Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action/BlackoutSection

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus appears to be emerging that the community wishes to blackout the site using a click-through process, which would present the following work-flow: when a user attempts to access the English Wikipedia for the first time on the designated date(s), they are presented with a notice describing the SOPA threat and suggesting that they take action (see below, section “What action should users take?”). They then have the option to “click-through” the screen. Once they’ve clicked through, everything is normal: no content is removed or obscured, and normal editing applies. In addition, all users of the English Wikipedia would see banners at the top of each page with informational text that will include a call to action: links to locate contact information for local congressional delegations (if the user is in the United States) or U.S. embassies (if the user is outside the United States). The banners should be dismissable, as with the fundraising banners. Geo-located banners will continue to run for two weeks after the blackout period. The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this.

Support[edit]
  1. Support As second choice to full blackout. Phearson (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Excellent. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support full blackout, but better than nothing. --Rschen7754 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Prolog (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The time frame for the blackout should be defined and limited. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A full black-out made sense when Wikipedia really was at risk of being taken down. A click-through is now more appropriate. A mere banner would be ignored. Dcoetzee 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Many users ignore web banners. --Teukros (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, although I would be okay with a full blackout as well.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jujutacular talk 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Please. No protest was ever successful without being inconvenient.[EDIT]] The WH has issued a statement on SOPA, the DNS provision has been removed and hearings have been postponed. These may all sound like reasons to back down on the threat to blackout wikipedia but they assuredly 'are not. when the dragon is wounded you do not leave it be, you go in for the kill. The important thing to do is make it clear that SOPA and it's ilk represent an existential threat to user created content in the US and the readers of wikipedia (including the politicians and journalists who crib from it) must be made aware of this. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Click-through is essential, this should be a protest, not a "we're taking our ball and going home" takedown. Making banners dismissable would also be helpful. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very good idea, make it so! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Viva la revolution! SarahStierch (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Maplebed (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This is the most effective means we have at grabbing the attention of visitors without denying them access to enwiki's resources. Our message needs to be noticed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification per Thehelpfulbot's request: I support the "soft blackout" option. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. This informs readers without disrupting the core site function. Consistent with our mission of sharing knowledge in two ways. Ocaasi t | c 20:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Methinks that the worldwide press generated by a Wikipedia blackout will attract a lot of new lookers. After clicking through they will get to see what they are about to lose to SOPA. First Light (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support but, actually, I would blackout *completely* the site, as we did on it.wiki, the funding idea of a strike is the let the people understand the importance of a certain service by a temporary denial of the service. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support yes! Selery (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Jean Of mArc 15:50, 13 January 2012
  31. Support Weltweiter Blackout vier Tage bis zum Sonntag. Und darauf eine Linkliste mit den Unterstützern der SOPA. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)
  35. Support richard4339 January 13, 2012; 22:21 (UTC)
  36. Support Serves a critical policy/political goal while still keeping information available. Zachlipton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Shadowjams (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Outa (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Zenimpulse (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Wikipedia should never become completely inaccessible (unless the site is in real danger (e.g. SOPA is passed),but banners are ignored --Jon889 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. If the topic is indeed a threat to Wikipedia's existence, than a full blackout is warranted. If it's not, then we shouldn't meddle in politics. As has been pointed out before, if you want your protest to matter, make it inconvinient. /Julle (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support but I'd like to see a full blackout, at least for a few hours. I think it's justified. While Wikipedia may not be at risk of being shut down, many sites would be at risk and so its worth showing the users what it'd be like without the internet as we know it. Anarchistjim (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support FyreFiend (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Ed Brey (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Wouldn't mind a full blackout, but this works as well. AniMate 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Cathartica (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, strongly prefer full blackout as it would convey a stronger message to actually disrupt service rather than just make a statement. Walkersam (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Captain Gamma (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Sarah 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Pilif12p 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, I would prefer a full blackout in order to get the point across effectively. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support less than a full blackout will be missed by most web users, they're too conditioned by advertising to notice something which isn't highly disruptive Gmaxwell (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support A full blackout in which content isn't in line with making information freely available. A click-through + banner + logo change will work nearly as well without making information inaccessible.Smallman12q (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Aswn (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I strongly believe a full blackout would be more effective, though slightly more controversial than a click-through. Zacmea (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support This will definitely get attention... and a lot of news coverage . --Kangaroopowah 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support ~FeedintmParley 02:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Full Support for a one-time clickthrough screen and dismissible banners, but they need to cause enough of a disruption to a user's normal workflow to be noticed. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, would prefer a full blackout, but needs to be disruptive in some way. A clickthrough like a Wikia ad is just annoying. Make them sweat. dkonstantinos (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Would support a full blackout. A strong signal needs to be sent. That it would be inconvenient for some only means that it would be paid attention to. Maybe lawmakers don't use Wikipedia, but their staffers do. Make it clear what happens if Congress breaks the Internet. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I am much more comfortable with a click-through option such as this, and am willing to fully support it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Like Mr.98 above, I'd be more than willing to support a full blackout, for the same reasons. However, if this is the strongest we can get I'll take it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I think this is compatible with the Wikimedia mission. KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. ~Crazytales (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The danger of SOPA passing as it currently stands is not imminent, we should save the full blackout for when there is serious a serious threat to the continuation of the Wikipedia project. At the moment, this alternative seems most acceptable. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Workflow makes sense in that it only partially cripples functionality while making the necessary point TNL (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support as second choice, but we need an option for a blackout, not a clickthrough. There was significant support forming for this at certain points at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, under concrete proposal #2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74.  