Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

There is Request for Comment at the Village Pump concerning a proposed response to this legislation.

This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the SOPA bill and our response to it (if any). Jimbo Wales asked for community input on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives.

The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here. Template:SOPA Defcon

The legal understanding

 
By Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham

For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill.

SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, and others.

On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here).

In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement. Criticism has been significant. Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, for example, felt the bill “retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans’ ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet.”

Members of our community are weighing whether a protest action is appropriate. I want to be very clear: the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the decision of whether to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is a community decision. The Wikimedia Foundation will support editors in whatever they decide to do. The purpose of this post is to provide information for editors that will aid them in their discussions.

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

• The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
• The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
• The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not. We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.
• Although rendering it discretionary (Secs.102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)), the new bill would still allow for serious security risks to our communications and national infrastructure. The bill no longer mandates DNS blocking but still allows it as an option. As Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, explained: “The amendment continues to encourage DNS blocking and filtering, which should be concerning for Internet security experts . . . .”
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation advises that the new proposed legislation still targets tools that might be used to “circumvent” the blacklist, even though those tools are essential to human rights activists and political dissidents around the world.

More specifically with respect to Wikimedia, the new version is an improvement, but, in addition to the reasons listed above, it remains unacceptable:

Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an “Internet search engine,” and, for that reason, a federal prosecutor could obtain a court order mandating that the Wikimedia Foundation remove links to specified “foreign infringing sites” or face at least contempt of court sanctions. The definition of “foreign infringing sites” is broad and could well include legitimate sites that host mostly legal content, yet have other purported infringing content on their sites. Again, many international sites may decide not to defend because of the heavy price tag, allowing an unchallenged block by the government.

The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.

Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new version exempts U.S. based companies - including the Wikimedia Foundation - from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. (Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)(ii)) In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas. The measured and focused approach of the DMCA has been jettisoned. Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill will deprive our readers of international content, information, and sources.

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Geoff's notes on the bill

H.R. 3261 – STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT

Section 102

Section 102

A “foreign infringing site” is a:

• U.S. directed site:
  • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents OR that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
• Used by users in the U.S.; and
• Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
  • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
  • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

• Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
• Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

• A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
• The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

• Internet search engines:
  • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
• Service Provider:
  • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
• Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

Section 103

Definitions were changed and none of the Wikimedia.org properties (or any other U.S. registered sites) are covered by this section.

New definition of “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property”:

• U.S. directed site OR Site for which the registrant of the domain name used, and the owner or operator are not located and cannot be found within U.S.;
  • Wikimedia is outside of this definition because based on the “U.S. directed site” definition outlined above; Wikimedia is not a foreign Internet site.
• Site is used by users within the U.S.; and
• Site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of sections 501 or 1201 of title 17 or certain provisions of the Lanham Act OR the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Qualifying plaintiff:

• Definition has been narrowed down to be “any person with standing to bring a civil action for violations described in paragraph 1(C),” which requires infringement, rather than any holder of intellectual property rights harmed by activities of the site.

Process

SOPA Legislative Process

House

• Full committee markup (Thursday)
  • Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.
    • At the conclusion of deliberation:
      • A vote of committee members is taken to determine what action to take on the bill.
      • It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled (which means no further action on it will occur).
      • If no vote is taken, another markup will be scheduled
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor.

• Rules Committee Hearing
  • Determines whether the bill will be considered under a closed rule (no amendments), an open rule (any amendment in order), or a modified closed rule (in which only some amendments are in order).
• Floor time (probably not until early January):
  • If the bill is voted on and approved to move to the Floor, floor time must be scheduled.
    • Vote to recommit: vote to send the bill back to committee might be requested.
  • Vote on final passage: if the bill is voted on and passed by the House, it moves out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference.

Senate

• The bill is already out of Committee
• Hold on the bill:
  • Senator Wyden has placed a hold on the bill
  • Senator Reid can override the hold or call a cloture vote to defeat it.
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor
• Floor time (probably early next year):
  • If the hold is defeated or overridden, then floor time must be scheduled.
    • Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.
  • If the bill is passed, it is sent out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference committee.

Conference Committee

• Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be reconciled if anything in the two versions of the bill is different otherwise it is sent to the President (see below)
• The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences.
  • If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate.
  • If changes are of a more substantial nature a conference is called.
• The conference can be closed and informal or open and very formal.
• Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses. If they are able to agree on the bill, the bill is re-voted upon in both houses.
  • If they were able to agree only on some parts of the bill or unable to agree at all, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, be referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.

