User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

My morning at Bell Pottinger

(I will cross-post this to Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations as well. I request that specific discussion of Bell Pottinger go mainly there, and more broadly philosophical discussion should go mainly here.)

I had a pleasant morning this morning. Well, as pleasant as one might hope, considering the task that I had set for myself: to go to Bell Pottinger and give a lecture to staff about why their past editing of Wikipedia was not good, and to give them advice on how to do better. For their part of the program, they made a presentation to me explaining what happened from their end, and tried to give at least an explanation (but note well: not an excuse) for their actions. To my surprise, they wanted to have press there, so you'll read about it tomorrow most likely. (Press included PR Week (their invitee) and the FT (my invitee)).

To be clear, outside of one remark from Lord Bell himself (who said that even now he thinks they did nothing wrong, a position I find fairly astonishing, but whatever, life goes on), the apologies from staff were detailed, aware of why what they did was wrong, and I judged them to be sincere. I don't foresee a relapse.

In their presentation of what went wrong, the main thing that leapt out at me is that they did not know how to appropriately escalate. There were other problems to be sure, starting from their default assumption that Wikipedia would be hostile to PR people to such an extreme degree that if they were to self-identify they would be treated as liars. But more importantly, they did not seem to have a good grasp on the ways that one might escalate a problem issue in order to resolve a problem.

One case that they presented in depth, Common Purpose is one that I think Wikipedians in general would be wise to review. Again, to stress, Bell Pottinger's staff did not present their side of the story in order to justify their actions. They were contrite and apologetic. But I asked to understand what happened, and their explanation (not excuse) was useful to me.

The story here goes back a long way, and can be seen in the edit history and the talk page. In essence, a video which wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination survive a moment's scrutiny from experienced Wikipedians as a reliable source was used as as source for some pretty wild claims, including that "Common Purpose is a part of a grouping that wants ultimately 'to kill you'". The organization themselves tried to remove this nonsense but did so in a clumsy way and did not follow community advice on other matters, and ended up getting themselves blocked and their website blacklisted for spamming. Bell Pottinger was ultimately retained to assist.

I believe, based on long experience working with BLP's myself, that had this been posted to WP:BLPN it would have been straightened out immediately. But at the time they were working on this, Bell Pottinger didn't know to do that. So they used sockpuppets and so on. In their defense, they also started their efforts by removing advertising puffery that the client had (again clumsily) put into the article in the first place.

Finally, during the Q&A time, the staff raised some concerns that due to their actions, Wikipedia might be biased against their clients. Some articles were summarily deleted that they suggested should probably be restored. (Including one that existed already pre-Bell Pottinger.) They will send me a list, which I will review personally but also post here for others to consider. In other cases, client articles may now have excessive weight given to the Bell Pottinger situation. Given that Bell Pottinger has taken full responsibility for things, and says that the clients did not know the extent of what they were up to, I absolutely think we need to carefully revisit this issue and make sure that no one is violating NPOV by saddling mere customers of Bell Pottinger with this scandal. It is worth checking to make sure there is no overreaction. (I ask a lot from us in terms of NPOV - no matter how annoying someone has behaved towards us, they always deserve NPOV, it is our highest commitment and moral responsibility, we must never use Wikipedia to slam people we don't like.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but so long as Lord Bell himself continues to be unapologetic, the apologies from staff members mean absolutely diddly squat. The buck stops with him, and all that has been done is he has allowed subordinates to offer likely half-arsed apologies, which mean nothing as they have not come from the top. As to your reviewing of articles, I would remind you that WP operates on the basis of consensus, and it would be amiss for you to be intervening and doing anything with articles outside of process, so I do hope that your reviewing will not involve re-instating anything outside of community determined consensus. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're claiming "consensus"??? What chutzpah, considering your own edit history! I am totally gobsmacked, both by that and Jimmy's surprise that "how to appropriately escalate" is unknown. Totally gobsmacked. 99.50.188.111 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Lord Bell was also apologetic and it seems that whatever his mysterious views on ethics might be, he's a practical man who realizes they will lose business if they have more scandals around this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the meeting was quite productive. And last I checked you have the same right as any editor to "intervene" in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Collect; regarding the articles with outstanding issues, I'm sure you and the rest of the community will be able to take a bit of time to inquire. The potential mis-weighting problem, by emphasis on the client's involvement with the media company and this incident needs to be addressed like all recentism—more and better encyclopaedic research. Thanks for doing the outreach work on this. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting so involved and taking on this important outreach task. We should all aim to move on from being adversarial to Wikimedia (esp. the Foundation and Chapters) being seen as a resource to provide help for organizations that will always have difficulty in helping the encyclopaedia with content, due to their conflict of interest highly likely to be fundamentally engrained. I would like to see such presentations and simple print quality self-help material, pitched for such tricky organizations, being captured and perhaps published on the :outreach wiki. Perhaps you would be interested in helping to make a good quality video that organizations can use for their own internal training? I'm thinking of our "classic" problematic organizations such as corporate marketing, religious evangelizing and political lobbying. As for not everyone providing an apology; well they are a PR company, you have to expect a jolly good spin. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think one thing we should produce is a clear and simple set of best practices. The reason I am focussed on that is that there are many highly questionable practices that are still unfortunately murky in policy - I think because the paid advocates put forward specious arguments and form a bloc against change, but that's a different story for a different day. But best practices will go beyond just "the minimal that is required of you as an editor with a conflict of interest" but rather how you can do the best things, both for Wikipedia and for your client.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly. Whatever we may think of them in theory, pragmatically speaking, the PR firms aren't going anywhere and we would be better off engaging with them for mutual benefit than attempting to shut them out (and thus drive them underground). To that end, I think a set of published best practices for editors with a conflict of interest would be a good thing, and something more useful to point them to than the rather complicated COI guideline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what several of us have been using in the en-wp irc help channel to guide paid editors: WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. The "Learn how to ask for help" section at the end could usefully be expanded, but I suggest doing that rather than write another "Best practices" guide. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a complicated issue, not just the Bell Pottinger case but the deeper issue. In a way it brings into play the whole question of "does Wikipeda work?". The Common Purpose video case that you cite is an example of Wikipedia not working.

The theory is that Wikipedia works and articles eventually evolve into an acceptable form. But "eventually" is a long time when a company on which people's livelihoods depend is being unfairly characterized. An important question is, is the intervention of paid agents an appropriate solution? Not in my opinion it isn't. So what else can be done?

You mentioned a possible alternative approach when you invoked WP:BLPN. One thing that has been suggested is a WP:BLP for organizations -- "Articles on Extant Organizations" I guess it could be called. This was suggested while ago by some editor and was more or less shouted down. Is this something that should be re-considered, I wonder. I don't know yet if I'd support this and I can see certain problems with it, but it'd be preferable to accepting the intervention of paid agents, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm not really familiar with this case but am curious to know how this relates to paid editing, which (by my understanding) you have consistently opposed. To this outside observer it looks like any other paid editing, except at the corporate level rather than an individual contracting his services. Paid editing has happened, is happening now, and will happen in the future, so I'm interested in the nuances of how the project approaches the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm encouraging people to reduce the use of the term 'paid editing' because I think it is overly broad and confuses people, in favor of the term 'paid advocacy'. Imagine if a serious research University encourages professors to contribute to entries in their field, giving them credit towards tenure or community service obligations. Then that's paid editing in a sense, but it isn't the issue that we are concerned about. We are concerned about paid advocacy, that is, someone who comes to Wikipedia at the behest of a client who wants to have a better entry. That's problematic, and most of the hypothetical arguments that we hear about how it might be ok are no different from hypothetical arguments that would suggest that it's ok for regulators or judges to take lucrative side jobs with the people they are regulating or judging. And we have sufficient empirical evidence that paid advocacy results in bad edits often enough that it is a net negative to the project. We also know that it is deterrable (no, not perfectly) and replaceable with better ideas about how advocates ought to approach Wikipedia (namely: don't edit articles directly, instead discuss things with the community). I see no material difference between a PR firm doing this or individual consultants doing this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing sounds to me exactly like the reaction of a user to a bad BLP, except it's not a BLP. Users who are upset by bad BLPs find themselves forced to deal with Wikipedia without knowing all the rules and end up getting reverted and blocked when they're basically just trying to prevent Wikipedia from spreading lies about them. It's a bad idea to treat BLP victims this way, and it's a bad idea to treat the equivalent of BLP victims this way.

If an individual tried to remove material which said his goal is to kill you, and ended up using sockpuppets, violating COI, or otherwise breaking rules to do so, just making sure the individual is contrite would be the wrong way to handle the situation. Yes, he broke the rules, but ultimately, it's Wikipedia's job to be accurate and not to harm living subjects and it is our responsibility to consider their interests. Just because we are talking about an organization doesn't make things any different; the organization is still made up of people, who can still suffer when Wikipedia spreads falsehoods about them. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that what Bell Pottinger did was not just "correcting falsehoods" (which is a good thing) but also went well into the territory of corporate spin. But again, I haven't followed the story in minute detail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and they knew quite well what they were doing. From The Independent's story:

Discussing techniques for managing reputations online, Mr Wilson mentioned a team that could "sort" Wikipedia. "We've got all sorts of dark arts," added Mr Collins. "I told him [David Wilson] he couldn't put them in the written presentation because it's embarrassing if it gets out."

