Jump to content

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Moving to talk. Can we keep to the specific questions we asked?
Line 131: Line 131:
# I consider 2 days of discussion too little to make a decision of this significance. Most of the other discussion has been fairly fragmented and also mostly of a general nature, and not always well advertised and it seems clear interest died down for a while so I don't think we can read any clear consensus from any older dicussion. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
# I consider 2 days of discussion too little to make a decision of this significance. Most of the other discussion has been fairly fragmented and also mostly of a general nature, and not always well advertised and it seems clear interest died down for a while so I don't think we can read any clear consensus from any older dicussion. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Radiokid1010|Radiokid1010]] ([[User talk:Radiokid1010|talk]]) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Radiokid1010|Radiokid1010]] ([[User talk:Radiokid1010|talk]]) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

==== Time and duration of the action ====
Because the bill is a US bill, it makes sense to use a US timezone, such as Eastern Standard Time. There are a few different reasonable time periods that we could use. Longer periods have more impact, but risk more annoyance and damage to reader goals. I propose that we conduct the blackout for '''24 hours''', which will expose all readers around the world roughly equally. I also provide three alternatives:
* Three days (72 hours). For maximum impact.
* US daylight/evening hours (16 hours, about 8am-12pm EST / 5am-9pm PST); this will reach most US people at school/work and at home while they are awake, while not affecting Europe/Oceania as heavily.
* Just afternoon/evening hours (7 hours, 5pm-12pm / 2pm-9pm). This targets US readers at home. Students get home at about 3-4pm, while adults get home 5-6pm, typically.

===== 24 hours =====
* '''Support''' per above. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

===== 72 hours =====

===== 16 hours =====
* '''Strong Support''' --[[User:Radiokid1010|Radiokid1010]] ([[User talk:Radiokid1010|talk]]) 19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

===== 7 hours =====

===== No blackout =====


==== Other comments ====
==== Other comments ====

Revision as of 19:41, 13 January 2012

SOPA Initiative pages
Activities
Activities at regional chapters and sister projects
Information and resources - please update
Archives
e

Call for comment from the community

Summary

There appears to be an emerging consensus that the community wants to do “something” to demonstrate concern about this bill. Questions remain as to whether that should impact just the United States or the whole world, and what the “something” is. Based on what the WMF believes is emerging as consensus from community discussions, we are asking your input on the following open questions.

Open questions

US only

Consensus appears to be emerging that this proposed action should target only users of the English Wikipedia. The blackout component would apply only to users geo-located to the United States. The banner component would display to all users, regardless of location.

(1) Blackout US only, banner for all users
  1. Per my previous comments when SOPA action has come up before Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but global is just as good. – Andrew Hampe Talk 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Despite what some have said, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference to U.S. lawmakers if the site was blanked globally. Readers from other locations should be able to see the site. However, from what I've seen, most would be glad to join the protest so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - if there has to be a blackout, then it should only take place in the US, since there's no benefit to blacking out those in any countries (they can't do anything to solve the problem, since it's a US law that only US citizens can appeal against, so why punish them by taking away their Wikipedia access?). Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I agree with Mike Peel. However, expatriats and citizens of other countries should be informed to take part in the conversation and the opposition to SOPA from abroad, for example by calling the local US embassy and mention the concern. Since many SOPA supporters are international companies, there are local offices of these companies abroad, too. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Mathias Schindler's thoughts based on Mike Peel's comment. Reluctantly as I'd like a bigger impact but in this case targeting might be how to get that bigger impact. (Night w makes a similar point I have to agree with, too - US lawmakers don't seem to much care if the rest of the world disagreews when it comes to US security.) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters so pointless to antagonise the rest of the world. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per AlisonW. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Teukros (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very Strong Oppose Not a Fair and Reasonable approach. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Jujutacular talk 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Blackout and banner for all users
  1. Support either, but prefer global. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Like Stephan, I believe this affects all our readers, and that all our readers have the ability to make their voice heard to US lawmakers. So let's reach out to them all. I would however accept (1) or (3) as a compromise. Dcoetzee 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Dcoetzee, I would prefer a global blackout. However, this would be acceptable as a step down from that.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose This is an issue that was brought up by the U.S. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Blackout and banner US only
  1. Support enwiki only, limited to users geo-located to the United States. Oppose "banner component would display to all users, regardless of location" Bulwersator (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(4) No blackout, banner for all users
  1. Very Strong Support Much more effective than a full blackout. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(5) No blackout, banner US only
  1. Very Strong Suport Supporting a motion that is more Fair and Reasonable. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(6) No blackout or banner
  1. Support Any blackout as not being in the long-term best interest of Wikipedia and related projects. Collect (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - at this time. Youreallycan 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout

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
  1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Excellent. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Andrew Hampe Talk 18:19, 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. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  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. .. Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
Comments
  • 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]

What action should users take will be shown on the blackout page?

Information given will include a brief description of the issue, with links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation and provide sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill. The Wikimedia Foundation will support the development of the necessary software for this purpose. The purpose of this action is to capture media attention and drive a significant volume of telephone calls from constituents.

