speech right to support SOPA, just as it our free-speech right to take suitable actions to oppose it - but it would be wrong, even bordering on hypocritical, to block access to opinions and other info (on which they have a free-speech right too) from these sources completely. I believe however, it would be neutral to include their position on their articles, or even the SOPA article itself. That could also include opposition arguments to individual company positions, and public protest actions taken against the individual companies. PoizonMyst (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose our purpose is to inform, not to lobby. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Organize Support in other Wikipedia-editions

A blackout of the en-wp would be adress the problem inside the US. SOPA is a US-law, but it affects all the Wikipedia-editions. Most of the foreign Users do not even know about the dangers of SOPA. The WMF should inform the other projects about the issue and ask them to set up protest initiatives, as we did it in the german Wikipedia. I do not think, that the french, spanish or russian Wikipedia should go offline now, but they could draw public attention on this issue. We have organized a banner in the german Wikipedia, things like this would be easy to organize. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Concrete proposals workshop

Concrete proposal 1

• Trigger 1, ongoing and required for all other triggers: That the expert advice of Geoff Brigham is that the proposed legislation "continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls" or will pose significant harm to en.wikipedia's encyclopaedic process
• Trigger 2: That the bill has passed mark-up
  • Action on Trigger 2: en.wikipedia site wide black bordered top-of-page announcements that the bill will damage en.wikipedia's quality
• Trigger 3: The Bill be passed in either House or Senate or sent to Conference
  • Action on Trigger 3: site wide black bordered announce top-of-page announcements that bill will damage en.wikipedia's quality and is proceeding to final legislative action
  • Action on Trigger 3: site wide click-through, single per visit that en.wikipedia will black out for a period of 24 hours, this to be advertised for 24 hours
  • Action on Trigger 3: 24 hours front-page only access for non-signed in editors with pre-existing bordered black announcement, with additional section in announcement noting the black out. In addition US legislative IPs, and editors signing in from US legislative IPs will be unable to create new accounts or sign into edit while from those IP ranges.
• Trigger 4: Bill passes both houses or Conference
  • Action on Trigger 4: US legislative IPs, and editors signing in from US legislative IPs will be unable to create new accounts or sign into edit while from those IP ranges. Rolling click-through advertisements against Presidential signature
• Trigger 5: Passage of the bill beyond the capacity of Presidential veto, or Presidential signature; bill currently in force or not overturned by legislature or courts.
  • Action on Trigger 5: All US legislative and executive IPs, and editors signing in from US legislative and executive IPs will be unable to create new accounts or sign into edit while from those IP ranges. Continued banner advertisements. Selective rolling blanking of portions of the encyclopaedia for 24 hours each blanking based on all members of top level portal categories, for all non-logged in users, in a rolling waves for an indefinite period subject to en.wikipedia community review. This blanking to be advertised by black bordered click through and redirection to a 403: forbidden page outlining the effect of the Act on wikipedia.

Discussion Concrete proposal 1

• Oppose. I think that a program tied very closely to legislative action, especially while simultaneously stopping its proper educational role, might put Wikipedia's nonprofit status at more risk, and misses the point that this campaign by movie and music lobbyists is a long ongoing process, which will not stop even at passage but which will surely go on in the courts. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose see rebuttal section. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above, also, we don't fight censorship by creating censorship.  Marlith (Talk)  05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above.  Jim Reed (Talk)  22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Concrete proposal #2

