Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

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. It's important to say that this blackout will be accomplished using a "splash screen". It will not remove or block any content - it will mean that there's one more click to access content. The banner component would display to all users, regardless of location.

To avoid clutter, please Support only your favorite option (do not Oppose), and if you wish state your feelings about other options in your response, referring to them by number.

(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)
2. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support, but (2) is acceptable as well. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

   The header when I left this message was 'US only' rather than the current "Blackout US only, banner for all users". I was trying to make the point that if a blackout happens it should only cover the US, nothing more. I'm generally opposed to a blackout at all. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry for confusion - maybe consider supporting one of (4)-(6) and then indicate that you prefer (1) or (3) to (2)? Dcoetzee 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)

   Very slim banner only, "This is what's going on in the US, show your support". A "protest this legislation" or heavy duty banner note might be less effective. The message for the United States is "this is what you're doing to your internet. And nobody else is going to hear about it or have its effects, except as an item on overseas news". Slim banner to make the point that effectively, the rest of the world it's no effect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
9. Support per AlisonW. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support --Teukros (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Jujutacular ^talk 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support This strikes the right balance between involving the community but focusing the protest where it is directly relevant. Many users outside the U.S. will complain about any action (in my opinion not grasping its global implications), but in the interest of doing something we should focus where there will be less resistance. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. I'm willing to support but prefer to minimize inconvenience for people when it's less likely that they can effectively respond to the call. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support per Mike Peel. We need some form of action: short and clear. Greetings from Frankfurt Germany. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. I agree with what Jimbo said. A global blackout won't do us much good. A global blackout might even annoy some users. Nevertheless, I believe that non-US users need to see a banner so that they're aware of what's going on and why we're doing it. Some international pressure from the foreign press might do some good as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support I'm also willing to provide some technical support in regards to this. If we don't make a stand, this bill will pass, and we'll be kicking ourselves for not doing enough to try to stop it. --Ryan lane (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Perhaps banners for those in other countries preachin' the gospel (like Mozilla did). SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Shubinator (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support --Schlesinger (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC) We have prepared a banner and an information site for the readers at the german WP. Could some fromt the WMF come to de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Initiative gegen den SOPA to coordinate the things?
23. Strong Support for this. I'll be blacking out my own site (small graphics software developer) in support of Reddit and would very much like to see Wikipedia support it. Something needs to be done to wake up rank and file internet users in the US and time is of the utmost essence.Anarchistjim (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. Best and fairest option. Banner needs to be in-your-face though to explain what's going on. Thparkth (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support — Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers. — madman 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support --Jorm (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support --Rayc (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Most graphic method of driving home the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.124.154 (talk • contribs)
29. I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support +1 on this --75.80.212.166 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support as second choice to #2. First Light (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support This needs to happen to sufficiently raise awareness Geekwithsoul (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Since this seems to be the most popular option, I'll put my vote towards this. I think a worldwide blackout would be much more effective, however. SOPA impacts everybody, and I think non-Americans need to be informed. A global backlash against the bill will be very powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support with (2) and (3) as second and third choices. This issue is critically important to our future. Jnork (talk) 22:34, 13 January, 2012 (UTC)
36. Support, I would also like (2)--Blood sliver (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Raises awareness to users everywhere, but keeps the focus where the issue can be most directly affected.--JayJasper (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Minimal banner for non-US, respecting that it's not their country, but they still may care --Ed Brey (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support followed by (3), (2), and (4). We should only be acting like this if there's a near total consensus here on the issue and the importance. I believe that's the case here with SOPA. Bennetto (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. – Joe N 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) lets run this into the ground