How right he was. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is an interesting example. And what is most interesting about it is not that Bell Pottinger made some edits to it... a compelling criticism of our process. We need some serious self-reflection on these issues. I suspect that if any more examples such as that one existed the media story could have been extremely different. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The FT's report has Tim Bell saying: “I hope this is the beginning of a process of us getting to know you better and how to use you better.” (Emphasis added.) The irony of the double meaning in this statement of intent, coming as it does from a skilled professional in the bamboozling business PR pro, is acute. Let us not be bamboozled. Writegeist (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like your prejudgement is final once made. Strangely enough, most PR professionals are humans who are not out to "bamboozle" at all. I suggest that such an attitude is counter-productive in the extreme. Jimbo has done well here - and I applaud him. ("How to use you better" clearly refers to using Wikipedia, and not referring to "using" Jimbo. I think it is incumbent on all to learn how to "use Wikipedia better" without including misleading "emphasis") Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe we don't want to be "used", at least not as a tool in a media image-improvement campaign by some corporation, which is pretty clearly the meaning of the statement. I don't think that that's what we're here for. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you read more into the sentence than is there in black and white. This is, alas, a common problem on Wikipedia where people seek out "problems" and avoid "solutions." In this case, I rather think BP and JW are seeking "solutions." Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"[M]ost PR professionals are humans who are not out to "bamboozle" at all." Sadly the operatives at Bell Pottinger are not in Collect's supposed majority. See 'Bell Pottinger's executives claimed they had mastered the internet, could manipulate Google searches and whitewash Wikipedia entries on behalf of clients who paid handsomely for the services', [1] 'Jimmy Wales has criticised Bell Pottinger's "ethical blindness" as the lobbying company admitted altering details of its clients' reputations online', and 'Mr Wales told the Independent: "I am astonished at the ethical blindness of Bell Pottinger's reaction. That their strongest true response is they didn't break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I'm afraid."' Writegeist (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's look more closely -- one of the edits appears to have been "Removal of the reference to the university drugs conviction of a businessman who was a client of Bell Pottinger." I hate to point this out, bu we have a policy called WP:BLP. I suggest that it is entirely possible that the edit stressing a "university drugs conviction" might have been contrary to WP:BLP, and removal of the minor crime is likely not have been made to "bamboozle" anyone at all. The the Independent says In other cases, damaging allegations against clients of Bell Pottinger, which The Independent cannot publish for legal reasons, were removed from Wikipedia. Has it occured to anyone that if the Independent finds that it would be illegal for them to publish allegations, that WP:BLP might also bar the allegations from being promulgated in Wikipedia? Bamboozle? Or proper action? I daresay that the claim that BP is Satan incarnate would find some editors supporting it, but alas I try to stickk to what the record shows. And if the Independent says it can not publish what was removed from Wikipedia, I rather think we couls assume there is a reason why they can not do so. Ascribing evil motives and "bamboozling" is not how to move on in this world. Hinestly. Collect (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes of course that explains it -- the hundreds of socking edits were just the conscientious souls at BP ensuring compliance with Wikipedia policy. Poor things, getting dragged over the coals for their troubles. I can't be arsed to continue this. Hinestly. Writegeist (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Independent is published in London under English libel law, which is notoriously biased towards the alleged victim. In particular, the defendant has to positively prove the factual truth of his statement - it's not sufficient that a fact has been widely reported. Wikipedia is under no such constraint ("Verifiability, not truth"), which I think is a good thing. Also, of course, your logic is questionable. "Here is one edit of Bell Pottinger that I deem good, therefore they are all benevolent" - no, the job of a PR firm is to create a positive impression for its clients, which is in direct conflict with our WP:NPOV, which requires us to paint a neutral picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things. First, I believe that Collect may have been misunderstood here. If he's making the point that WP:BLP trumps other policies, he's right about that. If there is defamation in Wikipedia, I want people to remove it, even paid advocates who I generally caution against editing articles directly at all. Any libel in a Wikipedia entry is an emergency situation and should be treated as such. Bell Pottinger's wrongdoing had very very little to do with those kinds of examples. What a paid advocate should and could do about libel would include removing it from the article and posting on the talk page, citing WP:BLP, after which there should be a thorough discussion to determine what to do. And Stephan Schulz, you are absolutely wrong that "verifiability, not truth" is any sort of justification for including libelous claims in Wikipedia. It's one of the things that is deeply perverse about that phrase - that it leads people to abdicate moral responsibility for Wikipedia being the best it possibly can be. We have many many instances of people wanting to insert all manner of nonsense on the grounds that it is "verifiable" in the technical sense, even in cases where it is clearly and plainly false. But this is an argument for another day. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for precisely and accurately noting my position on this. I believe you may recall my position against "Paypedia" some time back when "paid editing" was the subject of lengthy discussions. I also now state that "obscure BLP violations" are, were, and shall be, first and foremost "BLP violations." Collect (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You misread me. I'm not defending keeping known false information under VNT - indeed, I've spoken out against that before. But we do not require proof positive of a fact to include it - we trust reliable sources unless there is significant doubt about their correctness. Everything stricter would make for very tough going indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize for that. Yes, of course, I see what you are saying now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This case does stress the importance of Wikipedia editors evaluating sources for fact checking and reliability. It also vividly demonstrates the problems we have with dealing with obscure BLP violations, leading to living people (in this case an organisation rather than an individual) feeling pushed to pay "professionals" to resolve the issues, instead of getting assistance from Wikipedia. Both the organisation and the PR people would have done well to follow the COI guidance, the onus is on us to make sure that policies are fully and properly followed so that smears don't remain on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Jimmy said, "...at the behest of a client who wants to have a better entry". A clearer phrase would be, "at the behest of a client who wants to have a more positive or less negative entry". For most people, "better" is what we're trying to achieve. It often means such things as more balanced, more comprehensive, more fully cited - any number of things. We do want better entries. We do not want PR-spun entries, edited for the benefit of the person rather than the reader. We really do need to be clear on this, as people are generally paid to do the former rather than the latter. However, the payment is not the problem. Who benefits is the problem. 75.59.229.79 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. It depends on who you talk to I guess. Anyway, following up on my comment re WP:BLP and WP:BLPN, I've posted a more concrete proposal as a possible suggestion for addressing these issues. It it here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Articles about extant corporations. Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea anyone would claim "it depends" when the choices are 1) Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its readers, or 2) Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the subjects of its articles. 75.59.229.79 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do be clear, I'm with #1. I'm just observing that that's not necessarily always true of everyone, depending on one's definition of "beneficial for its readers". Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a paid editor (or paid advocate) and have donated some time to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation, which was started by Silver to help address these issues of educating PR on best practices, identifying bad actors, etc. It has a Paid Editor Help page, links to relevant documentation and simple instructions for using noticeboards and other tools RE escalation. I also put in some ideas on how to better identify bad actors posting spam, advert, POV pushing or censorship so these can be dealt with at the root cause (people) instead of policing edits after the fact or having things carry on for this long until they explode.

One issue we've discussed on the Talk page is how to make PR people aware of (and use) such a project. Do people think something like this will help? King4057 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA Blackout

If wikipedia is going to go dark, could the still be a access wikipedia for international users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.244.204 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely that the blackout will be geotargetted to the US, on the premise that in general, it is US voters who we want to motivate to take the specific action of contacting their congressional representatives.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: reviewing the votes, it seems much more likely now that it will be global, not US-only.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a horrid idea --Shimonnyman (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very negitive idea! Seems Jimmy forgot WP:VOTE? Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with you both. I think it's important to observe the potential impacts of this bill on the internet as a whole. None of its powers are limited to the U.S. It can devastate the entire English Wikipedia if implemented. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely negative idea. You ought to feel completely ashamed of yourself Wales. 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.110.220 (talk)

I had always understood that the blackout would be US only, which is why I took no interest in the debates. I feel betrayed.  An optimist on the run! 17:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I feel betrayed, and despite my state of general ignorance I'm pretty sure I support the US blackout, as I did the Italian one which I understood rather more. Actually, I'm proud Wikipedia has been taking such stands. But the idea that the global decision was based on a vote count seems to me methodologically flawed, as I've been arguing down at the Village Pump. More generally, I have substantial concerns about the undesirable and undesired (I think) role of self-selection bias, whether qualitative or quantitative, in consensus discussions on Wikipedia. I think ways are available of making such discussions more representative. Just my 2 cents, MistyMorn (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA, geo-location and non-voting residents

Jimbo, I suspet you may not have seen my reply to you a few days ago at WP:SOPA before it was reorganised. You've talked about not wishing to "punish" those living outside the US since they cannot vote or influence anything here. Well as a permanent US resident, neither can I, or millions of other foreigners who live in America either legally or illegally. While I'm in support of any action, should we be punished too? What about American voters living outside the country, like yourself? Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No targeting can be perfect. A lack of perfect targeting doesn't mean we must do nothing, nor does it mean we shouldn't try targeting. We should do our best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Will you be editing from the UK on the day? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that depends on the exact technical measures in place and what other people are doing. If non-US editors need help stopping/reverting vandalism, then of course I'll pitch in if I can. However, at the same time, it's worth noting that I'm likely going to be pretty swamped on the day of doing press.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, although I can see the logic in making the blackout US specific, the reality is that, should SOPA pass, it will affect all internet users, not just Americans. I love Wikipedia, but I'm more than willing to live without it for 12 hours to get the point across. The web is not simply national, it isn't just a shopping mall; a huge amount of cultural creative work resides on it, as does an enormous wealth of academic content. My thought is that the larger and more widespread the blackout the better. Perhaps it will encourage the governments of other countries to also encourage the US to re-think the SOPA bill. ---- remittancegirl :  Chat  1:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While that's all true to some extent, it ignores, I'm afraid, that citizens of other countries have very very little influence over the US Congress. Other governments have very very little influence over the US Congress. It is extremely unlikely that an outcry by even close and powerful allies like the UK would give rise to any serious diplomatic pressure on the US to drop this, and such diplomatic pressure would not be felt by Congress directly in any case. No, the only thing that is going to have a material and powerful impact here is voters in the US raising hell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What about timing? I mean, 12 hours would seem like enough time to get the word out there. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting the word out is only part of the process - and I am getting a level of press interest today that's unlike what I've ever seen before. The real key is motivating people to contact Congress, and so 24 hours is better. (Some people only log in during the day, or during the evenings, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice sig :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA shelved