• Trigger #1 Wikimedia General Counsel (currently Geoff Brigham) determines that an amendment to the proposed bill has rendered it harmless to Wikipedia.
  • Action on Trigger #1 Any protest actions currently ongoing are stopped and any action triggers become inactive. Monitoring of the bill continues to ensure that no harmful provisions are returned or introduced to it. If any bills or laws exist which are still evaluated by WMF's General Counsel as harmful, triggers remain active but shift as in Action #8.
• Trigger #2 Wikimedia General Counsel (currently Geoff Brigham) determines that the bill does pose a risk of harm to Wikipedia.
  • Action on Trigger #2 All triggers for action against the bill become active. Note that this trigger condition is met as of the time of this proposal.
• Trigger #3 The bill passes markup and is moved out of House committee.
  • Action on Trigger #3 A prominent banner is placed on Wikipedia, replacing all fundraising banners. The banner links to a page detailing the ill effects of the proposed bill and urging readers to contact Congress, as well as containing a "find your member of Congress" link. Press is notified of the intended action and a page in WP: namespace should be provided for readers to note actions and their result. Other bill opponents (Google, eBay, Craigslist, etc.), are contacted to explore the possibility of coordinated action.
• Trigger #4 The bill is scheduled for a House or Senate vote.
  • Action on Trigger #4 Prior to visiting any article, visitors are shown the page detailing the bill's ill effects and urging them to contact Congress. The reader must click a link at the bottom of the page to continue on to the intended article. Logged in accounts may turn this off in Preferences but will default on. Page in WP: namespace continues to be available. Press is notified.
• Trigger #5 The bill passes the House or Senate and is sent to a conference committee.
  • Action on Trigger #5 Wikipedia undergoes a 24 hour blackout, with a more strongly worded "Imagine Life Without the Open Internet" or similar page being served in place of any article. Continuation to an article is not possible. If technically feasible/reasonable, the "results" page for readers and a coordination page for editors remain available.
• Trigger #6 The bill passes conference committee (or passes identically in the House and Senate without need for a conference committee), and the bill is sent to the President for signature or veto.
  • Action on Trigger #6 Wikipedia undergoes a blackout during the entire signature/veto decision phase. Links to contact Congress are replaced on the essay with a link on how to contact the White House.
• Trigger #7 The bill is signed by the President, or passed over a veto.
  • Action on Trigger #7 Any article damaged by censorship resulting from the bill has a prominent notice placed on it, leading to the anti-bill page detailing how to contact Congress. Other opponents are again contacted regarding the possibility of long-term coordinated actions.
• Trigger #8 The bill fails at any point (doesn't pass committee, fails a floor vote, dies in conference committee, vetoed/not overridden, overturned by a court, repealed, or any other way)
  • Action on Trigger #8 If no other bills or laws exist which have been evaluated by WMF's General Counsel as having similar harmful potential to Wikipedia, all active protest actions are halted and all triggers become inactive. If other similarly harmful bills or laws do exist, triggers/protests remain active but shift focus to those bills or laws.

Discussion of Proposal #2

• I like the better discussion of no action triggers than proposal 1, or the proposal currently before village pump. I think the lack of geographic / organisational IP discrimination makes this a "harder" proposal than proposal 1. I think that the emphasis on lobbying parliamentarians makes this a softer proposal than proposal 1. I like how this proposal covers the entire gamut of potential sequence surrounding the bill. I'm unsure about the geographic universalism, given that non-US editors have no capacity to influence parliament. I like the universality of this proposal given that the effects of US law will severely hinder non-US readers and non-US editors in the encyclopaedic project. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I really hope that people don't add another 10 proposals here. We have to decide on what action to take quickly. If you like most things about one of the 2 proposals here, why not pick that one & just mention the thing(s) you would change.