43. Support, but happy with the other blackout/banner options too. Wittylama 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Yes - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support option 1 or 2, I do not think people will look at just another banner. Awk (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support AndrewPapp (talk)But, at least for the US, it should not be an easy click-thru. It should direct people to write to their Congress reps and only end their blackout early if they do.
47. Support Sarah 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Agent 78787 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support. The blackout should be a splash screen, and it should be targeted only to people who have representatives to contact (i.e. people in the U.S.) Even if foreign citizens contact Congress, they're not going to give them any impact. The splash screen should encourage people to take action, but not require them to do so. If they so choose, they should be able to decline and then use Wikipedia as normal. Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support --SirGeek CSP (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Aswn (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Would be up for 1 or 2 --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. 1 or 2 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support option 1 or 2 ~Feedintm^Parley 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support --The Requiem (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support I think a blackout is a good way to raise awareness about the bill, and I feel banners are more prone to being ignored (especially so soon after the fundraising drive). However, I don't feel that blacking out Wikipedia outside of the U.S. is necessary, as this is a U.S. law and the lawmakers responsible for the bill are U.S. It will affect people around the world, yes, but I don't think a global blackout will change any lawmakers' minds. I strongly disagree, however, with the idea of requiring a visitor to contact his or her Congressman before he or she can access Wikipedia. Those who support the bill or do not want to take action of there own should not be punished. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support We should do this on the mobile site too. Lucasoutloud (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support. Would also support global as well — the Internet is not just national, and if the US does this, there will be global effects as well. Additionally there are considerable numbers of voting Americans abroad. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support This will allow us to raise concern well domestically with the blackout and internationally with a banner. --Kylalak (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support The blackout will be unignorable. And I just think non-US users seeing a blackout pertaining to a US law might be made to feel like Wikipedia is not "for" them, like the assumed audience of Wikipedia is American. I don't like that idea, so that's why I support (1) rather than (2). Glowbee (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support seems to me a reasonable response. of course, many us citizens read other wp's, and many noncitizens read the english wp, but since the servers are in florida, the english wp has got to be the focus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support This being US regulation, makes sense to go US only. TNL (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support as second choice, behind full worldwide blackout. This legislation will affect the Internet, which is worldwide, not just the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support, but with a Reddit style blackout with zero access to Wikipedia content. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Only an actual blackout for US users will have a sufficiently large impact to get this movement noticed in the way it needs to be.Dlswain (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters «»Who?¿? 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support This is a serious enough issue to draw attention, more in the US than elsewhere. As the bill(s) would have far-reaching effects that extend beyond the borders of the US, it makes sense for something to be broadcast outside the US as well. Spiffulent (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support This is not a a purely "political" act, SOPA potentially endangers the freedom of Wikipedia by allowing pages to willy-nilly be shut down. This is a HUGE deal. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support Ktdreyer (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support Has the foundation considered moving the project to a more friendly environment?Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support Wikipedia should be more politically and legally active when the project is at risk. Savidan 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Doing so has my full support. We live in a democracy and we must make our voices heard. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Wikipedia do your part. Mypagesarecool (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support We need to express ourselves with a blackout, but we also need to explain to all what is happening in the USA. Etineskid(talk) 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support. I still feel it would be more pointed to just target this at the U.S. House and Senate IPs, as well as those of the companies and organizations that support SOPA/PIPA, but if this coordinates with what other sites are doing, like Reddit, we're stronger doing it with them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support actual reddit style blackout. The whole point is to demonstrate what the internet is like without Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. 1st choice. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support and make the American users unable to use Wiki with a big banner, for that day. Saffy21 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(2) Blackout and banner for all users

1. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. User: Radiomantx 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Support Also opposed to a click-through workaround. It's a one-day stand against awful legislation. People shouldn't be able to work around it. --Straightbstudent (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Dcoetzee, I would prefer a global blackout. However, (1) would be acceptable as a step down from that.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. Also support (1) and (3). Maplebed (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support 2,1,3 - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. First Light (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support per Dcoetzee. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Given the fact SOPA gives the US authority to take down foreign sites, as well as the de facto lead the US has in the creation of internet phenomenons from Wikipedia to youtube, this is truly a global concern.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Without any public display of the SOPA bill, most users will be left clueless as to what is going on. A partial-blackout is a good-idea, limiting certain features, or at least making it clear that SOPA could completely destroy this website that they love. Also, please make your SOPA banner distinct from the fund-raising banners so that users don't dismiss it thinking that they've seen and read it before. Thanks, happy anti-SOPA! --Jean Of mArc 15:46, 13 January 2012
12. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2012; 22:02 (UTC)
14. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)
15. Support This would be my preferred action, as SOPA effects everybody, not just Americans. If all we can get is support for a US blackout, then so be it, but I think a worldwide blackout would be much more powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support SOPA can and likely will destroy Wikipedia. We must take a stand against it as a whole community. While I would also find (1) agreeable, unless we have a way to hide the infringing websites from US users, this will affect all of us. If we stand united as one, our collective voice will rise stronger than any smaller group of editors. In this issue, it is prudent to ignore WP:SOAP because the effects of this bill could be as disatrous to Wikipedia as deleting the Main Page. Hamtechperson 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support 2,1,3. The WMF projects are under threat, and it is our responsibility to inform people of that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support SOPA affects the entire planet, so the blackout (click though is better) must be global --Jon889 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support biggest blackout possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support SOPA is an Internet issue and is a worldwide issue. Blackout everything. Drivec (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support SOPA is a global issue. It effects not just US web sites, but it also enacts US courts to take down foreign web sites and try them under US jurisdiction. Even if it were only US sites, people worldwide make use of them. Worse, if the US is successful in pulling this off it could spread to other nations as part of "copyright harmonization". My second choice would be 1 then 3. --Schwern (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support, worldwide issue. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. While the outcome of SOPA hinges upon the actions of U.S.-based politicians and their constituents, the potential ramifications of the bill are global. Best to inform all users of it. Rivertorch (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support, other people from other countries should also be inspired to prevent this sort of legislation in their own countries in the future.Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support, Wikipedia has a huge voice, and many people visit this website daily. In fact about 4 million a day. We should inform everyone on this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. The bill endangers the foundation of the internet, for information to be freely available for all. The US government would be impeding the spread of knowledge for the whole world, and thus it is a worldwide issue. Captain Gamma (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support, I would also support (1) Csquest99 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support, The world is much more than the United States, but so much of what happens in the U.S. can affect globally; this is one of those times. (1) would be acceptable, but (2) is preferable. Benscripps (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support, with (1) being my second choice. Reasons: (a) SOPA affects sites and readers all over the world; (b) similar legislation has been proposed and enacted in other countries; (c) international treaties may in the future require similar legislation everywhere; (d) therefore maximal pressure must be exerted on all governments of the world. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support, we want as many voices in this as possible. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support either global or US specific actions Varnent (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support SOPA merely begins in the U.S. but will affect the rest of the world. A true blackout, one that cannot be clicked through, is the best way of doing this. say anybob 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) anybob (talk) 8:19, 13 January 2012 (EST)
36. Support, I support a global blackout. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - SOPA affects the whole world. --J (t) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support SOPA, and policies like it wherever they are instituted impact the whole world. The US often criticizes other countries for their Internet policy, time for the favor to be returned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. I support the largest blackout possible. No one should be able to access Wikipedia for the entire day of 18 January. This shows what every day would be like with SOPA- no Wikipedia at all. Fendue (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. bcartolo (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so go big. I will add that I think an actual blackout would be better than the "blackout" with clickthrough that is planned.