While there are some rumors that SOPA is 'shelved', the actual situation is murky. And PIPA is alive and well. If both are definitively dead by Wednesday, I'm sure the Foundation will make a sensible judgment call. But I also doubt if that Congress will come to their senses that quickly!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So now we have a problem; SOPA is shelved and (politically) is dead. So is the protext still going to go ahead? No one seems to be discussing this new development. Protesting a bill that has been dead for several might be a bit of a media faux pas :) --Errant (chat!) 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) It is not shelved. There have been contradictory media reports, but the latest that I've heard from Washington is that it is still very much on. There have been some noises about some welcome but inadequate modifications, to be sure. One of the issues we have with our current decision-making process is that it's much too slow. I wish that the RfC had specifically empowered someone (preferably an elected smaller group from within the community, but perhaps the Foundation general counsel or ArbCom or me (though I would prefer not me)) to cancel the protest under some clearly defined circumstances, such as a genuine shelving of the legislation in both Houses. I trust that we'll find a way to do that on the day-of if it seems wisest, but we have to be very careful. One way to think about this is that professional spin doctors working on behalf of the lobbyists and their politicians are surely looking for ways to weave and dodge and confuse the public reporting around this. If they say just the minimum to get us to think that we won so we call off the protest for a few days, and then pop up and pass it quickly before we can hold another RfC, that'd be a bad thing. Going forward in the future, it'd be nice if we had a process that would yield a small representative set of decision makers to make the last-minute play-by-play go well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Well Issa has declared vitctory, and Smith has removed it from the floor for the time being. With the Whitehouse basically promising to veto it as it stands that's about as dead in the water as you can get with Congress :) Of course it will pop up again - but not till after the election. A protest *then* will have more impact I suspect (i.e. kill it dead). A protest now isn't likely to have media impact - because the media will just shrug and say "well it's cancelled". They've been clever, for sure, in this move - by continuing with the protest you play into their hands. Just my 2p. --Errant (chat!) 11:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Don't worry, we're monitoring carefully. Washington is still asleep right now, 5AM there, but as I said above, the last I've heard from Washington, SOPA is still very much ON. Smith is expected to press forward with hearings this week. I think you are reading too much into contradictory media reports. I do agree that protesting against something that's already dead would not be sensible, but there will be time to determine that between now and January 18th. I recommend that we listen to our advisors, who are very much on the ground in Washington compared to us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC) From what I have read, the Republicans in the House are opposed, while Reid in the Senate wants to go full-steam ahead. Obama seems to be on both sides at the same time <g>. The way Congress works, the SOPA as planned seems quite sincerely dead, and it is time for Wikipedia to do talking with those committee staffers to exert influence on any future bills as I noted, I believe, several times before. Collect (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) My understanding is much the same as Collect. The Whitehouse response to SOPA the other day basically made it untenable in current form, and Smith has explicitly removed it from his agenda (at least according to his last statement on the matter). The risk of protesting now is that the media coverage will be somewhat useless. It's a very clever move by the proponents; right now we simply play into their hands by pursuing a protest. After the election SOPA can come back and our big splash will not be effective (going on previous examples). Politicians are very adept at playing the media in cases such as this (they did it with DMCA) so that the issue remains on the back bench for the wider public. --Errant (chat!) 13:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) [2], [3], [4] – I believe that Shii and NearlyFreeSpeech.net are right on this one. SOPA isn't going to pass. Wikipedia is falling victim to hype and alarmism. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's not far-fetched to imagine that public opposition to the bill (including Wikipedia's plans to boycott) likely had a role in the reversal of the bill's fortunes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps, but it's unlikely that they're just "pretending" to shelve it because they've taken careful note about how long it takes for Wikipedians to form or dissolve a "consensus". --SB_Johnny | talk 14:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC) It's a classic bait and switch; the protest movement will fall for it because we're amateurs at politics, and the politicians aren't. In politics, particularly Congress, how this works is that both sides try to push each other to the brink and hold there as long as possible. The first to go forward usually loses. It happens all the time (even if it is not high profile like this). By pushing the protest we pave the way for legislation to quietly be implemented at a later stage when the protest has bored the media. I am somewhat surprised the WMF's consultants have not explained this :S --Errant (chat!) 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC) While I have deep respect for you as you know, I think you might want to reconsider whether perhaps professionals who do this in Washington all the time might not know better. It's a complex matter and not as simple as you might imagine. If we can get voters to engage (and I think we can) and tell their representatives they don't want this, then the vast majority of Congress who aren't in Hollywood's pocket aren't going to forget it. And if we have to protest again, we protest again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Well, it strikes me that the professionals you should be watching are the politicians opposing SOPA - who are basically doing exactly as I am suggesting: pulling back ready for next time. :) As nice as getting voters to complain you a) won't sway many (SOPA simply will not bother the majority) and b) you're really fighting a media war (cynic!), if the mass media get it in their heads to kill SOPA then it is done. Politics is, sadly, a game and we are skirting close to lose. I don't think we have the raw power to disrupt the game at this stage. As I mentioned on the SOPA talk page I am very concerned now that the politico's have played this very well; my view is that if the protest plays out on Wednesday then we will see SOPA-like legislation in front of the president by the end of the year. --Errant (chat!) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) We are the mass media. My view is that if the protest doesn't play out, we will certainly see SOPA-like legislation in front of the president by the end of the year. Our best chance to fight it is to fight it, not to give up and cower in fear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Our allies in this (e.g. Reddit, Mozilla, Google) aren't the mass media? Surely, they can have a large impact without Wikipedia's participation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sure they could have an impact. Google won't go dark for a day. Mozilla's public voice via their website (versus their browser software) is tiny compared to ours. Reddit is great - but it's the tech geek crowd preaching to the choir.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Our first blackout will be the most powerful, due to its novelty, so we have to be careful not to waste it. If we protest when the news says SOPA has already been defeated - whether that's actually true or not - the media would either (1) point out the seeming mistake, or (2) not cover the event since the bill is already "dead"; either way, the force of our message would be greatly diminished. That being said, I'm no political expert, and am glad to defer to our advisors in Washington, though I hope they'll address these concerns. --JaGatalk 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Go ahead with the protest! Stop SOPA forever! Now it has been weakened, don't miss the opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angros47 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sopa Resumes in February!!

Sopa Hearing to Resume in February Petersontinam (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I get an honest input on my suggestion?

Hi Jimbo,

This is the first wiki-correspondence I've ever written you, so hopefully you don't mind talking with a long-time but somewhat generally incommunicative character that edits Wikipedia. Less than 24 hours before the official closing of the SOPA discussion (that banner, by the way, really needs to go for now), I made a proposal at 3.6: Policy dialectic forum. Traditionally Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, but I'm sure the community has addressed all those details. Essentially, the idea consists of a discussion forum or page that would be embedded within the blackout screen or banner, allowing Wikipedians, members of the public and especially congressional staffers to collaborate on a compromise. Some editors suggested the blocking of all Congress(wo)men, but we've already done that before for vandalism and that seems like an ill-fitting alternative. My suggestion would benefit Wikipedia by allowing editors, who may or may not be prevented from editing (however the final community discussion resulted), to take a break and work together on discussing the future of Wikipedia. Two-fold, this may also allow policymakers to receive useful input from Wikipedia's perspective, as one earlier user suggested we do, whom I've quoted. It's likely that the community has never done anything of this sort before and it would be important to ensure the website is still running with the blackout/protest screen, and doesn't simply crash, which would unnecessarily increase obscurity. By the way, my position on this issue is similar to the WMF's, in accepting whatever the community has decided to do, although if we are to present a petition and/or an information page, it would be a good idea to make it usefully presentable, incorporate dialectic and work towards actual solutions on top of legitimate protest – which I think may be more effective than flooding Congress with calls, though I have little background on the American policy system. I look forward to reading your input.

Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I love your idea of spending the day (while we aren't editing) discussing the future of Wikipedia. It'll be nice to drop all our usual internal arguments for a day and think about how we might simplify and improve processes, grow the community in a positive direction, etc.  :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note. I came here to suggest that this "blackout" be optional. But, from what I've read, a few vocal idiots have the ear of Mr. Wales and he doesn't care about editors who have put their time and effort into this project. So, if nearly eight years of my life doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to continue working on and promoting Wikipedia. It now appears to be a little toy that Mr. Wales has decided he can turn on and turn off whenever he likes. -- kainaw™ 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but the overwhelming consensus of the community, not just a few people, was to do the blackout. Your contributions are much appreciated, and I view this action as a way to stand up for your rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion on your talk page and the vote at the SOPA Initiative page I think it is charitable to say there was community consensus. At least 10% of the votes for a full blackout came from apparent single-purpose accounts. I believe at least as many were just on the edge of being single-purpose accounts. On your talk page it appears even worse. Almost all of the first thirty or so votes at least were random IP votes with comments on this being either their only or almost their only edits on Wikipedia. Quite a large portion on top of that came from stale accounts or newbies. Certainly there are major established editors who favor a blackout, but there are also a substantial number of major established editors who vigorously oppose a blackout. How can anyone take Wikipedia policy seriously any more if the Foundation can just count heads in a vote and decide they can suspend policy to have the entire site used as a platform for pushing some political agenda? What happens when a flood of editors get angry about the next cause célèbre of the Internet?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation didn't count heads. The RfC was closed by volunteer admins, same as usual. I think the community is pretty clear that we should never take action on general political issues, only those that are directly relevant to our mission.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The volunteer admins who closed it said "We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one". So, even if we discount the single purpose accounts, there is majority support for a global blackout, but clearly, by their estimation, "no consensus" for the blackout to be global.--Scott Mac 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please Consider?

What if: Wikipedia was able to be at the forefront of offering up the solutions to what is wrong with the legislation as it is written. What if: The greatest minds from Wikipedia could spell out to the legislators the unwanted repercussions of their intentions to stop piracy? What if: Wikipedia answered the call for input that was asked for at the "We The People" White House Petition Page We the People? What if: The clout that Wikipedia has, was used to contact the White House and offer collaboration instead of protesting? Whitehouse: "Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge." What if: Wikipedia answered that challenge? Before you tell me to get my rose colored glasses off and pull my head out of my behind, just please consider this. I know it sounds pollyanna, but isn't there the slightest chance of being part of the solution? I was always taught that you can only complain/disagree for so long... then it becomes time to offer up alternatives to what you believe is wrong. Petersontinam (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Offering positive policy options is certainly a good idea, though it may take a long time to hit upon ideas that are both popular and helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Start here: Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the SOPA and PIPA protest blackout!

I just saw the announcement on facebook and wanted you to know that you have my support and thanks. This is a crucial stand to take on behalf of internet freedom, and I believe you will draw significant attention to the issue. Again, my thanks and best wishes, sir! Jusdafax 01:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just hope you don't blackout other countries such as Australia. Sorry but you would lose my support if you do so. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Bidgee; I am sympathetic to the cause but will boycott Wikipedia if the UK is hit by the blackout. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA has a potentially global effect on internet censorship, so I wholeheartedly support the global blackout to notify everyone on the world that such act is intolerable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the blackout is just as bad as SOPA and PIPA. What a few hundard editors over rule thousands of others? Fine blackout the US since they can have their say but those in other countries don't have a say in the US political arena! Bidgee (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The rest of the world has no say in SOPA or PIPA and a simple notice or banner would suffice for us. Don't punish international editors who can't do anything about it. That is going down absolutely the wrong route. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear fellow Wikipedians, a 24-hour blackout isn't that terrible except for Wikiholics. If the bill was passed, the other countries would likely proposed the similar or even more restrictive act. A banner is definitely not enough because it always gets ignored. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please quit the BS. Again what can those in other countries do about the bills? Nothing! What will the blackout do? Bidgee (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that although I am a prolific editor (in the top 1000), I have only just heard about this, after it already fait accompli. In what meaningful sense did "the Wikipedia community" decide to do this? StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a banner on the top of the site for several days. Other RfC's have been centrally advertised before that. As the RfC closure points out, this discussion received more attention than any previous discussion in WP history. It is a shame that not everyone heard and was able to comment, but the timing made anything longer impossibleQwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, I never got the banner and I know of a few other editors whom also never seen the so called RfC banner. The whole thing is bullshite. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I, like Bidgee, never got a banner. It's your law, you protest it, you deal with it. Just don't black out the rest of the world please. The rest of the world has no say in your laws. You're a free country, do what you should be doing. Lobby your lawmakers, don't drag the rest of us into your fights.  BarkingFish  02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Relax—have a cup of tea—it will be over before you know it. People are angry and need to protest. Hopefully they can then turn that energy into something constructive afterwards. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I never saw the banner, either. And like many people commenting here, I live in Australia. I suspect most of the people who decided this are American. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm Australian, in the most isolated city, aware of the SOPA debates and have been aware of the blackout idea for over a month. I also happen to support it(though I didnt vote!) as US law is what we primarily work under here so it affects all of us. Gnangarra 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And it seems a large number of them were SPAs too. It is an utterly revolting RfC closure. It seems to only way to make our displeasure clear will be to protest the protest with a boycott. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark gives details. To be utterly clear, I support the decision to blackout all of Wikipedia-en. I realize this comes as a shock to some but please, let us keep this high-profile conversation civil. Jusdafax 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Which part of we don't have a say on this outside the US can't get through to you? Why should we be affected by what a majority of American editors and SPAs decide? A shock? No, but an utter disgrace, yes most definitely. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Because if this bill passes, it may affect Wikipedia as a whole just as severely as this protest does. That is why it must be done on a global scale. I really don't understand why 24 hours away from this site is a bother to you. Go outside and toss a ball around. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The bill is politically a dead duck. What I do with my time isn't your concern; indeed from my contribution history its plentifully clear that I have no problem taking 24 hours off, having only just returned from 4 months away. It's a matter of principle. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
        • @Kinaro: If, maybe, possibly, could be.... Americans are the only ones with the say on the bill. I had plans on doing some content improvments but really fuck it, why bother when Wikipedia is over run with Americans. Bidgee (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
          • "Why bother when Wikipedia is over run with Americans"? What exactly is that supposed to mean, hmm? Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
            • You know what I mean. Americans will do anything to make Wikipedia on how they want it and not allow those whom live in other countries a say. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Protest the protest! Make a statement but by stopping editing and viewing is WRONG.PumpkinSky talk 02:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia becomes a politicized entity the second this blackout goes into effect. Horrible. Townlake (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yepper. PumpkinSky talk 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Protesting for 24 hours globally was chosen by the community. Jimbo got much support in favor of such a proposition. Not everyone's going to be satisfied, that's the way it is with every issue, but that doesn't mean you need to make overly dramatic statements like that. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Typical American statment... And it was hardly a consensus, far from it. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)]