Agreed.  Jim Reed (Talk)  23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I think this is the best of the 2 currently stated proposals. I think the actions in this proposal send a stronger and more universal message, would reach a wider audience and gain more media attention, and are less complex and likely easier/faster to implement than those in proposal 1. I think this proposal is clearer and offers dramatic action sooner, which I think is necessary in order to be able to make a difference before it is too late. I also support the actions described in this proposal being carried out over the whole of the English Wikipedia (as opposed to for US users only). Just because non-US users can't follow the suggestion to contact their member of Congress doesn't mean that the actions would have no purpose or effect. -MsBatfish (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: #2 is definitely the better option as it is more forceful and obvious in its opposition. If we don not make out point clear, this campaign would not be very effective. I support that this proposal includes the blackout, a much more obvious statement. When we do put up the banners though, my wish is that they be colored black as to bring peoples attention to it (as many Wikipedia users may be prone to skipping the regular donation banner) as well as symbolize the harm these bills (PIPA too) will do to the internet. There also probably shouldn't be a lot of proposals, as we have no time to have a long drawn-out discussion about this. Probably a maximum of 5 proposals, if others have different ideas. Anyway, good luck to us all. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is the best of the proposals (including the one at the Village Pump) because of its clarity, and in the way it uses Wikipedia to educate first, and protest (also a form of education) second. First Light (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Clear and firm, and I particularly like the idea of coordinated action with sites like Google and YouTube (imagine if those two snd Wikipedia went down for a full day; no way in hell the bill would pass). Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Provides a SOP for us to use. Also is firm enough. --Rschen7754 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support ... but as people are saying, we must take this action now! --User:CorwinNewall 5:18, 20 December 2011 (NZST)

• Suggestion: If SOPA is signed into law the Wikipedia could be totally locked for as long as the law would last until it is struck down, or that the Wikimedia Foundation is relocated overseas, like Switzerland. --Marianian^(talk) 12:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - We're entering dangerous territory here, but I like that this proposal is clear and firm.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The proposal is clear and would be very noticeable, and avoids some pitfalls of political activism by determining whether or not the bill poses a threat to Wikipedia. Inglonias (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. SOPA poses a chilling threat to the future of the Internet. It's important that Wikipedia, one of the most trafficked sites in the world, takes a stand against this madness. I will support any measure by the community to protest it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral, with the provision that if non-US users are affected, a page is offered to them about what SOPA means for them. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any proposal that involves actually shutting off access to Wikipedia completely. Like it or not, Wikipedia has taken actual donation money from actual people to provide educational services. When we cut off those services and devote ourselves wholly to political activity, we're betraying at least a few of our donors who disagree, and putting the tax exempt status at risk. Besides, we can't get people to keep reading our messages if they don't expect to get through to the information they wanted. This is like one of those silly tower-building defender games on the web - we can send people along a convoluted path and fire away at them as much as we can, but in the end they have to be able to get to the goodies they came for. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any direct opposition by Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should all call and/or write individually. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of the Judiciary Committee has stated it is already having a positive effect and now with the postponing of the vote and the 25 amendments to it, it is obvious the bill is receiving alot of opposition. We are not listed as a Political Activist Group with the IRS. I believe we are in the group of charitable organizations such as 501(c)(3) status and so we should take care not to lose our status, and for another, Lets keep our eyes on the prize, i.e., defeating SOPA through individual calls and letters. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong suppurt We need to start getting the word out now. Most of the public has no idea what is going on, and word will not spread until it is too late unless wikipedia does this. Big business and congress have essentially declared war against freedom and democracy. We cannot afford to let the non-partisan ideals of wikipedia prevent us from taking action to protect those ideals. Yahastu (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support I hope it's not too late. I think that should have been voted in the last week, or even last month. --Juusohe (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Out of all of the proposals, including the one at the Village Pump, this one makes the most sense, to me. The proposal is simple, and I believe that a complete lockout would have the greatest effect. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I very much hope we don't hit the full block stage, but the major news networks will definitly run with the story if we do. That should kill the bill dead. (Side note: Based upon Mugginsx's post near the top of the page it looks like he withdrew his opposition and forgot to revise it down here.) Alsee (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The steps here will be sufficiently big to get this campaign noticed. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The stepwise actions are a good idea. I support this and hope damage to wikipedia and similar projects by SOPA may be limited. Greetings from Frankfurt am Main. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I could go for this. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I like how we give discretion to the board. Tim1357 ^talk 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The lockout is the most important. Wikipedia is the 8th most visited site on the web. Hence, we are a important resource to the US and the world. If operations might be significantly changed, we need to take drastic action- and one that will get a response. Wikipedia shutting down for a day or two? That will get news coverage. --Axel™ (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support We cannot give any organization or government unilateral censorship power without due process. Take down notices under DMCA and then court action if that fails seems a reasonable balance between content owners and websites like Wikipedia. --mav (reviews needed) 18:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, first choice. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, closing Wikipedia for 24 hours or more because of some US copyright law is a massive overreaction. It would drastically harm the reputation this project, while it wouldn't have any real effect to US government whatsoever. ML (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support, graduated level, has the bite needed to drive the point home. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose, For the following reason; If it were less than 24 hours, than I would support this. Let's not go overboard with this. Look at what Reddit is doing; a 12 hour protest is more than enough. Anything longer would be overkill, and would send a bad vibe to the site. We need to look at this option very carefully before making a final decision. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Our action(s) must be stronger before the bill(s) are scheduled for a vote. Romans said: "dura lex, sed lex" ("the law is harsh, but it is the law"). Support for "trigger #1", of course. It seems obvious to me that there is no need to tilt at windmills. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support, We need to act quickly. Personally, I would also support a blackout on Jan 18, 2012 in solidarity with Reddit, but as long as we get them, and other major sites, join on our blackout, it will get the public's attention. I think that affecting the entire English content is acceptable as those countries will be affected also, and increasing international ire could also have an effect on the legislation in the US. It is better to lose service for a day than to lose it forever. Kainosnous (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support, Wikipedia is one of the few sites on the internet that is visited by millions daily. The general public hasn't even heard of SOPA so if Wikipedia goes black they will know about it and they WILL contact the senate. It would send an even stronger wave if we work with other internet giants like Google and Facebook. Qasaur (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support This plan looks good, the action steps and the triggers are a useable concept. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the responses prove to be too strong, we can always modify them later. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  One more thing. If Wikipedia goes dark, we need to leave a few talk pages live so we have a space to discuss what's happening. We need to be able to discuss the situation, which could develop rapidly. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support this proposal and additionally hope Wikipedia will be able to join Reddit's protest in some respect. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support - with the provision that if this proposal is chosen, the Wikimedia Foundation has the support of the community to interpret this proposal as liberally as necessary to achieve the stated ends. This is one time when technicalities need to be avoided and not allowed to become a hindrance to the stated aims. I trust the Foundation to be faithful to these ends.  Jim Reed (Talk)  23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support Give people a reason to oppose this bill. upstateNYer 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support - well calculated triggers and actions. SiPlus (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Action needs to be taken to protect the internet. DHooke1973 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative version of Trigger #7 in Concrete proposal #2 (Blackout Extreme)