43. Support Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support It is important to inform as many people globally as possible about this so that they can show what they think about this type of legislation before the politicians get inspired to follow suite... But it would be good if established users still had a chance to work on the backlog. Jopparn (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Far too few people know about the possibility of internet censorship. Chillllls (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Others have stated my sentiments exactly: this bill could have worldwide consequences. Best to inform everyone, and foreign pressure could help pressure Congress to not pass it. Lordvader99 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support agree with specific comments of AxelBoldt above. Particularly intellectual monopoly creep via supposed treaty obligations is a real concern. Huckfinne (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support as we are based in the USA this really effects the whole world and we should make as much noise as possible!LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support global splash screen, although #1 (US only) is okay as well. While the content would have to be different (non-US visitors don't have representatives/senators to contact), the nature of the Internet makes this inherently a global issue. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support for options (1) or (2) -- I personally prefer global as this legislation would have long-lasting effects on how services like Wikipedia can continue on as they presently exist. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support for a global blackout. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Strong Support Allow Wikipedia to have a wide and strong impact as a protest against SOPA. Any Protest against this removal of freedom should not be lightly. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support We need to make an effective stand on this, and there is no better way than showing the world what they are at risk of losing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support Take a stand now or cry later. Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support This will send a message that we don't want anyone fucking with us, no matter what government. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support If any community blacks out their part of Wikimedia, I'd want to see at least a banner on my part KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. ~Crazytales (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support SOPA affects the entire world, so everyone should know about it. Focus (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support as first choice. SOPA's impact would not be limited to the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support I agree that SOPA's impact would not be limited to just the US. The creator of Minecraft put forth his feelings on notch.tumblr.com. Yes, let the world know where we stand and the real consequences for SOPA. Jessemv (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support SOPA would affect more than just the US. Whether it's this or Option 1, Wikipedia should definitely do some form of blackout, as this bill would severely endanger the site. In other words, this issue is important enough to be worth the site taking a stand on.Yuuko41 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support By far the most effective option, considering this issue affects all Wikipedia users around the world, not just those in the US. Having both the blackout and banner will show citizens and members of Congress that we are very serious about fighting this bill, and we will do anything to accomplish our goal. Alexroller (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support. Carlsmith (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. Bring out the big guns... oh, sorry, forgot about the NDAA. "Bring out the basket of happy puppies"! Tevildoii (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Complete blackout gets the message across. Gzuufy (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support I support (1) or (2) but prefer (2) Steevithak (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Complete blackout, but suggest that perhaps some of the bots still be allowed to run in the background. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Full blackout world wide. Other countries can exert economic and political pressure on the US even if they don't have legal voting power. This is a serious issue.Canticle (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. And please note that I am British and based in Britain. American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest. —WFC— 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Just because the blackout would only affect US users shouldn't deter WP from drawing support from outside the US. There's always the possibility that similar laws could be introduced elsewhere. 3.14 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Worldwide blackout and banner. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. Banner for persistence of information in the reader's working memory, because the vast majority of users automatically dismiss anything that looks like a pop-up without registering the contents -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. This is an issue that ultimately affects everyone, not just the US. If a site as big as Wikipedia institutes a blackout for all its users, people are SURE to take notice, and word will spread that much more quickly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support both banner and blackout worldwide. If SOPA passes, there is a very real threat that Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support upstateNYer 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(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)
2. Oppose (1), (2), (4). I don't want propaganda about something happening in the US cluttering my usage of Wikipedia. [Editor's note: assuming 3, 5, or 6 are okay with Peter]. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. No clear preference for 3, 5 or 6, that's up to US editors to decide, I'm opposed to anything affecting non US users per my previous comments, the evidence for this having much if a direct effect on wikipedia is limited so I don't see any reason why we should do this for all users as opposed to say for the Spanish law or any of the other laws out there. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Perhaps there are better times for other locations. Should happen when there is an actionable item available for local government. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - Would support (1.2.1.1), (1.2.1.2), (1.2.1) or (1.3.1) if enough (majority?) non-US users felt comfortable having a blackout or banner. Dkreisst (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(4) No blackout, banner for all users