Are you being serious? What does my nationality have to do with my position on this issue? Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a Jimbo decision advancing a Jimbo agenda, pushed along by the same American busybodies who thought Occupy was a great idea. Shameful, this... and bad news for the everyday Wikipedia users who don't even know this site has an administrative backstage where decisions like this are made. Townlake (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed many editors here have used the "I live in Australia" excuse - which actually doesn't cut it. I've been following this SOPA blackout proposal, and the original RfC whn it started on Mr. Wales' talk page. Anyway, barring that, we are all a community here; we have our disputes, our arguments; our best moments; and our worst - but at the end of the day, we are a team. The Wikipedia community. I'm not going stand here and let fellow Wikipedian's hang dry on an issue that may at this time affect them - but in the near future could affect us all. As for Australia, the US is a major influence, and whatever they do, Australia loves to follow. Oh, and for the record, I myself live in Melbourne, Australia. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll make it clear that I haven't used said excuse, because I don't live in Australia. I knew about the RfC but saw it was clearly being overrun once it was opened to SPAs so didn't bother, my vote wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Where one lives outside the US is irrelevant to the argument against an international balckout. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clear to you that if this bill passes you will experience an international blackout indefinitely. We must demonstrate the impact this will have because it affects ALL of us no matter where we hail. What part of that don't you understand? Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Utter tosh. The bill is dead, what part of that isn't clear? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't "tosh," and it isn't "dead." PIPA is still very much alive in the Senate and SOPA was simply "shelved," which means it could very possibly be brought back up in Congress at any time. We must send a message that we want both bills destroyed now and nothing like them ever introduced again. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 03:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And this "we" is you. Americans, who elect your Senators and Congressmen. Not someone like me sitting in London. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't pin this on me. I didn't vote in these corrupt congresspeople. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I, like many other people from other countries didn't vote for them, so don't blackout us on the grounds that "this is what will happen if the Bill passes" since it is a dead bill. Don't blackout those who have no power or control the US policital process. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole blackout thing is a bunch of buffoonery. And FYI it's not a Yank thing, I am one. Seems a Jimbo thing.

I'm disappointed that Sue's letter claims that the "Wikipedia Community" decided this, through a "consensus decision-making process". I was outvoted, that's fine, but you shouldn't try to make it seem as if everyone agrees to this. Her letter claims to speak for me and my beliefs, when it in fact does not. Please don't put words in my mouth to make it look like this has more support than it does. Buddy431 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps next year's fundraising appeal will have the integrity to remind would-be donors that Wikipedia is a political organization. Townlake (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Politicizing what should be a neutral encyclopedia is a horrible idea. Now wiki is a political action committee. PumpkinSky talk 03:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't value people's opinions based on how pompous and bombastic they sound, I judge them by evidence. That you would call Wikipedia a PAC over this is way missing the point. We're not talking about protesting in favor of some political entity or general position, we're protesting over something that, if passed, could explicitly affect this website. Whether you like that or not is up to you, as reasonable people can certainly disagree, but lay off the hyperbole and the straw man arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll say whatever I want. You're the one sounding pompous. PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and now the ad hominem part. In my experience with logic, responses like that are borne of not being able to properly defend a position; I fully appreciate those who come to different conclusions based on reasoning, but tossing around buzzwords like "PAC" don't draw me in. I've listened to my Congress and president speak too many times to fall for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now the dismissal of the truth, which I've already stated and you have not apparently read, is that this is politicization of neutral encyclopedia. Yawn to the rest of your drivel.PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean your personal opinion of the truth, not the truth. I read what you said, and it didn't sound any more accurate the second or the third time either; you apparently have a deeply flawed understanding of what a PAC is. By standing up for openness on the internet, it's not being any more politicized than it already was. Best not to dig yourself deeper. For the record, though I supported doing this, it's not like I would have been upset if it didn't go through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Money! Power!

Someone came to accuse me of being after money and power. If the money goes to realize our dream of a free encyclopedia for everyone, and if the power is to keep the Internet open and free, then I suppose that's true. And I'm proud of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Money! Power! Jimbo! Congratulations! Money for free meant for an encyclopedia, used in a power ride, for Mr. Jimbo. Congratulations! And goodbye! - Nabla (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Please don't vandalize Mr. Wales' talk page. Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 03:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC) You ought to read up on what actually constitutes vandalism, then. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (ec)@Kinaro: You call Nabla's comment vandalism? Right... Bidgee (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (many edit confilits) [@Kinaro] I am expressing my opinion, possibly harsh, but simply that. Interesting to see one (of possible quite a few) 'freedom' fighter that only allows opinions supporting their own. Jimbo Wales must be proud! - Nabla (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Jimbo, I think it would be prudent whenever you come online to rebuff statements like Kinaro's that accuse your critics of "vandalising" your talk page. It'd be highly ironic to be protesting internet censorship and then trying to censor one's own critics... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I'm all for having your own opinion but to claim Jimbo is doing this for a power ride or money is just ridiculous and quite frankly nonsensical. At least add a little truth to your statements, otherwise it's nothing more than vandalism in my eyes. Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 03:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Nabla is free to think what he thinks, and to say what he thinks. If Jimbo doesn't like it, he'll ignore it like he has plenty of other such fanciful claims in the past. But it's not vandalism and you calling it vandalism does yourself no favours. Indeed, if you had reverted his comment as vandalism, it is likely someone would have put it back — because it blatantly isn't. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't have reverted it. This is my opinion outside of policy. Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Censorded by Jimbo, the White Knight of the free and open internet, himself! Wow! - Nabla (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You know there is a show/hide link right there, don't you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why hide, then?

I am around just about as long and with as with many edits as you. Why do you assume I am stupid? Yes, I am leaving - NOW - not only because of Jimbo's turnig this into a political movement (if not a party at least a lobby) but also because of many-many arrogant idiors around here just like yoiu. And possibly me... - Nabla (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop! Please!

The nastiness is escalating! The protest is polarizing and splitting parts of this community. However, it seems to be a done deal; As in any family or body of voters, once a decision is made you won't always agree with it...but at least be civil to each other in your arguments. Damn. This is like watching your parents fight, times 1000. Back and forth with personal attacks...getting worse and worse...you are turning on each other! I personally don't agree at all with a blackout, but what is even harder to see is the venom coming out from this. Whatever Nationality, whatever side of the issue, whatever your feelings...just please stop being nasty. I don't think anything can be done to change what will happen with a blackout, but it shouldn't be ripping this place apart. Petersontinam (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I've learned to walk away from unpleasant people, which seems to be the best we can do at the moment. For understandable reasons, Jimmy's WP talkpage is often a lightning rod for those with a beef. Jusdafax 03:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any personal attack from the proponents of the blackout. If that vandalism claim is personal attack, so be it and let them all archived over time. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I frankly think it's better for everyone to vent now. Let the Brits and Australians do their usual whinging about Americans, and let the Americans make the usual comebacks; it fades away after people realize how retarded it all sounds. Soon enough it'll just be a memory and people will be going about their business as usual, for better or for worse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proves why Americans think they over rule other countries. Sorry but the Americans are whinging at a dead bill which isn't going to be passed. Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I was saying about how it sounds... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

More like political bullshite. Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mild venting occurs now. I believe the consequences of abandoning Wikipedia's core mission will be realized later, when Wikipedia attempts to organize its next fundraising drives. Hope Jimbo finds this all worthwhile. (And yes, Blade, this is politics and marketing; Jimbo's Blackout will have no impact on Wikipedia's survival.) Townlake (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

NO, it really isn't about money.--MONGO 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Abandoning Wikipedia's core mission"? That is a massively naive statement. This issue is about affirming Wikipedia's core mission. It has everything to do with Wikipedia's survival, and nothing to do with money. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't Google and Twitter concerned? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Google and twitter are both very concerned and have come out strongly against these bills. They are working hard on the ground in Washington to lobby Congress.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was, why aren't they joining Wikipedia in the blackout? Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if they don't do something to protest. But each organization has to make its own analysis of what they think would be the most effective means of communicating the point. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 09:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the number of users reached if all three went down on the same day with a brief informative message, I think that would be the most effective means of getting the point across. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter seems to have backed off,[5] though pulling back from calling it "silly".[6] You'll have seen the Indy's interview. Also nice to see Rupert Murdoch helping out, . dave souza, talk 10:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop the blackout!

Mr. Wales,

I am contacting you because I cannot find any other open forum to discuss the proposed protest against SOPA and PIPA. I am here to try and persuade you to at least delay, if not stop, the impending blackout. I support the cause whole-heartedly, but such a rash action as has been proposed will undoubtedly have negative consequences. My biggest concern is that people will not see past their frustration of Wikipedia going down and recognize the cause. The Occupy Wall Street movement is my case in point. No one is listening to their calls for change because everyone agrees they are being a public nuisance and an irritant on the national level. In the same way, denying access to a service millions value and require would only place Wikipedia in a negative light. The point we want to make would be disregarded because of the tactics used to make it. In addition, the entire "blackout" idea is a massive violation of WP:POINT. Denial of access to the entire site most certainly constitutes disruption, and we are definitely attempting to make a point by doing it. Once again, I must state that I entirely support the cause, but oppose the extremism about to be carried out in its name. Changing the site's graphic design to primarily black, and sending Wikipedia users through a page explaining the cause before accessing the site would also convey the message, but without the cost of creating enmity with our users. I beg you to prevent the dangerous move Wikipedia is about to make.