Same as Concrete proposal #2 but:

• Trigger #7 The bill is signed by the President, or passed over a veto.
  • Original Action on Trigger #7 Any article damaged by censorship resulting from the bill has a prominent notice placed on it, leading to the anti-bill page detailing how to contact Congress. Other opponents are again contacted regarding the possibility of long-term coordinated actions.
  • Amended Action on Trigger #7 Wikimedia projects are either locked, closed down in protest, or relocated to another country with better internet freedoms. If the Wikimedia projects are locked or closed down, a prominent notice is placed, leading to the anti-bill page detailing how to contact Congress. Other opponents are again contacted regarding the possibility of long-term coordinated actions.

I know this one is very harsh and radical, but we need to understand that the project's survival is actually under threat under SOPA. If the bill were to pass I cannot see how Wikimedia would survive, or would want to put up with it anyway. --Marianian^(talk) 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Alternative version of Trigger #7 in Proposal #2

• Once again, "dura lex, sed lex" ("the law is harsh, but it is the law"). People (and media) must be made aware of SOPA (and PIPA) before it is too late. And, at this point I think it's too late. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If SOPA was to be law then Wikimedia would have no point in continuing because some corporations will abuse it: and it would be clear that at such stage, Wikipedia would be forced to close just because of a few vandal links, or a claim over a fair use logo. It's a grim prediction but I cannot rule it out. --Marianian^(talk) 18:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support CJ Miller ^[T]/_[C] 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - As a US citizen, I am not so proud or nationalistic as to insist on Wikipedia being physically located in the US. As a non-US hosted web site it would have even fewer protections under US law in general and SOPA in particular than a US hosted web site; however, at least the servers could be access via IP address and/or proxies. A US hosted web site runs the risk of physical interference by the US government. I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation could relocate the physical servers without our explicit "advice and consent" if it deems it necessary but I think that a show of solidarity and resolve to do "whatever it takes" to protect Wikipedia by the larger community might have some small influence.  Jim Reed (Talk)  23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Concrete proposal #3 (Blackout Lite)

• Trigger #1 - SOPA under consideration (current)
  • Action on Trigger - Place a site banner saying that Wikipedia opposes SOPA. Provide concise links to:
    • Geoff's analysis of threats to Wikipedia
    • A page specifying what policies that Wikipedia would need to be enact to try to survive under the bill
    • A page calling for donations to support Wikipedia's lobbying effort against the bill, and/or Wikipedia joining a lawsuit to obtain a legal injunction against and mount a constitutional challenge to the bill
    • A tactical discussion page (perhaps this one)
    • Stop American Censorship or some other umbrella organization opposing the bill.
    • A general philosophical discussion page for alternatives to copyright and how to support authors in a digital age without censorship or artificial scarcity, perhaps at Wikiversity.
    • A page with educational information about workarounds - what an IP address is, how to obtain it from a foreign-based WHOIS query, how to set up your computer to use a foreign nameserver, how to use anonymizers and HTTP tunnels, etc. Describing challenges to these and future legislations doubtless taking away more rights.
• Trigger #2 - any vote
  • Action on Trigger - announce the vote is happening on the site banner, replacing the "Wikipedia opposes SOPA" text. For one or two key votes, perhaps use a showy flourish such as displaying this information in a separate window before allowing people to click on to the main site, changing the site background, etc., as approved by the developers. The site should still remain stable and reliable for all browsers and people not permitting scripts. Wnt (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional trigger suggestions

• Trigger X The bill passes both houses or Conference. Wikimedia General Counsel determines that the bill operates in the absence of any court ruling that infringement actually exists. Counsel determines the bill will likely or inevitably be applied against non-infringing international websites. Counsel determines that the bill will likely or inevitably force Wikipedia to censor non-infringing international websites.

• Action on Trigger X site wide click-through for international IP visitors to English Wikipedia (once per visit). This click-though is crafted for an international audience. It highlights what impact this law will have on international sites and international netizens. It specifically explains how this flawed US 'antipiracy' law will censor non-infringing sites. Particular attention will be dedicated to enabling easy foreign language participation in this trigger, if any foreign language edition requests it.

Rationale: My understanding is that the bill does operate as described in my trigger. My trigger and action are intended to emphasize that we are not defending piracy. It is intended to make the point that our protest is against a flawed bill which will censor innocent websites and non-infringing content. Significant international unease already exists against the US control of core internet functions. US officials are acutely sensitive of existing international demands to place Internet Governance under the control of the United Nations or other international body. My expectation is that Washington Powerbrokers will never permit this trigger to be activated once they learn that it is in place (this is partly why it is late in the action sequence). Maintaining core internet management within the US is just far to valuable for them to risk engaging in abusive or offensive behavior regarding the internet. Alsee (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Things we could do right now

Very few people will be working on Congress or other offices over the holidays, which makes it the perfect time to perfect and implement this for when they go back in session in January.