1. Very Strong Support Much more effective than a full blackout. (5) is also more Fair and Reasonable. Support (6). Oppose (1) (Not a Fair and Reasonable approach.) Oppose (2) (This is an issue that was brought up by the U.S.). Oppose (3). --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Very Strong Support--LeslieCarr (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support -download ׀ talk 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Wikipedia claims to be opposed to copyright violations. If they are, then they should support the SOPA bill instead of protesting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - Not really sold on the blackout idea and definitely oppose a full black out. That said, the SOPA and related bills have much farther-reaching consequences than just to the U.S. Think a banner is warranted for all users. Banners DO work and can be effective at reaching a lot of people. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(5) No blackout, banner US only

1. Support This legislation is only taking place in the US, and many non-US users are not interested in fighting the so-called SOPA. A blackout is very likely to hit Wikipedia's image harder than SOPA's; the majority of the userbase, I believe, will read a blackout as site downtime. AUN4 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. It won't really help for people on other continents and in other countries to pester US legislators' offices with comments because they aren't even part of that legislator's jurisdiction. A blackout is also a waste of time because it doesn't change anything. The best method is to call readers to call their Congressional leaders. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(6) No blackout and no 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)
2. Support - at this time. Youreallycan 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Keep out of politics, WP:SOAP. --Pgallert (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - for now. --Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - let us be the 'bigger man' by not flinching to this. May we keep always a neutral point of view. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
2. -- Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
5. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Excellent. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
8. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support full blackout, but better than nothing. --Rschen7754 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Prolog (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. The time frame for the blackout should be defined and limited. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
14. Support. Many users ignore web banners. --Teukros (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support, although I would be okay with a full blackout as well.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Jujutacular ^talk 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Please. No protest was ever successful without being inconvenient. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Click-through is essential, this should be a protest, not a "we're taking our ball and going home" takedown. Making banners dismissable would also be helpful. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Very good idea, make it so! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Viva la revolution! SarahStierch (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Maplebed (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. This is the most effective means we have at grabbing the attention of visitors without denying them access to enwiki's resources. Our message needs to be noticed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. This informs readers without disrupting the core site function. Consistent with our mission of sharing knowledge in two ways. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Methinks that the worldwide press generated by a Wikipedia blackout will attract a lot of new lookers. After clicking through they will get to see what they are about to lose to SOPA. First Light (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support but, actually, I would blackout *completely* the site, as we did on it.wiki, the funding idea of a strike is the let the people understand the importance of a certain service by a temporary denial of the service. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support yes! Selery (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Jean Of mArc 15:50, 13 January 2012
31. Support Weltweiter Blackout vier Tage bis zum Sonntag. Und darauf eine Linkliste mit den Unterstützern der SOPA. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
33. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)
35. Support richard4339 January 13, 2012; 22:21 (UTC)
36. Support Serves a critical policy/political goal while still keeping information available. Zachlipton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Shadowjams (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
38. --Outa (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Zenimpulse (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Wikipedia should never become completely inaccessible (unless the site is in real danger (e.g. SOPA is passed),but banners are ignored --Jon889 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
41. If the topic is indeed a threat to Wikipedia's existence, than a full blackout is warranted. If it's not, then we shouldn't meddle in politics. As has been pointed out before, if you want your protest to matter, make it inconvinient. /Julle (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support but I'd like to see a full blackout, at least for a few hours. I think it's justified. While Wikipedia may not be at risk of being shut down, many sites would be at risk and so its worth showing the users what it'd be like without the internet as we know it. Anarchistjim (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support FyreFiend (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Ed Brey (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Wouldn't mind a full blackout, but this works as well. AniMate 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support, Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support. Cathartica (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support, though prefer a full blackout. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support, Walkersam (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Captain Gamma (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support Sarah 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Pilif12p 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support, I would prefer a full blackout in order to get the point across effectively. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support less than a full blackout will be missed by most web users, they're too conditioned by advertising to notice something which isn't highly disruptive Gmaxwell (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support A full blackout in which content isn't in line with making information freely available. A click-through + banner + logo change will work nearly as well without making information inaccessible.Smallman12q (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support Aswn (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support I strongly believe a full blackout would be more effective, though slightly more controversial than a click-through. Zacmea (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support This will definitely get attention... and a lot of news coverage . --Kangaroopowah 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Full Support for a one-time clickthrough screen and dismissible banners, but they need to cause enough of a disruption to a user's normal workflow to be noticed. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support, would prefer a full blackout, but needs to be disruptive in some way. A clickthrough like a Wikia ad is just annoying. Make them sweat. dkonstantinos (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. Would support a full blackout. A strong signal needs to be sent. That it would be inconvenient for some only means that it would be paid attention to. Maybe lawmakers don't use Wikipedia, but their staffers do. Make it clear what happens if Congress breaks the Internet. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support I am much more comfortable with a click-through option such as this, and am willing to fully support it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support. Like Mr.98 above, I'd be more than willing to support a full blackout, for the same reasons. However, if this is the strongest we can get I'll take it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support I think this is compatible with the Wikimedia mission. KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. ~Crazytales (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support The danger of SOPA passing as it currently stands is not imminent, we should save the full blackout for when there is serious a serious threat to the continuation of the Wikipedia project. At the moment, this alternative seems most acceptable. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support Workflow makes sense in that it only partially cripples functionality while making the necessary point TNL (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support as second choice, but we need an option for a blackout, not a clickthrough. There was significant support forming for this at certain points at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, under concrete proposal #2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
75.  Marlith (Talk)  03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support P4lm0r3 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Jessemv (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Zaixionito (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Strongly support I think a blackout would be the best option, as a simple banner might be ignored. Yuuko41 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Why in the blue fuck are we having this discussion? It's time to paint Wikipedia black. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support People will more likely read obstructing messages, and will oppose the bill, even outside of US borders activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support upstateNYer 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. .. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. .. Collect (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as not being in the long-term best interests of WMF in any way
3. .. Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
5. I oppose a sitewide en.wiki blackout. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. .. Oppose. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose political action as an encyclopedia. I'm all for the WMF issuing a protest, but a reference work should be apolitical. Nathan ^T 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Prefer Reddit Option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose blackout only, because people tend to dismiss anything that looks like a popup ad, without even acknowledging the contents. A banner should be displayed throughout the user's visit on Wikipedia. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. ..Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 06:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Please note how many of the above votes express a preference for a full blackout (neither full blackout or Reddit option was available at the time they voted). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Full blackout