Support
  1. Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Andrew Hampe Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prolog (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. More or less. I think driving personal, heartfelt e-mail, mail, and phone communications should be the main goal. The template should be just a starting point. Dcoetzee 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Teukros (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Generally with things like this, numbers are the most important thing, since congressional staff will be far too overwhelmed to read many individual emails. Of course, we want to give people the ability to articulate things for themselves if they want, but a basic template that will appeal to most Wikipedia readers (once they understand the stakes) will probably be most effective for effecting change.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. .. Youreallycan 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. .. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. .. And not mention the OPEN Act? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second mentioning the OPEN Act per the rationale I've given previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What does it mean to 'oppose' this? That there should be no information given on the page - that it would just be a blank screen? Or are people opposing certain aspects of it - e.g. opposing the "links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation" but supporting a brief description of the issue? Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OPEN Act should really be mentioned as an alternative action. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the action

One suggested date is January 18, 2012, which is the date around which the internet appears to be gelling for action. Other dates are possible. Do you support the January 18, 2012 date?

Support
  1. Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, to coincide with other sites protest action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, best to time this with other sites' protests for the greatest impact. – Andrew Hampe Talk 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mass action is better than scattershot actions across the web. Multiple sites going down or taking this action together will have a greater impact on the general public. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rschen7754 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rapid action is critical, while we still have an opportunity to influence the bill. The 18th gives just adequate time to assess consensus; it is a happy coincidence that it also matches other sites. Dcoetzee 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This seems to be the date that has a rough consensus among other sites (e.g., Reddit will have a blackout that day).--Ragesoss (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Jan 18th to coincide with other sides including reddit (and minecraft!). Later dates to coincide with specific congressional timeframes will be less effective. The idea is to both mobilize users and push the news cycle. Reddit and friends going black will get the tech press talking but they have been going on about SOPA for months. We want the regular press to take notice and for that we need a coordinated blackout. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. .. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No point in demonstrating during the bill mark-up. It should be done before the date if at all. Kansan (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as above. This action is contrary to rational self-interest of WMF and Wikipedia[reply]
  4. I consider 2 days of discussion too little to make a decision of this significance. Most of the other discussion has been fairly fragmented and also mostly of a general nature, and not always well advertised and it seems clear interest died down for a while so I don't think we can read any clear consensus from any older dicussion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • "The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this." - And you've studied how this demand would affect their tax status, I'm sure. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.  :) Please see Geoff's comments at Wikipedia:SOPA#.22Lobbying.22_and_Government_Affairs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMF and Wikipedia should work with the legislative process, and not try to play the martyr. We are not Becket - and the Congress would listen to reasoned positions far better than to posturing here (popular as posturing is with some). I suggest that the obvious change to the legislation would be an exemption for all sites which have a "direct and active anti-copyright-violation process visible within the site" which would take all of ten minutes to get introduced into the legislation, and would avoid the "dramah" currently seen. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of us including myself don't consider this bill salvageable, even in principle. However, if we are forced to compromise, I agree that we should have some ideas about how we would alter the bill. I don't imagine your proposal would be accepted by the bill's proponents, since it offers an out for any site with any degree of legal oversight, no matter how inadequately skilled or staffed. In light of the fact that links to infringing sites are already illegal as contributory infringement, I would seek to exempt Wikipedia (and other sites) from being compelled to remove any content whatsoever, while still supplying a channel to request voluntary review and removal. Dcoetzee 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all it takes is 10 minutes, why don't you do it? I'll pay you EUR 50 (which would come out at EUR 300/hour) if you achieve this. Not that it would make the law much better, but any improvement is worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have absolutely no standing with the WMF - and thus no ability to reasonably expect to be heard. Else I certainly would. I do know, moreover, that not talking will ensure that the bill is not changed. Did you talk to your local legislator about how legislation is written, by the way? At this point, there is almost a 100% likelihood of passage of SOPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My "local legislator", in so far as that concept is applicable to a mixed proportional election system, is Ingo Wellenreuther, possibly the most censorious member of the German Bundestag. I don't know if he has heard about SOPA, but I doubt he can do much about it. Indeed, you have no reasonable expectation of being heard as an individual. But collectively we all will be heard (if not necessarily heeded) if we go through with this protest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about timing? How long will we hold this? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great question. I've added a poll on this above, Radiokid1010, please express your opinion there. Dcoetzee 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question that somewhat bothers me. I can see supporting this if the WMF were the initiating group - since yes, SOPA would affect all WMF projects, and thus is harmful. As I'm reading it, however, the WMF doesn't seem to be necessarily backing the idea but instead saying they'll support en.wiki if there is consensus for this action. From a political nature, this isn't the right message. I think I would be better behind the idea if WMF says "We want to black out en.wiki per SOPA in this manner, but only if there is consensus to do it"; they are sending the message with the support of the WP community (presuming consensus) which is a much stronger impact that us collective editors making the decision. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any one manage to count how many websites selling counterfeit drugs, watches, and other products wikipedia links to? John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&oldid=471196191"