We could, and should, target all house.gov and senate.gov IPs with the following measures which give us room to escalate if we are escalated on:

• First, all targeted IPs should be subjected not, at first, to blackouts but instead to repeat banner ads and annoyinbpopups advocating against SOPA and, eventually, telling users from those IP ranges that Congress specifically has been targeted. It might also be possible, from looking through select edit histories, to identify IP addresses likely corresponding to congressional state and district offices as well, and add them to the list.
  • If possible, exempt IPs associated with OPEN Act supporters like Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden (I believe in the House, but not the Senate, IP addresses correspond to individual members' offices, as we've discovered in the past).
  • Even more fun: We could see if we could identify the IPs of SOPA-supporting organizations (MPAA, RIAA etc.) and subject them to the same treatment.
  • We start, of course, with Lamar Smith's office.
    • I disagree with the idea of targeting specific people. This will only be seen as immature and retaliatory and will not serve to convince them to keep wikipedia around. A US-based blackout is much more effective because the majority of people who need to be contacted are not in congress, but rather, the constituents; ideally, we want to bring SOPA to the headline newscast in every american home, to the front of every online news site, to conversations on the street corner. Targeting congress directly accomplishes nothing. Yahastu (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Inconveniencing the entire population is immature and retaliatory. Inconveniencing most of the U.S. Congress, which isn't exactly held in high regard at the moment, while giving the population a pass shows which side we're on and increases our leverage. The goal is to change things, not to get brownie points for being nice. Trust me, if we (and Facebook and Twitter, if they do this too) stick it to Congress and the bill's supporters, it will be news, and get this in front of the population in the way we want it to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• After a few days of this, we put in the banner a video of one of us stroking a large furry white cat on our lap (preferably someone bald, with a slight Central European accent), and promising more severe actions until SOPA is withdrawn and the OPEN Act passed instead. We will further remind them that resistance is futile.
• Ideally we could get Facebook, Google and Twitter to join us in a similar action. Cutting ourselves off from Congress would inconvenience staffers doing research and get a lot of media attention, but it wouldn't hit Congress where it hurts as much as not allowing them to update their Facebook pages, YouTube channels and Twitter feeds going into an election year. Especially with quite a few looking at primaries or introducing themselves to voters in radically redrawn districts. As the old joke goes, what do you have when you're holding two green balls? Kermit the Frog's full and undivided attention. And somehow, in the current climate, I don't think the American public will come running to Congress's defense. Especially if these actions only affect Congress.

• And certainly, in the meantime, write your senators and representatives about how this will hurt Wikipedia in particular. I have already begun a letter to Kirsten Gillibrand (who, yes, I know, has supported SOPA and PIPA); I think I will start a page about what points to make and how to make them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy SOPA appeal video

It was discussed on a mailing list that we could produce a short video telling people why SOPA is bad, featuring Jimmy, and possibly being filmed by Wikimedia UK. Professionally I am a screenwriter, so I took a quick stab at this, but I am of course deeply grateful for comments and spell checks, and so on. I post here the original version. Since then some people have suggested that we direct people to EFF's page about SOPA, but that's easily fixed. The length of the film should be about 1 minute, which is what I get when I timed it (this is the reason there's not many details in the script). Anyway, here's the script:

"I'm Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. Right now, Wikipedia and other websites face a serious threat. A proposal for a new law in the United States, to stop online piracy of copyrighted material."

SIGN: H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act

"Of course, Wikipedia has a strong commitment to stopping copyright violations. However, the SOPA bill advocates censorship to protect rights owners’ interests.

Wikipedia and other websites would be censored on mere accusations of copyright infringement. Instead of simple takedown notices - litigation in federal court and possible closedowns.

Wikipedians would be forced to check out millions of links on the site for possible copyright violations. Not to mention the lawsuits. This will kill Wikipedia.

How can you help?"

SIGN: How you can help - 1

"Ask your representative to vote ”no”. We already have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

SIGN: How you can help - 2

"Spread the word about SOPA.

SIGN: How you can help - 3

"Support the other organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation:"

SIGN: Some of the organizations that are against this legislation: the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, the Wikimedia Foundation, and others.

"Stop SOPA before it kills Wikipedia."

SIGN: Link to a page to be determined, perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

THE END

As I said, I welcome any comments.//Hannibal (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's a wonderful script! In case the video has not been made yet, perhaps you could add another line or two about how a world without Wikipedia would inconvenience people all around the world, right after This will kill Wikipedia.? Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)