Consensus appears to be emerging that the community wishes to blackout the site completely. The goal to achieve by a full, temporary blackout is to demonstrate to users what it is like to not have information available.

Support

1. Support full blackout. We are a movement dedicated to the ideal of knowledge for all; it is blatantly obvious this bill seeks not only to limit that ideal, it seems to me it is a step towards another country suffering under a great firewall. We live in an age where our fundamental right of dissent is limited; an age where peaceful assembly is too often made violent by the authorities sworn to protect us. As of now they cannot do that here, and thus we must ensure the internet remains the one place we can stay free. Sovereignlance (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support full blackout. I support any opposition to more excuses for America to rob, imprison, torture, murder, rape, infect, etc. Let Godzilla off his leash and give him a truckload of adrenaline - no response is too harsh, it is literally going to save lives. (As long as we're not physically hurting anybody, nor advocating it, nor calling for overthrow of the government, nor expressing irreconcilable hatred. I am opposed to hate speech and revolutions in general.) Badon (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support as first choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support as first choice This is the only way to really get readers' attention. Although I don't know how I will survive WIkipedia-free for a whole 24 hours! Grover cleveland (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support as second choice. First choice: Reddit Option. I also would note that the other options have had a longer time to gather votes, and that some editors, having voted for the best choice available at the time they voted, will not come back and discover that a new option for a full blackout has been added. This may bias the vote totals. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support No half-measure, plz. Tevildoii (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support We need to ensure that everyone hears us. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I agree, no half measures. This has to be defeated.
10. Preferred option. I know this won't be implemented on this occasion, but it certainly should be used next time around if Wednesday's action does not help bring about the necessary changes. —WFC— 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Needs to be done, mang. --Sje46 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. True blackout including restricted access to content is the only way to get real attention. If it has to be merely a splash that can be clicked through, I hope it will be visible to people who follow search engine links to Wikipedia articles and not just those who visit the Wikipedia main page. Gzabers (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose full blackout. This will only affect Wikipedia readers and editors, and inconvenience them. Do you really think that Congress even reads Wikipedia?? If they did, they wouldn't be writing up these ridiculous bills. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  The goal isn't to get Senators to see it, but to raise awareness of SOPA among the general population so they can urge senators.--Sje46 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Congress people and their staffs do use wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Have to say I would oppose a full blackout. We want to protest censorship with censorship? I understand the sentiment that it could show what might be in store (direct action can be effective), but purposefully depriving people of information would make us no better than them. If there is any blackout type event, I would favor partial over full and prefer just good, eye-catching banners. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Whether congress reads Wikipedia or not, voters certainly do. ---Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Same goes for the "US only" blackout. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some practical issues that come to mind here— how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down? The Wikipedia articles are some of the best starting points currently available, better than most of the anti-sopa sites. Likewise, to write a compelling letter I'm going to need to do some research, — again— Wikipedia. I'm very concerned that a "splash page" style 'blackout' is insufficient because people are so well trained by internet advertising, — but a full blackout might be counter-productive. A really hard to dismiss splash (I'd suggest making the user solve a captcha, except for accessibility issues) might be a reasonable compromise. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
2. Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
5. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Prolog (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
11. --Teukros (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
13. Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Andreas Werle (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support This is an important step in making the effort worth its while. LoriLee (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support, but users should be encouraged to personalize their message. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Yes, please. First Light (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Selery (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. --DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support - Nothing else works. --J (t) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support Information should relate to both SOPA and PIPA TNL (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Keep only the SOPA and PIPA articles open for people to learn about the issues.  Marlith (Talk)  03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support If a Wikipedia blackout doesn't get their attention, this most likely will. Jessemv (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support, first choice. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support upstateNYer 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. .. Youreallycan 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. .. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. .. And not mention the OPEN Act? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Second mentioning the OPEN Act per the rationale I've given previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I'm worried that fighting for something that really doesn't affect us has very different legal implications than fighting against something that could hurt us. Selery (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I'm only advocating allowing visitors to know that the OPEN Act exists as an alternative to SOPA. A mention of it won't hurt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Addendum: It would also be against Wikipedia's principles to hide or exclude information. Not allowing visitors to learn of the OPEN Act's existence would be both non-neutral and manipulative. Our task should be to place all relevant information about SOPA at the fingertips, so that visitors could make complete, informed decisions on their own. Without knowledge of SOPA alternatives, visitors won't have a full picture to base their decisions on. Excluding any mention of the OPEN Act would be the same as Wikipedia manipulating visitors not to mention it in their messages to Congress. Instead, we should allow visitors to chose whether or not to mention the OPEN Act, but they can't make that choice if they don't know about the OPEN Act. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose sample text. This could be interpreted as going against the foundation's charity-status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   It's important to say that the Foundation's general counsel will clear/screen the text. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I was assuming as much; I still do think that it's risky no matter the wording. (btw, it's not the only reason I oppose a sample-text; I do believe people who read wikipedia are literate enough to write their own short rant) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose Can WMF legally advocate for/against legislation in the US? I support the blackout and raising awareness on a coordinated day, but I think "call Congress and tell them what you think" is about as political was WMF can/should get.KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