Marlith (Talk)  03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support P4lm0r3 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Jessemv (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Zaixionito (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strongly support I think a blackout would be the best option, as a simple banner might be ignored. Yuuko41 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Why in the blue fuck are we having this discussion? It's time to paint Wikipedia black. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support People will more likely read obstructing messages, and will oppose the bill, even outside of US borders activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support upstateNYer 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Artoonie (Talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support If SOPA passes I believe it will have an effect on the entire internet, not just in the USA. (Drn8 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  86. support sonia♫ 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. My favoured option. The Land (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I like the idea of a full blackout, but agree that it may be too reckless. Commander Ziltiod (speak) 09:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Kainosnous (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support killemall22 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - A fair balance between getting the attention necessary and not being overly disruptive. CT Cooper · talk 12:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support —Ed!(talk) 12:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. ~ BIORAN23 - Talk
  99. Support Capitalismojo (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support I think a full blackout has more power (per my strong support below), but if the community chooses this instead, I'll be sanguine. This is way better than doing nothing at all. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Fylbecatulous (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support with click-through, but only if border of pages are changed, if they are not changed - would prefer full blackout with no click through. --Trödel 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. - 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. --Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support — Ched :  ?  16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Very Strong Support --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support --Daniel 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support SOPA has the potential to negatively affect major international events such as the recent Arab Spring. As such, SOPA is clearly a move against worldwide free speech. While only Americans can vote for Congressmen directly, anyone with money can support organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Being SOPA will affect the entire world and the entire world can take action, it seems to follow that the entire world should see the blackout. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support AllenZh (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC). Keeps the anger on SOPA, away from Wikipedia.[reply]
  111. Support --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Scialex (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support as second choice to soft blackout. SOPA is a horrible bill, but too much action on Wikipedia's part could lead to it becoming a political engine, and lead to it losing viewers 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Mchcopl (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)![reply]
  115. Support --CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support ethanwashere (talk) 10:18 pm , 15 January 2012 (UTC)! Wikipedia's future depends on this, I say do a black out or something along those lines which can redirect users to urge the government/senators to not vote in favor of SOPA and make them aware of the issue. Honestly I think this should be done on civil rights issues perhaps more often to assure that wikipedia can in fact stay and be a good source. What good source would this site be if there's a tyrannical government in other fields?
  117. Support And don't give people a choice. SOPA won't be optional if it's passed.
  118. Support Kapil Sibbal in India and SOPA in the US are not proper
  1. Support As second choice to full blackout. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Section splits into full and soft variants below)
Oppose[edit]
  1. .. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. .. Collect (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as not being in the long-term best interests of WMF in any way[reply]
  3. Oppose a blackout (or 'greyout' as this seems to be). We should be providing people with the information they're seeking, not forcing them to first read something else. Banners are a good way of pointing people to the information on SOPA without blocking their access to the content they're after (either via a click-through page or refusing to display the content). Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I oppose a sitewide en.wiki blackout. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. .. Oppose. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose political action as an encyclopedia. I'm all for the WMF issuing a protest, but a reference work should be apolitical. Nathan T 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Prefer Reddit Option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose blackout only, because people tend to dismiss anything that looks like a popup ad, without even acknowledging the contents. A banner should be displayed throughout the user's visit on Wikipedia. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ..Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 06:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose political action by Wikipedia. This is among the reasons we have a Foundation, to undertake political advocacy so we can, you know, build an encyclopedia. Lagrange613 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ..Oppose ‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Encyclopedias shouldn't be involved in any kind of advocacy. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose this is an encyclopedia; cutting off access to information would be ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I feel this might have negative consequences to Wikipedia and therfore shouldn't be involved in any kind of advocacy other than for individuals to keep calling Washington Committee members and our own Congressman which I have done many times and vehemently so. Sorry but we have a tax exampt status and I believe we must be careful though Mr. Wales does not see a problem in this area I must respectfully disagree with him on this particular point. Mugginsx (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Political activism. WP should lose it's Non-Profit status if it participates in such political activism. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. 552Industries (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Section splits into full and soft variants below)
Comments[edit]
  • Good suggestion Mike. We shouldn't block people from accessing articles on here. That doesn't seem to be a fair approach. We need to look over this more carefully. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note how many of the above votes express a preference for a full blackout (neither full blackout or Reddit option was available at the time they voted). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this point for consideration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SOPA blackout. Hopefully we can still prevent it from evolving into another controversial data convolution escapade.   — C M B J   14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Why wasn't an actual "blackout" presented as the option under the Blackout heading from the beginning, and there was no legitimate "Blackout" option. This ain't a blackout that is being proposed. I call foul. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The lack of alternatives makes it hard to interpret the results and limits the debate, and titling the section "Blackout" (rather than, say "Click-through interstitial ad") is confusing. If the consensus for an interstitial was already emerging when this page was created, why was it called a blackout? Bennetto (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bad news is that this set of proposals is badly flawed. Some options have been up and gathering votes longer than others. Some are badly misnamed (calling a non-blackout a blackout). Some allow oppose votes, some don't. Some overlap. Some votes have been moved to another section without the voter's consent. Wikipedia really needs guidelines for taking user surveys without such obvious sources of bias.
The good news is that the Wikimedia Foundation is not composed of idiots. I have complete confidence that they will be able to take into account all of these sources of bias and do things my way make the right decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see section on the talk page regarding the effectiveness of using US Embassies as the contact point for banners (non-US located). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the blackout does occur, what about sending a message banner out it's users and tell them to help stop the SOPA and PIPA bills from passing when they try to use Wikipedia? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action/BlackoutSection&oldid=1144579241"