President

• Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate before being presented to the President.
  • This process could delay a bill a day or two.
• Then, the bill is delivered to the President.
  • The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance.
  • If it sits unsigned for more than a 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not.
    • The exception to this 10-day period is a pocket veto, in which the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit.
  • If the President vetoes the bill, a veto message is sent back to Congress.
    • The two houses of Congress may decide to revote, and two-thirds is needed to override the veto and have the bill become a law.
      • If no immediate revote is taken, the bill can be tabled for later vote or sent back to the committee to have further work done.
      • If a vote is taken to override, and the vote fails, the bill dies.

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.

Severity of restrictions

How far do we need to go to get our message through and/or force sufficient economic or political damage that the bill poses no harm to the encyclopaedic process?

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)

• 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)

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 English Wikipedia readers and users. 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 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)

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).

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.

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)

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.

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)

• support for similar reasons as for soft blanking--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Area of effect

Significant readership of en.wikipedia (brown) in arabic countries, often even majorities

In Europe too: look at all the brown shares (english)

Should this be worldwide or US based?

The english Wikipedia is read worldwide and - even wikipedians are often not aware just how important the english version is, globally. Therefor some maps as a reminder. For other countries look at the data source (Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report - Wikipedia Page Views Per Country This analysis is based on a 1:1000 sampled server log (squids). Period 04/2010 - 03/2011). --Atlasowa (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion regarding the proposed strike. Instead of a sitewide strike, how about limiting the blackout to the politicians and companies who are pro-SOPA? For those in favor of the bill, this would give first-hand experience of how damaging censorship can be. With big elections coming up, how many politicians would risk losing one of their major social media outlets? --Pikewood (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Pikewood. I support it alone or with the statewide strike and afterward until the message is received and think it will attract alot of attention! Mugginsx (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I must strike my statement above. It seems, by what I am reading, our status as a charitable entity might be endangered, so the idea must be abandoned, much as I like it. Need expert advice here before anyone proceeds. Mugginsx (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE User Jimbo Wales himself has commented on this point so I will, of course, defer to his judgment on the matter. Mugginsx (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The key here is the "substantial part" test. It's complicated and I'm not an expert, but as an example, a typical test is to look at spending on lobbying, and the general rule here is that it must be less than 5% of total revenues. We have good advisers, and the Foundation isn't going to do anything that jeopardizes its tax status. Fear about that ought not to restrict community action in this area!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (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)

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)

Featured article

Make it a FA and feature it on the main page. Also have related DYK's, censorship items for "On this day".

Perhaps make First Amendment to the United States Constitution a FA. I'd support running it on the main page if you did it. I'd even be willing to give it a peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've thought of this myself, and have actually been doing the research on developing an article on Ethan Zuckerman's "cute cat theory of Internet activism" that would fit right in for such a themed DYK (I've even found a great lolcat image at Commons that we could use). I could also see, as the FP, just using a black rectangle to make the point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would support making it a FA. However I would oppose, in the absolutely most strongest terms anything more. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not the place to right great wrongs; if Wikipedia itself soapboxes, it cuts out the heart of WP:NOT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the end SOPA could potentially end Wikipedia as we know it. Staying out of issues is one thing when they irrelevant to the site, but since this bill could have a huge impact on Wikipedia (and the internet as we know it) I think they need to act as strongly as possible. With a blackout.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure readers would even register that this were a protest. I myself rarely notice what the featured article is when I go on the main page of Wikipedia; I just go straight to the search bar and type in whatever it is I'm looking for. If we want to make a point, it would have to be something that more obviously sticks out or interferes with the "normal" Wikipedia-browsing experience. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Also we have a pretty strong general COI in relation to the topic - so I suspect actually writing a balanced article would be quite hard. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Exactly, if we want to make a statement we need to do a blackout. No one will notice a featured article--I myself don't even notice those. And, if we're going to act, we need to do it soon. Now that we know the hearing is scheduled to begin again Wednesday, we need to start the protests now. We can't wait until after this thing has passed, we need to stop this before it gets through.
• I don't see this having a tremendous impact. Some people would notice, but likely those who notice what all that means would largely be those who are already familiar with the issue and have already called Congress, lodged protests in some other way, etc. If our goal is a public outcry (which I think it is), that's not going to do it. For the general public, the route to a Wikipedia article generally leads through a Google search, not visiting the main page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, come on. This is one of the weakest and useless "protests" I have ever heard about, except from parodies in sitcoms. Who will even notice that there's a "protest", unless being aware from the start about the protest? Even a dozen of people with demonstration banners will be more effective than this. Not to say that it isn't a good idea to increase the quality of articles related to freedom of speech in general, but that's just an accessory action, it can't be "the" protest. Cambalachero (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sure, make it a FA. Easier said than done. This does not need a community support, neither would DYKing a buch of related items. But I'd oppose giving it a false FA status on a given day.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as a sole action, since to most people are likely to overlook it. Many readers may not pay any attention at all to the main page, in particular if they arrive at their article of interest via some search engine or some other website, then they don't come across the main page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2011 (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)

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.