• The OPEN Act should really be mentioned as an alternative action. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Make sure that the title and opening paragraph of the page is designed to be large and brief enough to grab any reader's attention. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Explain for international users what SOPA is and why it affects Wikipedia. --Dial (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
2. Support, to coincide with other sites protest action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support, best to time this with other sites' protests for the greatest impact. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
5. Rschen7754 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
7. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
9. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
11. Whatever date makes the most sense for coordinated action, but 24 hours should be the maximum if we do a blackout. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
12. We need to show solidarity with Reddit and other protesting websites and businesses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Yes. Best time. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Jan 18. SarahStierch (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Maplebed (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. --Teukros (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Sends a message of massive opposition to the bill on the day when experts from the internet/tech community will be testifying to Congress. Amplifies the actions of other websites such as Reddit. Early enough to impact the language of a bill well before an undesirable version comes to a vote. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. I support this date, if WMF deems it the most effective (because of the Reddit blackout). But I think the WMF should be empowered to change the date if events on the ground change suddenly. We might need to move quickly in such a case. First Light (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support --Vituzzu (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. I would prefer that it runs 17th-19th, because Occupy Congress starts on the 17th. Selery (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support I support this date if other sites who may join are also on board with it. Many internet giants have voiced potential support. Now I don't know how much we can rely on Facebook, Google/youtube, Amazon, Ebay and the such to follow though. However sites like Reddit, Tumblr, Imagur, Photobucket, ect I assume would gladly go along, so a consensus with their leaders should at least try to be reached. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support, but I think banners should be used leading up to the blackout to try and initiate action prior. The 18th may be too little time to achieve the end result of "kicking people into action" otherwise. Veled (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support This is the day a lot of sites are doing things as well, so if we're going to act we should do it then. The internet should rally against this in unison, it will make us much stronger.
29. Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support blacking out multiple sites at once has a greater effect --Jon889 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Solidarity w/ other sites will make for greater impact.--JayJasper (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support jfeise (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support Sooner is better. --DrCruse (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Blacking out at the same time will have a more profound effect. --Schwern (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support the coordinated date. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Sarah 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Orashmatash (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support, Robin klein (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support We're strong, and our project is important, but the internet community is stronger together Gmaxwell (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support for a coordinated endeavor (18 January 13:00 UTC to 19 January 01:00 UTC), though if the Foundation finds another date would be more effective, that should be done. Banners can (and probably should) last a bit longer than the blackout. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support January 18 seems like a good, strategic date to get the most attention for this. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support A coordinated effort is the best shot we have at this raising awareness. -anabus (Talk to me) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support haha169 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support TNL (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support P4lm0r3 (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support Sounds like an appropriate day, but it's rather soon considering that we are just now discussing this. Hopefully Wikimedia can get everything in place by that date without any major issues. Still, if you're right it will be very well timed. Jessemv (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support for at least the first stage of action. Here's hoping it will also be the last. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support TotientDragooned (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support sontuk96 Sontuk96 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support Same hours as Reddit and the Cheezeburger network. A unified effort among many websites has more impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support Steevithak (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support There's no way we can agree on another date in this forum. It's best to follow reddit's date. .froth. (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. —WFC— 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support All websites participating in the strike need to all stick with the same date, making it hit hard for browsers activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support upstateNYer 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Most effective when coordinated with other efforts. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The long-term political safety of Wikipedia could be endangered. Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy with U.S. public radio, whose effectiveness as an information medium was severely impacted, beginning in the 1980s, by politicians seeking revenge against an organization perceived to oppose certain policies and viewpoints. I am strongly in favor of protest against these terrible bills by individuals and by other organizations which are not constrained to provide a neutral point of view. I am also mindful of the successful policy of political non-involvement adhered to for many decades by Alcoholics Anonymous and related groups, which, like Wikipedia, are non-hierarchical, as a key organizational principal, not because of some theoretical or ideological concept, but because the task of the organization cannot be effectively performed in a top-directed manner. I may be wrong, and I do not take a dogmatic or unyielding position on this question, but I beg those participating in this decision to consider the risk versus the reward. Wikipedia is a global project, which cannot be thwarted by any one country, but its operation could be impeded within one country's borders. Since political advocacy is not the purpose of Wikipedia, why should it become an advocate? Dratman (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. .. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. 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)