Thank you,

Alphateam7911 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Everything in moderation, moderation in everything." -Unknown

This is a very good point about WP:POINT. FWIW, I have posted a userbox at User:StAnselm/SOPA. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia should obviously be pointless. Stands to reason... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this clear violation of WP:POINT has been sanctioned by the necessary factions of the "Wikipedia community." There's no stopping Jimbo's Blackout. Townlake (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Either that, or a law that could easily take down Wikipedia itself is being effectively protested by an unprecedented majority/consensus of the "Wikipedia community." That's how neutral and reliable sources such as the New York Times are also reporting it.[7] Kudos and congratulations to the Wikipedia Community for taking a stand to defend its own existence with this widely reported and supported "Wikipedia Blackout." First Light (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A majority? Are you kidding? 1,800 users participated in the discussion of the blackout; over 34,000 users edited Wikipedia at least 5 times in December, and many many more visited without editing. A simple sitewide "yes/no" vote could and should have been taken, but nope; Wikipedia's navel-gazing class had numerous unfollowable discussions of the issue in many places, which of course ultimately turned into a vote, and one that excluded the vast majority of the site's users. Terrible form, and the buck stops with Jimbo, who originally sparked this nonsense. Townlake (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The NYT article has a link to Wikipedia's debating and votes. Petersontinam (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, please read comments under the NYT's article. They are mixed and very interesting. Petersontinam (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Townlake - compare the number of commentators/etc. who participated in the decision with the numbers for any other Wikipedia discussion. I strongly disagree with this decision to blackout, but I wholeheartedly agree with the discussion closers' "consensus to blackout" close. I may wish there weren't consensus, but ... there is. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 09:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to join me in protesting the blackout by blacking out your userpage, btw. --Philosopher ^{Let uBold texts reason together.} via alternate account 09:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that policy is pointless? If it can be overridden by agreement between the right people, does it have any power at all? Policy was meant to be binding, so we can't just disregard it because of consensus. Especially in a situation with such far-reaching consequences. Alphateam7911 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, the Community voted on the blackout. There was a chance to discuss it there, and the blackout passed. I would much rather have Wikipedia blocked to show solidarity with the cause than have us carry on regardless. Sometimes, the worst possible action is the best possible choice. doktorb _words^deeds 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion, followed it, but did not !vote. I have no way of knowing how many others did likewise, or why. Changing the world has always been political, but has never been less politicized. Off for 24 hours, passive protest, impact (see WP:CRYSTAL). Still coming back to edit. Dru of Id (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk The whole community had no chance to discuss it, due to the fact there was no banner/site message pointing to the discussion/vote/poll. I have no issue on having a banner but not locking the whole site down. The blackout will not help Wikipedia's image at all and a lot of the media is just using the PR release by the WMF which in itself is a classic case of POV PR. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't have been a discussion at all. Now that the blackout has been decided on, Wikipedia has lost the right to call itself neutral. Its bordering on disgusting that we're taking sides like this. I won't be donating again and I can barely stand to even be on this website. Wiki is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia, open to all to read or edit. Now we're a campaign group. Does anyone know if Encyclopaedia Britannica is doing a blackout? Pascal (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your melodrama is touching. Wiki has been at the forefront of making information and education available to all. When SOPA comes along to destroy that, why should Wiki sit by and do nothing? You should be proud of Wikipedia for making this stance. I think the whole Foundation stands strong today. If you "can barely stand" to be here, you can't be much of a supporter to begin with. doktorb _words^deeds 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the comment above, Pascal, do you think not "campaigning", as you say, will simply just make SOPA/PIPA - go away? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia, I think its one of the greatest resources on the net. But that's only because the information here is free (or supposed to be free) from people's opinions and beliefs. I am opposed to SOPA, but Wikipedia is certainly not the place to be protesting. What comes next? English libel laws? Chinese political prisoners? Oh, but SOPA is threatening to wikipedia specifically... Well, leave that to WMF's lobbyists. How can we be free info for all if we're blacking out the site? How are any of the editors expected to be neutral in their work here if the site itself isn't neutral? Pascal (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you love Wikipedia so much, why do you want it to be crippled by SOPA/PIPA? Do you think the project will be resourceful if we just sit down, do nothing, and let SOPA/PIPA rule the internet? Finally, you won't need to worry about Wikipedia, because if these to disruptive bills (that's what they are) pass, there probably won't be a Wikipedia to worry about - that is why the community is taking these steps. Oh and last but not least, would you rather a policy broken - or the whole encyclopedia to be broken? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1) They won't pass. 2) Wikipedia is supposed to be against copyvio anyway. 3) A global blackout for a US law does not represent a worldwide view on the subject. 4) The vote taken was crippled by problems, as mentioned by others above. 5) Its not just a policy that's at stake, it's our entire reputation. Wikipedia is already derided by all for its "inaccuracy", do we really need to be accused of a liberal bias too? Yes, SOPA is a threat, but so are sock puppet accounts and vandals and IP users and a lack of references. I honestly don't think the road we've embarked on as a community will lead anywhere other than a significant dilution of what Wikipedia was originally supposed to be. Wiki is not a campaign group. Wiki is not a protest organisation. Wiki is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and so it should remain. Pascal (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Pascal is right. A blackout is inconsistent with what WP is. How about taking down the Statue of Liberty for a day, if consensus doesn't like a Supreme Court decision? WP should take the "Jesus" route – if nailed to the cross, forgive them they know not what they do, and rise again. Be consistent! (Sheesh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If you go to a library and check out a printed encyclopedia, it won't lock itself up because someone wants to put it on the "banned books" list. Wikipedia's primary purpose has always been to provide information, and we need to recognize that that should come above political campaigning of any kind. Alphateam7911 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So we will just let 11 years of the encyclopedia, swirl down the drain - all because some editors do not wish to go head to head with one of many policies, that aren't set in stone - or can't save something that some of us, including myself, spend most of our day on. I'd prefer a site that doesn't have restrictions - Than a site basically run by SOPA/PIPA -- any day of the week. My sympathy goes out to the editors who have spent the majority of those eleven years here, building this place of knowledge - that now have a terrible though in their head, about what SOPA/PIPA can potentially do!

This is a drastic time, and with drastic times, drastic measures are called into place. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Drastic measures like Japanese internment camps (WWII)? You just don't get it. You are deprecating the 11 years you refer to, with the blackout action. This is high hypocrisy on WP's part ("Destroy the village in order to save it."). It's inconsistent with WP founding premises re neutrality. (How can the neutrality of an article on the bill be trusted, if WP takes a stand against it?) If you pass a law so I cannot burn the flag, you are protecting a symbol that stands for freedom of expression, which you've just limited. Why can't you guys see the damage being done? The decision to blackout will be a permanent one – you can't take it back. It will bruise WP's reputation for a long, long time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just simply echo the majority : SOPA and PIPA will damage the encyclopedia. Yourself and the minority do not understand, that of this is going to harm our encyclopedia - the majority of us are not going to sit down and do nothing. The "damage" made by a 24 hour blackout, won't last. If PIPA and SOPA pass, that is where "permanent damage" comes into play. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are based on the assumption that this blackout would make or break the acts' passage. We could do the blackout on every Wiki, every language, every sub-wiki around the world and SOPA and PIPA could still pass. On the other hand, we could just run as normal, or even support them, and they could just as easily fail. What if they pass anyway? We'd have just taken the most drastic, rash, and reckless course for absolutely nothing. And even if they do pass, it does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt that Wikipedia will be affected. It could be ammended to have no effect on us, or any other number of possibilities. As for the majority agreement, didn't most of Germany support Hitler on his rise to power? We should step back, put this blackout business on pause for a week or so, and logically consider our options. There is still the chance for cool-headedness and reasonability to prevail in this issue. Alphateam7911 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about intentionally causing trouble by following bad rules. Decisions about how to run the site are not covered under WP:POINT. Claiming the blackout is covered under WP:POINT is like claiming that the fundraising banner violates WP:POINT because it confuses people into thinking the portrait in the banner is part of the article (something that has happened quite a bit). Incidentally, I wish we could do away with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". I have yet to see it be invoked without being misused. It's supposed to be a summary; it's not supposed to be a rigid rule which says "if something does not meet the definition of what an encyclopedia does, Wikipedia must not do it". I'm astonished that people are invoking it as a rule at all, let alone as such a strict one, but Wikipedia seems to be a magnet for rule literalness. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How should I contact you?

Dear Mr. Wales I am a reporter with Business & Economy (www.businessandeconomy.com), a business magazine in India. I'm writing a two page feature on the lessons that can be learned by Indian institutions and internet firms from Wikipedia's blackout. As the Indian government too has recently introduced a quite stifling online policy and has started acting unilaterally against leading internet firms in India, I wish to establish through my article why Indian firms also should engage the government more forcefully. In this regard, I wish to interview you. Alternatively, I could send questions through e-mail if you prefer. I'll be grateful for your time as this would really benefit not only the internet audience but also civil society in general in India.

Warm Regards Amir Moin Special Correspondent Business & Economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirMoin (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)User:Jimbo_Wales#Contacting me. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A sad day

I would urge you to reconsider this action. It is blatantly unfair against those of us outside the USA (as we have no say in American politics), as well as a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. At least one administrator has already resigned, and I have decided to withdraw from Wikipedia for at least a week in protest.  An optimist on the run! 12:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The decision was made by the community, not Jimbo's own. He would never, ever perform any action to override such decision with his Founder right again. Just so you know. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No - the community (or rather the few who were aware of the debate) made the request. It is the foundation's decision whether to apply it or not (in the same way the the foundation decided recently not to apply the request to prevent non-confirmed users from creating articles).  An optimist on the run! 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I used to be part of the community until this so-called idiocy took place. It is very clear that the community is a very small group of people who have no comprehension of American politics. If you don't like what Congress is doing, don't re-elect the same guys into Congress. If you haven't voted, get off your lazy ass and vote for someone who will represent you. Sitting a park or turning off Wikipedia is juvenile idiocy. I used to think I was part of a community. My monetary donations, time donations, and intellectual donations have gone to a group of people with kindergarten-level understanding of American politics. -- kainaw™ 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So what's the point of protesting here. Go straight to Meta Wikimedia for RfC or email to the Foundation directly. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In no way am I comparing the impact of these two events, but didn't we have a holiday in the US just yesterday for someone who helped bring about the Civil Rights movement by doing exactly what you're describing, with sit-ins and closures as protests against segregation laws? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around at the time, its job would have been to chronicle the sit-ins, not participate in them. --B (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If the community makes a really dumb decision, there need to be adults in the room to override that decision. How in the world can Wikipedia claim to be a neutral encyclopedia when it's taking part in a very, very political action? --B (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The content is neutral. Wikipedia itself isn't. It very publicly announces that its aim is the free collection and spreading of knowledge. As such, a bill like this one attacks that position directly, it would be wrong for Wikipedia not to react in such a situation that attacks its mission. It's a very common mistake to assume that neutral content means neutral site when it does not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What kind of tree do you get when you plant an apple seed? I am willing to bet that no matter how hard you try, you are going to get an apple tree and not a pear tree. When you sow a seed, that seed governs the fruit that is produced. You are asking us now to believe that we can sow a seed of non-neutrality and produce something neutral from it. I don't believe that's the case. If I may mix a metaphor, once you tear down the fence and open the path to Wikipedia being used for political activism, that fence is gone. This time, it's a blackout for SOPA. Next time, it may be a protest for abortion or tax policy. After that, it might be branding the pages of all Republican candidates with a red X. You've broken down the door - don't complain when something you don't like comes through. --B (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between protesting something that attacks our very mission and protesting things that are in no way related to the wiki such as abortion or tax policy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep its a sad day but admins delete 100's of copyright violations everyday under SOPA anyone of those violations could see us closed down in the US even though we may have deleted it within moments of being uploaded or posted. Gnangarra 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) re "the few who were aware of the debate" & "is a very small group of people who have no comprehension of American politics" - What!? There was a poll on this very talk page in which a huge number of people participated. There was very clear support for the proposition. Please quit implying there is some kind of cabal orchestrating this action.