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)

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.

• 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.

• 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)

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)

Boycott SOPA's supporters, and possibly compile their IPs for action

Per a post at Daily Kos, the folks at Reddit have been collecting lists of organizations and corporations that support SOPA for possible boycotts (and I also find this useful for my suggestion above). Here's a long Google Doc they've been working on, and PDF from supporters with a list at the end. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What that article doesn't mention is the AFL-CIO, which as an organization of ordinary people really stands out for being on the wrong side. I'm not a member of this union, but I wish someone who is would give them the third degree. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unions often take the same side as the corporations their members work for, on non-labor issues. In this case the AFL-CIO is listening to its members in the unions like IATSE and all the Hollywood unions (WGA, DGA, ASC, SAG etc.) who feel their interests would be as adversely affected as their employers. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. While I would very much enjoy seeing everyone behind SOPA be eaten by a Grue, I think it would be a Very Bad Idea for Wikipedia to be associated with offensively targeting individuals or organizations outside government. Our opponents could cast it as malicious or something. It could backfire. Alsee (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be permanent, and it would work only if Facebook and Twitter did it as well. They can't use our services while passing legislation that would greatly harm the way those services work.

This is power that we have and use not. If we don't, then we deserve everything that would happen. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddit is collecting donation pledges to get Wikipedia to transfer their domain hosting away from GoDaddy.com, because GoDaddy supports SOPA. The pledges are adding up. There's money in doing the right thing. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/ Bubblesort (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jimbo has tweeted that we're moving away from GoDaddy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: GoDaddy has dropped its support for SOPA. See! We accomplished something! Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope Wikipedia is still moving the domains as was said in the first update above. Nobody on Reddit is taking GoDaddy's statement seriously. They see it as empty PR spin. I doubt that GoDaddy can do anything to salvage their reputation at this point because the damage has already been done. We got to this point with the legislation because companies like GoDaddy have supported it. If they can visibly do something to help kill the legislation then people might change their minds, but I'm not sure how they could do something like that. The move your domain day scheduled for Dec 29 is still on. Reddit is not backing down. Here is a relevant Reddit conversation on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/noids/godaddy_mass_migration_day_still_on_for_december/ Bubblesort (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as something we could do that makes a statement the right way. The New York Times has covered this here. According to it, Paul Graham has announced that any companies publicly supporting SOPA will no longer be welcome at Y Combinator's Demo Day. This is the sort of thing you do when you have power and you know you either use it or lose it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Calls to action against SOPA

As I noted in my blog, this Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up the latest version of SOPA. Some organizations are calling for action on Thursday. For your consideration in this discussion, I'm including some relevant links showing how others are handling their call for action:

• The Daily Kos suggests calling Representatives and speaking online before Thursday.

• FYI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has compiled a thorough list of resources and actions that can help you understand SOPA's problems. EFF has a tool that can help folks contact their representatives.

• American University calls for individual and organization-wide actions before Thursday.

• Techcrunch sets out some interesting action plans.

• In a call to stop SOPA before Thursday, one site allows you to censor your own online content, like this page, with a tool from Stop American Censorship.

• Mozilla is similarly proposing action this week.

To state the obvious, we probably should not direct community traffic to these other sites if they do not have the technical capacity to handle it.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Markup today

Hi folks,
I received word a few minutes ago that the markup for SOPA will be done using a cool piece of software that allows public input during the markup phase. Beginning around 8:30 Eastern Time (13:30 UTC), you'll find the SOPA bill at http://keepthewebopen.com. I encourage you to participate in the markup process using this tool. It looks like an interesting way to make your voice heard. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... I thought the OPEN Act was an alternative to SOPA and that that site is all about the OPEN Act? -MsBatfish (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark-Up Update

Today, December 16, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee (the Committee) concluded its second day of marking up H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and will pick up once the House reconvenes on January 17, 2012. Over the past 36 hours the Committee has deliberated on the merits of SOPA and offered some 40 amendments, particularly the issue of imposing domain name blocking requirements by court order on various parties, including ISPs. Thus far, mostly minor technical amendments have passed with the exception of one amendment #36 offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of tools in foreign nations to block Internet access. A full list of amendments (passed and failed) with text is available here:http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html.