   I believe the mark-up has been postponed til after the 18th now. Kaldari (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as above. This action is contrary to rational self-interest of WMF and Wikipedia
5. 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. (BTW I've been monitoring this discussion on and off. While I never actually mentioned it, I've always felt anyone developing a concrete plan should allow at least 1 month from first proposal to planned implementation.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Strongly Oppose Lovibond (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • • FAQ on this subject here; note that several amendments to lessen the impact of the bill, including one exempting nonprofits, were already proposed by various congresspeople and shot down before the recess. It's a difficult process. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• • • 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)
      • 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)

• What about timing? How long will we hold this? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Great question. I've added a poll on this above, Radiokid1010, please express your opinion there. Dcoetzee 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The WMF moved this to the talk page. Dcoetzee 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • I couldn't disagree more. What is stronger, the voice of millions or a few hundred? It has to come from the community. It's our future and our protest.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Except its not our servers - it's the WMFs. It would be akin to staging a rally in a private business that agrees to let you be there by effectively discouraging people from using that business otherwise. Yes, you the rally-er, are making a statement, but the private business is not. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The WMF is against the bill, and has spoken out against it, and is willing to support a protest; but project-wide action needs to come from the project. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Here's one article that links to such a website: eBay. Dcoetzee 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • What is wikipedia doing linking to tat bazzar auctions, and why isn't eBay reacting to DMCA takedowns? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• As you can see here: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Initiative_gegen_den_SOPA#Europa_verhindert_SOPA_nicht:_Spanien, the spanish gouvernment passes an anti-piracy law only a few days ago. Perhaps we should coordinate our activities with the wikipedians internationally. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I my view we should do a banner and a blackout. The banner should describe the problem and announce the blackout a few days before the blackout. The blackout will be a few minutes before midnight and at one minute before midnight wikipedia will be switched on, with a new banner. In this way, the blackout won´t harm anybody, but it is something the public will notice. --Goldzahn (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that sentiment, if only because the real danger in SOPA is for international/URL-shortening domains, and the Chilling Effect the passage of a law like SOPA has on their ability to be accessible (both within their own countries and by the US) should other countries follow suit. Because of the nature of the internet, SOPA is everybody's problem. Veled (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• If conditions for Wikipedia become hostile, move the servers to another country. THAT would bring press coverage. If we start protesting one proposed law in one country, we will soon be drawn into all sorts of activism, I think it is better we do not start at all. Besides, how can a consensus emerge after such short time? Much of the wording above is POV. --Pgallert (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Moving the Servers to a country outside the US will make things worse! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should avoid becoming involved in politics. However, if a law is proposed that would destroy project, we must inform the public. It would be much worse to say nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • But SOPA fails that test, miserably. "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours.". I'm deeply bothered by this politicization of Wikipedia. It's the template for turning the community into a lobbying arm of the WMF - just feed the masses the propaganda "Protest (whatever), it'll destroy Wikipedia!", regardless of the truth (I know, in politics, how naive). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Isnt it funny? The Author of SOPA Is a Copyright Violator :) -- Andreas Werle (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The SOPA article needs bringing up to a high and complete standard. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's something I learnt from it.wiki's strike, which I'm proud to bring you in support as a fantastic success we owe to the entire WikiWorld. First and foremost I learnt that Wikipedia is now definitely part of the Society, therefore its rights deserve respect and protection just like anyone else's rights. We have the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits; and we have the right to the protection of our moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which we are the authors. Sometimes it may happen that unexpectedly we need to be protected from laws that could put at severe risk the free exercise of our rights; but we are entitled to this free exercise by something which is undoubtedly more important and longlasting than a local national act. Well, Wikipedia, the first fully-free content provider in the World, cannot be damaged by any local national law. Of course an unsustainable damage occurs when substancially no antagonist human right would ever be equitably protected by the mere imposition of an undue interference on Wikipedia's contents. Furthermore, nowhere on the planet did any dictatorship go beyond a simple censorship of Wikipedia: in some Countries it is forbidden to access wikipedia.org, but even in those Countries there isn't any law issued to influence Wikipedia's contents. In Italy there was an attempt, recently, but Wikipedia is the first fully-free content provider in Italy too, and when its voice was heard, it was the voice of this wonderful Project. No one is sufficiently entitled to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms granted us by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We still are in the Society to participate in the cultural life of the community, it won't be by local national laws that we will stop doing it. We are building together the hugest literary work ever written in history, and we are doing it to give every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
  Be proud of this, be bold for this, be Wikipedian for all those who need free knowledge! ;-) --g (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely, this should be world-wise. This has directly effect on all of us. So the world pressure = better than just the USA.Pendragon5 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• International users who seem to believe this wouldn't affect them are taking a very narrow view. As the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the USA, any SOPA issues would affect ALL USERS. And contrary to popular belief, outside pressure can be very effective in altering legislation in any country. The threat of action from many of the major sites has already turned quite a few lawmakers off of supporting the bill. Keep it up and force more legislators to closely examine the bill and IT WILL fail. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Other suggestions

It's been mentioned that some folks might welcome the chance to provide a few general thoughts and alternate suggestions, mostly for discussion. Some of those suggestions might not play out directly to this action, but would give us ideas for advocacy down the road. JayWalsh (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since we are suppose to be bold, I suggest the "English Wikipedia" in USA goes "TRUE DARK" on January 18 from 11AM to NOON (EST), then again from 5PM to 6PM (EST). By "TRUE DARK", I mean provide only a simple web page protesting SOPA and zero access to wikipedia content. One step back from this would be to lock-out everyone that doesn't have an account, and disable account creation during those "true dark" hours. I prefer the Reddit protest hours, but I'll back few hours if people think its too long. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that we mirror the actions of Reddit[1], the Cheezburger network[2][3], Minecraft[4], Tucows[5], and other websites[6][7] by blacking out the English Wikipedia worldwide on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC), replacing Wikipedia with a simple message. This is not the time to negotiate a bunch of details amongst ourselves that we simply cannot reach agreement on by January 18th.

If you agree, add "Follow Reddit" or "Reddit Option" to your vote above. If you disagree, add "Don't Follow Reddit" or "No Reddit Option" to your vote above. This will indicate that, in addition to your support of a specific proposal for, say, a US-only blackout, you either support or oppose following Reddit's lead as a second choice. If this is your first choice, vote below and add "second choice after Reddit option" or "second choice after following Reddit" to your above vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Jan 18 hearing on hill,[8]; [9] attend, then sit down in street; get arrested. should be $100 post & forfeit. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that this page will be flooded with people against SOPA, and there's probably going to be a "silent majority" of non-editors who are angered when the site goes down. So don't read too much into the votes. I think the WMF should just perform whatever office action it thinks is right, and not try to hold a kangaroo court for justifying its tough choice. (BTW I voted for the blackout!) .froth. (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• As a separate point, in the future I think it should be clear in the voting headers that people voting for a full blackout are also voting for a click-through, should the full blackout not be accepted. Then you don't have to deal with the "1 prefer 2" or whatever. .froth. (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)