SOPA clearly has serious implications for WP, it's entirely appropriate that WP has a serious reaction to its potential passage. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The decision was finalized over a US holiday weekend when many Americans were off enjoying life rather than using Wikipedia. We now come back to find out -- surprise! -- the site will be shut down in one day. Townlake (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless you assume that the SOPA discussion was dominated by non-Americans (and several blackout-opponents argue exactly the opposite), or that for some reasons supporters and opponents partake in holidays differentially, I don't see how this effected the outcome of the discussion. If you check WP:300, you can see that participation in the SOPA debate had at least twice as many participants than any previous discussion. Claiming lack of participation is a hard sell. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

People like Jimbo were more likely to be online over the holiday weekend. As Jimbo was.

I'm not claiming lack of participation, I'm claiming lack of opportunities for all types of Wikipedia users to have their voices heard. The power users orchestrated this blackout. Townlake (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

By definition you don't get into wp:300 just from the support of the very active. I'm one of the 200 editors with the highest edit counts, so you might term me a "power user" but I didn't vote because this is a US issue and I thought that it needed US editors to take the lead.

@B If there was a move to introduce SOPA in the UK I would be supporting action here, to my mind the boundary is over whether the project is being directly threatened. If we were to start taking a stance on abortion, tax or healthcare then we'd have blown our neutrality. But if politicians support or oppose legislation that would take the site down then it is reasonable for us to communicate that to our supporters. So yes it is sad that this has been forced on us, but charities are entitled, I would say expected, to defend their mission if politicians consider legislation that would impact directly on them. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for what its worth, quite a few of the Supporters of the blackout were non US citizens. Several live in the middle east, Europe and Canada. For whatever thats worth. so the decision to blackout was not driven solely by the US editors. --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that SOPA is a threat to Wikipedia, it's only because Wikipedia has chosen to coddle copyright violations. If we wanted to be serious about copyrighted content being uploaded here, we could be. We could disallow uploads from users who have not attained a level of trust and require some sort of verified identities to be on file for anyone who provides media that they did not personally create. Instead, we choose to allow anyone to slap a tag on any old thing they found on the internet and claim it as their own and very likely, nobody notices it for years. --B (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

e/c "charities are entitled, I would say expected, to defend their mission if politicians consider legislation that would impact directly on them." Exactly. If a bunch of armed thugs invaded the Wikipedia offices to put WIkipedia out of existence, it wouldn't be a violation of WP:POINT or WP:NPOV to use whatever force necessary to drive them out. If we slanted the content of the articles about those who took part, then it would be a violation. As an aside, I predict we will gain a whole new generation of editors, from all over the world—many, many more than are lost by those retiring to protest the protest. First Light (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You would lose editors who support neutrality and gain editors interested in political activism. Good plan. --B (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we will lose editors who don't understand our mission, and gain editors who do understand it: the sharing of information through an online encyclopedia. A great outcome, even though that wasn't the plan. First Light (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it's just one day. Have some perspective people. Not all slopes are slippery and we're not going to be protesting tax policy next. It is, however, a terrible shame if some editors leave over this, and I really hope those editors reconsider. But some editors leave any time there's a significant and contentious policy decision that goes against their personal principles, and there's no helping that. And maybe some editors would have left if the decision had gone the other way. It is too bad though and we'll sorely miss those editors who feel they can't stay with us because of this. Herostratus (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. It would be sad to lose any editors over this issue, even though it does happen now and then with various issues. Some people just need to vent—they should feel free, and are, to do so..... First Light (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a policy decision analogous to sighted revisions or some such thing - it's a complete abandonment of the core principle of neutrality. --B (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then go forth and start a Wikipedia's competitor in North Korea or even Saudi Arabia and let us know you can implement the core principle of neutrality irrespective of the legislative framework in which you operate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how does someone who disagrees with political activism not understand the mission of Wikipedia? I thought one of the five pillars was that Wikipedia is free content, not crap plagiarized from other sources. Instead, Wikipedia chooses to stand with the serial copyright violators like Youtube. Good show! --B (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think this is about supporting serial copyright violators then you clearly don't understand what is in the bill and the impact it will have on any website, not just sites that are copyright violators. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

e/c Defending our ability to exist is entirely coherent with our core mission to provide a free online encyclopedia. Regarding copyright violations, see WP:Copyclean for all the active efforts to clean up copyright violations here. Can you show me longtime Wikipedia editors and admins who actively support violation of copyrights? First Light (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the the five pillars is Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. B, how does that work if we require editors to provide real identities? How do you expect a Chinese dissident or a teenager from Namibia to establish their identity? And yes, this would affect all editors, not just uploaders - I can copy and paste a chapter of Finnegans Wake into the edit window just as easily as I can upload an image of the Eiffel Tower. Or I can use a perfectly fine fair-use image in an article where fair use for that articles does not apply. We do very much care about copyright, but we assume good faith and we don't censor the site proactively. We deal with copyright violations as they are are detected. And, of course, we are quite often the victim of copyright violation, too - to the degree that reports for US Congress committees are plagiarized from Wikipedia without attribution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

With some of the more drastic flavors of the proposed copyright enforcement, I see little trouble in someone dragging Wikipedia in costly lawsuits. Some of the WP:CCI investigations have made little progress in a full year. So, depending how someone is willing to spin "serial copyright violators" Wikipedia could easily be painted as one, alongside Youtube. Now prove in Federal court (at your expense) that you're not one. All this wile your site is off the net. Can't happen because it's OMG Wikipedia? Did I mention that a lot of Wikipedia articles link to pages of Google Books, another potential gold mine for copyright lawsuits under expanded legislation? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV is not being violated here, and the case for a violation of WP:POINT is far from clear: see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:NPOV,_WP:POINT_and_the_blackout below. Geometry guy 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Refund

For all those who are here with arguments about the blackout idiocy, I suggest we Legal Threat Redacted. We have donated time, content, and money to this project. The agreement was clear. This was a free and open encyclopedia. It is not longer free and open. A very small minority has stolen it and is using it for a political toy. I demand a full refund of all monetary donations I've made and a complete removal of all content I've donated. I suggest all others demand the same. -- kainaw™ 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest per No Legal Threats that you don't do that. Any threat of legal action, whether against a specific user or WP/WMF as a whole is still a legal threat. For your own good, I think you should strike your comment.  BarkingFish  14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't think that's an overreaction? Relax, you'll live. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The community could relax and live without the blackout. -- kainaw™ 14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though 501(c)(3) prohibits any political activity of the registered organization, the blackout itself is hardly "political action", I suppose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To prove a class action lawsuit you most be able to show significant damages - something that translates into significant money damages -either health, injury, loss of business, reputation, etc. It would never work for Wikipedia. You would also wind up spending in legal expenses much more than the 5% (I think?) that Jimbo stated was the limit for 501c3 Mugginsx (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, WP:NLT anyone? Seriously, Kainaw, that is a ridiculous suggestion, based on a gross mischaracterisation. It also has no legal merit whatsoever. As you should be well aware, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you have two rights only: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Both options are open to you, should you chose to take them. If it was the case that a 'very small minority' had taken over Wikipedia, one would assume that the 'large majority' opposed to this would support such a fork. If you actually believe what you are saying, this would be the logical course to follow, so are you going to give it a try? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The WMF's lawyer is involved and believes the action will not fall foul of any restrictions on the WMF by the code they are registered under. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not withstanding the over-the-top legal threat, you have no right to demand removal of your contributions either. You agreed to irrevocably release them GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Resolute 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be advisable to leave this as is now guys, I've referred Kainaw to WP:ANI since this is an unresolved legal threat, which has not been retracted.  BarkingFish  17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Get with the program. No Legal Threats refers to conversations within Wikipedia ARTICLE talk pages. ANI? What a colossal waste of time in this case. Mugginsx (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you are the one who needs to "get with the program", Mugginsx - Have you read the policy? It states, since you appear not to have read it, or if you have - not understood it - "If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages. If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding. Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." I have followed the policy to the letter, Mugginsx.  BarkingFish  18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I answered on the ANI - if his threats were just what he stated here that is one thing, if, as is now claimed, that he threatened to create vandalism software and to use it on Wikipedia, that is an entirely different story and I am with you. I asked you to please show me where he said that because I did not see it. Chill. Mugginsx (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Wolfram Alpha, you've been a member for 2784 days. If you've donated $1,000 that works out to about $0.36 for each day. Maybe we can all pitch in and write you a check for 36 cents to compensate you for your inability to use Wikipedia tomorrow? GabrielF (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While the idea of a refund of an unconditional donation is silly, the point here is NOT to compensate for a loss of opportunity to use Wikipedia. Rather, it is taking issue with Wikipedia now being overtly used for political activism. It borders on high comedy that an organization that just spent months with a banner begging for spare change so that we could give the gift knowledge to the unlearned masses around the world now is no longer interested in the unlearned masses, but instead is focused on making a political statement. I like to give to charitable organizations - I don't like to give to political organizations. --B (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The exact reason for this move is to protect the ability to get to that knowledge by the "unlearned masses". In doing this we are seeking to protect exactly that which we asked people to donate towards. This bill has the potential to cut off that which people donated to support. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very common for non-profits to engage in political activism, either by hiring lobbyists directly or by paying membership dues to a trade association that lobbies for them. A lot of the time that lobbying is directed at obtaining grants, but influencing legislation that affects your mission is very common. Its very rare for a charity to tell you that a portion of your donation is going towards overhead, whether lobbying or other administrative costs, but that's just the reality. (My college once sent me a mailer with a pitch to give to the annual fund so that they could pay for lightbulbs, but that's highly unusual - I've written plenty of solicitation letters and the standard practice is that you emphasize your cause and you don't bother to mention that you also need to pay the development office, the fundraising department, the accountants and, yes, the lobbyist) You can find out the percentage of any organization's funding that goes towards implementing its mission by looking at the public form 990 reports to the IRS on guidestar.org. Nowhere is it 100%. Compared to, say, The American Cancer Society, I'm sure that the percentage of money that WMF spends on political activity, blackout included, is miniscule.GabrielF (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! - Thank you! - Thank you!

SOPA is just the tip of the iceberg!

If it can pass in the US, then it can pass everywhere else! The Internet and Mobile communications with its small number of choking points can easily be manipulated, filtered and controlled by the few that could not care less about the many.

This is a direct challenge to democracy and freedom of speech. Piracy is just a great excuse.