A small bipartisan minority opposing passage of SOPA consisting of Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has spearheaded the debate. The key supporters of SOPA are Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt (D-NC), as well as most other Members of the Committee. The minority opposition has raised some national security concerns regarding domain name blocking that may lead to a briefing and/or additional hearing on this legislation.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Markup date scheduled

It looks as though the markup may have been pushed forward to next Wednesday, according to the Hon. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think in light of this a decision should be made very soon. We should decide our course of action before Wednesday, and implement it on or a day or two before Wednesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DfizzleShizzle (talk • contribs)

Please see below: The hearing has now been postponed. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Politico Update: Senate Cloture Vote on Protect IP Act - January 24

Per Politico: "AND, SIREN: PIPA ON THE SENATE SKED - Mark your calendar for Jan. 24: That's when the Senate aims to hold a cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the PROTECT IP Act. Senate Dem Leader Harry Reid made his plans known Saturday, to the objection of Sen. Ron Wyden, who promised a filibuster while making clear he and his colleagues are putting forward an alternative bill, the OPEN Act, which the House unveiled earlier this month."

New Update: Wednesday House SOPA Mark-up Postponed!

The House Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday has been canceled, POLITICO has confirmed.

And this just on the House Judiciary Website:

Date Type Title Committee

12/21/2011

* * * Postponed * * *

Markup Full Committee Markup of (continued): H.R. 3261, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" Full Committee

See: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/markups112.html

Rough Legislative Timeline

Jimmy asked that we provide an estimated timeline for the critical legislative steps regarding SOPA. As a supplement to the appendix to my blog, we are setting out below some rough estimates as to possible dates for some of the key legislative steps. As you may know, it is extremely hard to predict timelines in Congress. Below are just one possible set of dates. This timetable assumes success for the proponents at each stage. There are a number of points where there could be either (1) a failure (back to the drawing boards for new legislation) or (2) a referral back to the Judiciary Committee for more work.

With those caveats in mind, here are my guesses for now:

• House Judiciary Committee Markup
  • Only partially completed and adjourned, December 16: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2896

• House Judiciary Committee Markup on December 21
  • Postponed. See: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/markups112.html

• House Returns for Second Session of the 112th Congress
  • January 17, 2012 (6:30 p.m. EST)

• House Judiciary Committee Markup
  • Complete January 18, 2011

• Senate Cloture Vote on PROTECTIP & Senate Vote
  • January 24, 2012 See http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57345187-281/senate-will-vote-next-month-on-protect-ip-copyright-bill/

• House Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the House SOPA bill that were not voted on in committee – January 30, 2012
  • New bill submitted to the floor – second week in February 2012

• House Rules Committee Hearing
  • Third week in February 2012

• House Floor Time
  • Second week March 2012

• Conference Committee
  • Dependent on action on PROTECTIP in the Senate - likely late March/early April 2012.

• Conference Bill to the Floor of the House
  • Early-Mid-April 2012

• Sent for Presidential Signature
  • http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200133-gop-chairman-expects-obama-to-sign-anti-piracy-bill

Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lobbying" and Government Affairs

Some continue to ask about lobbying restrictions. Let me repost here what I have said elsewhere:

Basically, the posting of banners or a blackout landing page that immediately redirects users to call Congress arguably raises issues about lobbying restrictions. In short, these activities, as others may suggest, might be considered lobbying. That said, Wikimedia can engage in lobbying activities as long as such engagement is "insubstantial" compared to overall activity. Insubstantial is not defined, and is based on the particular facts and circumstances. One possible consideration is that total lobbying for a tax year, under a conservative reading, should be less than 5% of total activities (though, I should say, some may say that this is not in itself determinative as to whether lobbying is insubstantial).

Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS provides some background here.

In response to some inquiries, I want to spell out some of our government affairs work, though it has been quite limited to date. Once it became clear that the proposed legislation was becoming active, the Wikimedia Foundation hired Dow Lohnes Government Strategies (“DLGS”) to provide educational background on several bills, including SOPA, IP Protect, and OPEN. The crux of the work is to provide us information on the legislation, such as the changing schedule for the various legislative steps; the substance of amendments; the key political players, including supporters and opponents, in the debate; news about the legislation; etc. This information has been useful in updating our community from an educational perspective. Early on, DLGS did have limited contacts with the House Judiciary Committee to understand the initial version of the legislation and to determine whether there would be room for acceptable legislative amendments. However, upon understanding the overall structure of the legislation, the Wikimedia Foundation decided that amendments could not address our community's key concerns. In the immediate future, we do not anticipate significant contacts with members of the House or Senate by DLGS on the legislation. We will continue to employ DLGS to furnish us their expertise on the legislative process and the various procedural and substantive legislative steps affecting the proposed legislation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Media library

meta:English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout/Media
This page is a soft redirect.