Wikipedia talk:Blackouts

Thanks for starting this.

I agree with much of what you said, but you also said edit mercilessly, so...

...only under the most dire of circumstances... I'm not enamored of this wording, particularly the word "dire". It's a bit melodramatic for my taste. As a straw man, I propose ...when the existence of Wikipedia is threatened (Fully recognizing that I might not be achieving my goal of avoiding melodrama. I recognize that it may not be wise to be overly specific, to avoid typing our hands, but I do think such drastic action should be quite rare, and some proposed law that doesn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia, even though it might impair Wikipedia, ought to be addressed with less drastic responses.

...saved for only the most important of opportunities... I'm not liking "opportunities". "circumstances" is a bit wobbly, but is better.

...at least two weeks' notice I'm worried that this ties our hands too much. Sorry, I have no alternative proposal yet.

...clearly specified in a site-wide notice Good

...60%-40% split... I'd like to see more community discussion on whether "consensus" is an acceptable standard, or if we need to specify the metric.

Consider a process wherein the closing admin(s) are identified early in the process.

...simple majority of "active" editors I'd like to see more discussion about who the decision makers should be. Including the possibility that we separately monitor more than one group and have different metrics for each. This might sound bureaucratic, so let me analogize - if some lawmaker proposed a tax on Amazon transactions, it is understandable that Amazon might wish to provide input to the lawmakers about the reaction. Should the reaction be limited to employees (the rough counterpart of active editors) or should the response include the views of customers of Amazon (the rough counterpart of Wikipedia readers.) I think an argument can be made that the views of both groups are relevant, and possibly should be reported separately, if only for transparency. The distinction between Amazon employees and customers is "cleaner" than the distinction between groups of people involved with Wikipedia, so this might be harder to address. I don't know that we were able to clearly articulate how each of these two groups felt about SOPA/PIPA and the proposed blackout, but this concern was largely moot because it wasn't a close call. In a future proposal, where it might be a close call, and where readers and editors might break differently, we don't want to be debating which group gets to decide in the heat of the moment. Let's decide in this venue what to do next time.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; you've identified a number of areas where I agree improvement is needed. Powers ^T 14:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goal?

I simply don't see the point in this. For one thing, the WMF didn't even have to ask the community's permission for the blackout. In that same vein, any proposal here is non-binding to the WMF; they can do what they want with their own servers.

As to the proposal itself: Point 1 is too concrete to survive. It presupposes that there is an agreed-upon blackout date. As with the 'net protest against SOPA, there wasn't that kind of lead-in notice.

Point 2 is unenforceable by the community, as site-wide banners would be something implemented server-side. At best, this would be a request, not a demand.

Points 3 & 4 are simply impossible. How do you measure "60%" of users? What does "active" mean? Do we get to ignore someone who went on Wikibreak for two weeks? Why is their opinion less important than the other votes?

I really don't think this proposal would accomplish anything. Even if it did become policy, there's no way for the community to implement it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the WMF could shut down the project at any time for any reason. Just because we can't prevent that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a process in place the next time the community decides to blackout the project. The WMF did not drive this decision; Jimbo floated the idea in his role as founder, and the community hopped on board. The process for evaluating consensus, however, was ad hoc and somewhat haphazard; why not try to codify more concrete rules for the next occurrence? Powers ^T 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, there's no hard and fast rule for what WP:CONSENSUS means. We've got that guideline, but that's it. It's hard enough getting people to agree what consensus means on WP:AFD or WP:DR. Really, though, the whole thing is judged by Jimbo himself, possibly alongside the WMF: if they decide there's consensus for a blackout, we really have no recourse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what happened this time, though; three admins judged consensus. Powers ^T 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from THTFY's point: Is the consultation of the wider community 'advisory' or 'decisional'? In the Italian episode, I remember reading that the decision was taken independently by it.wikipedia (a relatively circumscribed community), and received the backing of Jimmy & the Medias. Last week, I wasn't so sure... Personally I would have been happier for the consultation to be advisory. Whereas it was rather clear to me that the Italian proposition was a targeted political attempt to gag the freedom to publish even genuinely verifiable information about the rich and powerful, the complex implications of proposed legislation from a country about which I know relatively little appeared less immediately penetrable. MistyMorn (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]