A thankful avid user and admirer of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.107.2 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lights, Camera, BLACKOUT

Although I think that this may influence the government, how many other sites are doing this? Twitter already laughed at Wikipedia for doing this.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Twitter was commenting on the suggestion that Twitter would do the same as 'laughable', because they are a big commercial company, so lights out would mean 'no income' for them. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A 24 hour Blackout wouldn't really hurt them but it would get the message through.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 17:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have generated all this press, why not suspend the blackout, as this will generate a second huge wave of press. We can then carry forward with the blackout next time legislation is put on the calendar, which will generate yet another huge wave of press. Jehochman ^Talk 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the blackout is not solely to generate press - it's to wake up average citizens and readers of Wikipedia to call their congressional representatives. We will give them an easy tool to do that tomorrow, and I expect the result to be pretty amazing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA law has atleast made the website of Dutch news agency at least partially due to Wikipedia's black out. As Wikipedia is what the topic title and the first paragraph is about. It then goes on to explain what the law is and the positions of the people against and for it. So if you wanted to bring the law to people's attention, the black out has done so in the Netherlands.94.208.67.65 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy, you will lose committed editors and admins over this. It's already started happening. The RfC was fundamentally flawed with the acceptance of single-purpose account comments, and is not representative of the "Wikipedia community" as claimed in the closing rationale. I strongly second Jehochman's thoughts here, and those of the IP — if the aim was to get this into the media spotlight globally, it's succeeded. Please don't ruin Wikipedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the blackout at the same time I am opposing it. Although it discourages me from Wikipedia, it won't keep me away from it. This is a passion of mine and living in America, I certainly want this to stop SOPA. I just won't be editing tomorrow and that's all. I don't see why it's really that big of a deal.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It is not my thoughts that WP en shouldn't blackout. I was commenting on that this is laughable. As it is has reached the effect that it gotten this law to people's attention, I do feel this action has actual effect. Now whether to actually do the blackout is up to actual WP contributors/ WP community and WMF. I don't feel as outsider it is up to me influence the decision about this94.208.67.65 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Strange Passerby: I'd feel insulted, if I were the founder of an organisation - to have someone in that organisation accuse me of ruining it. Mr. Wales is clearly not doing that. He has the right intentions. Those two bills, are whats dividing the community. Not him.

We may lose "commited" editors, but we will gain many more. It will be unfortunate to see them leave, but it's their decision, left to their discretion. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why editors will stop editing because of 24 hour blackout. There are editors on this very page that are over reacting. Committed editors that stop editing because of this are not committed.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a day off... and if it helps the world to actually pick up a newspaper or read about SOPA for their benefit and education, Wikipedia's blackout is doing "the right thing".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking out now for the next 32 hours as per my talk page.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 511,139,074) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would much rather lose a few editors and admins than lose the entire encyclopedia. --Carnildo (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A source with more clarity would not hurt [8]. Don't forget that the main venue by which businesses can influence legislation is lobbying money. Google and Facebook aren't planning to shut down either. [9] But if instead of a blackout the WMF decided to give a few million bucks to anti-SOPA lobbyists, then imagine the outcry from that! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia was mentioned on "The View" today

According to my neighbor we were mentioned on "The View" today as havng a blackout tomorrow. Since I have not noticed any "mental giants" on that show, I cannot conceive of what was said. Does anyone know? Can't watch it online until tomorrow. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what all was said, but the explanation of the blackout is here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I already read it but was curious as to what was said on the TV show. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what you call "Even Steven" Reporting

Atlantic Wire Perfectly symmetrical regarding "for" and "against" what is happening here. Good article. Petersontinam (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

New Host

What's to stop someone else from hosting Wikipedia? All you'd need is some knowhow and some servers, right? Isn't it already mirrored in lots of places?

Just wondering,

Chrisrus (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can fork the content any time they please, but a new site wouldn't magically acquire Wikipedia's hoards of users. Various competing efforts have failed or are, at least, less than stunning successes. Citizendium and Wikinfo see a tiny fraction of Wikipedia's editing traffic. Veropedia doesn't exist any more. Wikipedia's pole position is not remotely threatened. --B (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. But then again, he never flipped the switch before. Chrisrus (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, there would be copyright concerns in calling the new site 'Wikipedia'. The Wikipedia logo is trademarked. I assume this hypothetical new site would care about such things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. But they could call it something else, there's nothing he could do? Chrisrus (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The right to fork is inherent in the way material is licensed. A mirror with now new editors would rapidly become dated though, and given the overwhelming support for the blackout, I doubt that many editors would switch to the fork. How are they going to fund it, anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All UK residents may be interested in...

...my suggestion of an "official" UK petition here. Great to get your thoughts, if only "Are you CRAZY?!?" :D Seriously though, it would be a very useful sanity check. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting, is that true? As an American, I think a UK petition would be a great idea. Mugginsx (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Imgur Going Dark

Where Sopa Pipa Stand Now Petersontinam (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit disturbed by Twitter's dismissal of SOPA blackouts as an appropriate tactic. While that's certainly their perogative not to make that sacrifice, I don't think they fully appreciate the impact this will have on their many users abroad. Dcoetzee 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As above, the twit later clarified [10] that his comment was not meant to be read as a "value judgement" about other organisations involvement in the action. While Murdoch has tweetled "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery." Surprised Murdoch hasn't put it behind a paywall. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also:

Non-Legislative Solutions

---

The White House believes that online piracy isn’t just a matter to be dealt with in Congress. Instead, it feels that content creators and Internet businesses should figure out methods to deal with the problem on their own.

“We expect and encourage,” said the post, “all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.”

What “voluntary measures” and “best practices,” exactly? That’s left up to those with a stake in the issue to decide amongst themselves.

---

Into The Future

---

The White House rounds out the post by calling for public and open dialogue between the public and Congress on the issue of digital piracy. They invited the organizer of the petition and a few of its signees to a conference about online piracy.

“Rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right.” And later in the post, “Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders.”

The administration also calls for any future legislation to have vast bipartisan support.

---

In other words...After the blackout, where does Wikipedia sit with contribution to legislation? Petersontinam (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better question - why should people in England or Australia be blocked from accessing Wikipedia, when they have no say in deciding what AMERICAN politicians get elected? That's just punishing them for no reason.--19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max84928492 (talk • contribs)

Because the legislation will affect them too. Many people from both those countries also voted to take this action. People in those countries do have a way to influence what happens by contacting their foreign affairs department who in turn if enough people make a noise contact the US and voice its countries displeasure with the bill. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Max..Look, I have no idea if any continued "protest of the protest" will stop the blackout. I was not in favor of a total blackout, but I have resigned myself to the fact that it seems to be happening. But come Thursday...The protest is over and then what? Many lawmakers, including Harry Reid, say that some form of legislation is being brought to the floor in the near future. Combine that with the White House and Office of Science and Technolgy asking for input...it is the perfect time for Wikipedia to offer up some solutions to bad legislation.

In other words: "We are gonna lock you up for your safety, if you are smart, give some tips on how you would prefer to be locked up." It's exactly this condescending tone that irks me even more. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, or it just may be as simple as this... Washington: "We really screwed up here, we don't have a clue. We hear you and ask that you (the ones that this legislation devastates) point us in the right direction." Petersontinam (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas Petersontinam (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be blacked out to protest SOPA and PIPA

Please note: In less than 11 hours, the English Wikipedia will be blacked out globally to protest SOPA and PIPA.

---

So much for Wikipedia having a "neutral point of view". You can't claim the website is neutral when you're actively using it to push a political agenda.

Oh and yes, I read the ridiculous disclaimer on the page regarding this "blackout", about how Wikipedia's content is neutral but it's "mission" isn't. That's an oxymoron, especially since this idiotic decision was promoted by Wikipedia admins and community members. You can't expect neutral decisions to come non-neutral individuals. Nor should you let a minority of vocal wack-tivists decide to take away Wikipedia from the billions of people who use it daily. Why should for example, people in Britain who use the English Wikipedia lose access to it when they have no say in electing the politicians who passed this bill?

Plus this protest is nothing but fearmongering - like something you'd hear on Alex Jones' website - whether or not anyone agrees with the Bills or not - the idea that the passing of this bill is going to lead to the entire internet being censored by some "Big Brother" is just a slippery slope.

So how long is this stupid blackout going to be in effect anyway? Or are you shutting it down for good and is this whole thing really just a ruse for the real reason it's being shut down (ex. lack of donation money)? I'd really love to know.--Max84928492 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid question. Is it 24 hours or what? HOW LONG IS THE BLACKOUT GOING TO BE FOR? There, maybe someone will see it and answer it.

OK, I will answer it myself. TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. Mugginsx (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

To Jimbo Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

I am Thebirdlover, a user of your site for one year and a rollbacker since December. I am normally one of your biggest supporters and have recommended Wikipedia even when people have said your encyclopedia was unencyclopedic and have protected this wiki from vandals many, many times. But I am very opposed to the blackout. I think that this is a unwarranted politically motivated protest that violates NPOV and Do not disrupt to make a point. If this protest actually goes through, there may be unintended consequences that may violate the spirit of our wiki and will hurt the basis that it was founded on such as stuff like this happening again. Although some of Jimbo's statements such as the mission vs. purpose one stated above could clearly indicated contridictions are already being started up even now. At one time I loved this site and thought this was one of the best reference sources ever. Now I am afraid that I may be starting to agree with the dissidents in some ways. I just hope that you all change your minds and that my opinion matters like it would have if I was here a few years ago.

From, --Thebirdlover (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: Also note the fact, that there is no website that is a mirror wikipedia information later than 2007 due to your mirror censorship. This means that no one will have up to date information on obscure subjects in cases where it would be helpful to them. This of course, is hypocritical to the boundaries stated.

How arrogant must you be to think Jimbo is going to back down against the consensus because you don't like it.. If you cut the pedantic bullshit you'd realise that it is a bill which could potentially put an end to the freedom of wikipedia, its very existence and the freedom of knowledge, and anything which threatens that must be stopped regardless of "rules". Or would you rather wikipedia kept being sued and eventually might have to be forced to shutdown permanently? Put things in perspective and stop whining, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any call to be so rude to someone because they disagree with you, Blofeld. I'm pretty sure you could have responded by noting the risks and your own personal opinion without being such a jackass. Resolute 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Well said, Resolute. --JaGa^talk 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns stated but I think the purpose as a free neutural encyclopedic source discourages anything that could be remotely considered political bias and that doing that will be really damaging to our reputation. As well as the fact that this will really inconvenience people across the world.

--Thebirdlover (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly think the situation is ideal myself but understand TheBirdlover if the bill passes it could put an end to the encyclopedia you love so dearly. Anything which threatens the way it functions and its existence in my opinion must be stopped even if technically it goes against NPOV and Do not disrupt to make a point. Sure we are trying to produce a free neutral encyclopedia with no stance on anything but imagine this. The bill passes. Wikipedia did not do all it could in its power to try to prevent it. We suddenly face multiple lawsuits to the point we can no longer host BLP content because of the fear of being sued. Is that what you want? The way I see it is that if the actual function of wikipedia is threatened we must do all we can to defend ourselves. @Resolute. I'm tired of people moaning about it. Its only 24 hours.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Support. I thought about NPOV, but realized that NPOV won't matter if Wikipedia becomes too much of a liability to exist anyway. " Says it all..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am offering support for the safety of Wikipedia only. I am still concerned about the credibility of the site though and still think my points are valid. --Thebirdlover (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld, firstly it is not arrogant of Thebirdlover to ask for Jimbo to reconsider. He is only adding his voice to many of us who have the same concern. Secondly, do you really think that even if the bill goes through, this will bring down Wikipedia? It may cause us to have to tighten our grip on copyvios (a good thing), but no politician (not even an American one) is going to be dumb enough to commit political suicide by attempting to ban one of the largest and most educational websites in the world. I can still listen to Tchaikovsky [11].  An optimist on the run! 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the defence. While I think the law isn't the best way to combat piracy, the way people are trying to destroy the law is not good either. I personally doubt that Congress would go after Wikipedia but other unexpected stuff have happened before. --Thebirdlover (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are legitimate disagreements here, and no need for forceful language or ad hominem arguments. My concern with this thread (or two?), is that some editors are applying policies and guidelines outside of their domain of validity, and hence hitting a brick wall. I have started a separate thread below on this. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Wiki Blackout

Just heard about our blackout on BBC news. Very well stated as always is at the BBC News.

That's two announcements I have heard today from two different sources. Mugginsx (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And a Canadian Press report on how even Canadian websites are joining, and why. Resolute 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the media coverage is surprisingly aware of the issues here, though they don't always get the details straight. Here are two from mainstream news sites:

• The Atlantic: The Discussion That Led to the Wikipedia Blackout Is Pretty Amazing
• The Christian Science Monitor: Wikipedia blackout: Site to protest SOPA

First Light (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am actually old enough to remember when US News was informationally (I lnow that's not a word but it should be) correct and unbiased. Too bad. Now I only listen to the BBC. Got my neighbor to do the same. If I want unbiased information I usually go to Wikipedia where the majority of the editors just want to get it right and they don't even get paid for it. I love Wikipedia. Be back Thursday. Mugginsx (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Democracy Now devoted its first two segments to the issues and is available to watch online [12] (great show). It was also mentioned during the first half hour of the Today show this morning. Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The en.wp blackout is covered in Hong Kong by Cable TV (Hong Kong) news today (I watched it on the train while riding to office). This is by far the first time the SOPA and PIPA are being reported in Hong Kong TV channel and that really made my day. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox news just named briefly WP's blackout.--Neo139 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

It's one day. Get over it kids. 98.17.50.80 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I know! Read the Bread and Roses Strike for crying out loud. Grrr! Gandydancer (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am supporting the blackout. It's just one of those things that one has to do; this is about freedom of speech and writing not politicising Wikipedia. Sometimes one has to realsie that there is a bigger picture. Giacomo Returned 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly hope the site takes a huge nose dive after this. I have poured countless hours across years of my life helping to build this project, and now I get to watch us make a childish point over legislation that may not even pass. Knee jerk political statements to events that are far less significant than countless issues Wikipedia routinely remains silent on do not lead to the greatest compendium of knowledge in human history. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your hoping for a "huge nose dive" is not very impressive, Hiberniantears. If you would read the analysis by the Foundation's attorneys, you would know that this is not a "childish" issue. A company like Google would not protest if this was a "childish" issue. The reason that SOPA and PIPA "may not even pass" is exactly because of the opposition organized by many websites including Wikipedia. Most analysts were predicting an easy victory of SOPA and PIPA just a few weeks ago. The fight is far from over - Former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, now head of MPAA, issued a defiant statement ridiculing the Internet community today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. It is our reaction that is childish, short sighted, and wholly hypocritical. We are a laughing stock. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in the real world. In the real world, this blackout has been a complete success—before it has even begun. Sometimes it is best to think about things outside your own head for perspective. BTW, you should turn in your tools. For an admin, a trusted member of the community, to say "I honestly hope the site takes a huge nose dive after this" tells me you aren't suited for the position. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and the blackout

There are many opinions on the forthcoming blackout (for instance, I think it goes way too far), but it is evident from many posts that a lack of clarity about some basic issues is impeding mutual understanding. Here is my attempt to spell out some of the distinctions.

1. The blackout does not violate WP:NPOV for multiple reasons.
   • Wikipedia (the encyclopedia project) is not neutral. It is instead a rather radical vision to bring the sum of all human knowledge to everyone on the planet. Many people and cultures oppose such freely available knowledge, and action is being taken here because (rightly or wrongly) editors believe that Wikipedia's mission is threatened by the proposed legislation.
   • WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia articles should be written from an editorially neutral standpoint (representing all other significant viewpoints fairly and without bias). The principle that articles should be written in such a way is itself a point of view. It is a point of view that Wikipedians may share, but again, there are many people and cultures that oppose this free approach to the presentation of knowledge.
   • Thus NPOV has little to do with the blackout because (a) it concerns Wikipedia articles, not the Wikipedia project; and (b) NPOV is not the same as "neutral" anyway.
2. Political actions taken by Wikipedia may be harmful to its reputation, and criticism of such actions is entirely legitimate. The distinctions between neutrality and NPOV, Wikipedia (the project) and Wikipedia (the collection of articles) are sufficiently subtle that many do not notice them, journalists are likely to conflate them, and critics may deliberately confuse them.
3. WP:POINT is entitled "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", but it is a behavioral guideline about editing Wikipedia ("best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" as with all guidelines). It primarily concerns attempts to "prove" a point by editing disruptively (read it!). It could be argued that all editors promoting the blackout have broken WP:POINT, but it isn't an easy case to make, and even if it is made, the large support for action strongly suggests it may be an "occasional exception".
4. WMF (the non-profit organization) and Wikipedia (the project) are not the same thing. WMF may own the trademark and host the servers, but: (a) Wikipedia (the content) is freely licensed and mirrored elsewhere; (b) Wikipedia (the project) is driven by volunteer editors, not WMF employees; and (c) Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to the WMF. In particular, the WMF can withdraw its service whenever it likes: this does not violate WP:POINT, because the WMF is not a Wikipedia editor.
5. Nevertheless, it is entirely legitimate to criticize the WMF for its choice to implement the blackout. It had no obligation to do so, and history will judge whether the choice was wise.

Geometry guy 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, good points. But there is a difference between simply criticising them and sending messages explicitly demanding that they don't do it and expecting them to go against the clear consensus to do this.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Political actions taken by Wikipedia may be harmful to its reputation". That is POV fearmongering. It may be more harmful to its reputation to do nothing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec replies) I agree, it may be more harmful to Wikipedia's reputation to do nothing: we will only ever see the outcome of the choice made, so we will never know for sure. Concerning the WMF, they have no obligation to follow onwiki consensus (but I hope they will always respect it, and take it very seriously), and I fully support the right of individuals to protest to the WMF that they should not (have) take(n) action. I would not do that myself, and am surprised (but not unpleasantly so!) that the first responses to my comments come from a pro-action perspective. Geometry guy 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't kill the messenger, OK? But I was afraid that this slant would be thrown back at Wikipedia: Chris Dodd Possibly some additional statements from Wikipedia should be made to combat this kind of accusation? Petersontinam (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious they won't make an offical statement because they aren't really gonna care what those people think and are stubborn. I'm not trying to be mean about it but I really think that this is the closest to any official statement. And I'm not sure it's fear mongering even though it is somewhat blunt. But then again, criticism can help. I already did it and I'm getting a lot of helpful reaction

--Thebirdlover (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would politely suggest that SunCreator strikes his criticism of "fearmongering", as such emotive words do not promote good dialogue. Geometry guy 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

CBS Evening News

CBS just reported: "Wikipedia is conducting a blackout tomorrow to protest legislation which would prevent websites from linking to copyrighted information like Wikipedia". That is what they said! This is why I watch BBC World News for America. Mugginsx (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

CBS is normally considered a reliable source though, so this is verifiable fact which I expect to see reflected in the relevant articles as soon as possible. --FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misinterpreted verifiability, not truth. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And then there is this:

Sopa to resume in February Not Dead, not shelved. Petersontinam (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quoting Smith from PC World, "To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property," the transparent nationalism, and transparency of the position against free-as-in-speaky-beer and free-as-in-beery-speak intellectual productions, the attempt to enclose the commons of thought, and the claim that America does not share in the common intellectual heritage of thousands of years of human culture; but, owns it outright. Much, so much, of Smith's position is fundamentally opposed to the free encyclopaedic project. Thankfully, the community is sensible enough to only take action against this when and as it threatens our project of a free encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, somewhere in that batch of news, Google has decided to protest with a banner. [13] [14] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and someone seems to gently hint towards Conservapedia maybe?

“ Representative Smith railed against Wikipedia’s blackout plan in a separate statement: “It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act. The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites,” he wrote. “This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.” ”

Mark Twain

[15] Testimony before Congress.

What is the excuse? It is that the author who produced that book has had the profit of it long enough, and therefore the Government takes a profit which does not belong to it and generously gives it to the 88,000,000 of people. But it doesn't do anything of the kind. It merely takes the author's property, takes his children's bread, and gives the publisher double profit. He goes on publishing the book and as many of his confederates as choose to go into the conspiracy do so, and they rear families in affluence. So if, as that gentleman said, a book does consist solely of ideas, that is the best argument in the world that it is property, and should not be under any limitation at all. We don't ask for that.

--Collect (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a treat to read the whole thing... Petersontinam (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

[16] Hunting for H - - - .

There are more fools in the world than you would think for. When our Geographical Society met last we found that we had got hold of one. This was the new member. So I just set it down as a maxim, then, that if fools can work their way into even a Geographical Society, there isn't any place that's safe against them. However, that's neither here nor there; I simply mention it in passing; it hasn't anything do with what I started out to tell you about.

--AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

About tonight

I just wanted to personally send a thank you for what your doing to get your point across about SOPA and PIPA. Thank you for supporting the exchange of free information and taking a stand, not being afraid to ruffle feathers and honestly gaining mine and many others respect for your values. I have donated many times and I feel proud to have supported a company willing to stand up for the people and the information you offer. Thank you

Please forward this to the appropriate party.

Regards, Robert Lavell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.252.96 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

On the amusing side

[17] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris Dodd is defiant

Former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the Motion Picture Association of America and leading advocate for SOPA and PIPA, issued a defiant statement saying we are "corporate pawns", calling the blackout a "stunt", an "abuse of power" and a "dangerous and troubling development". Such extreme rhetoric shows that the pro-SOPA/PIPA forces have been badly hurt by our protest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Or it might possibly be what he thinks is the truth. Amazingly enough, that can happen in this world. Collect (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that this is just Chris Dodd's disinterested, objective opinion unrelated to his employment by the motion picture industry, and is not a desperate tactic in a bitter political battle to push through SOPA/PIPA, then I have to disagree with you. But you are welcome to judge Dodd's amazing statement any way you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that it is both. Dodd genuinely believes these comments to be true; but, Dodd's conceptual apparatus is so limited by his own beliefs that politics is a "stunt" "abuse of power" and dominated by "corporate pawns" (if only it were corporate prawns!), that he is incapable of believing that people organise in economically and politically different ways to hierarchical corporate power structures, for instance, as volunteer consensus based collectives. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why Senators Blumenthal and Lieberman were cosponsors of PIPA and Congressman Larson was a cosponsor of SOPA given that there aren't that many media companies in Connecticut (ESPN being a notable exception). Now I understand. I am sad to see that a guy who gets paid to lobby for giant media companies sees volunteer wikipedia editors as "corporate pawns". The Dodd family has a history of public service dating from the time Chris Dodd's father served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. I think Chris Dodd is failing to live up to that legacy. GabrielF (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I live in Connecticut and have hired a lobbyist to work on behalf of our search industry group. So far I have appointments with the staff of Reps Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney. Wikipedia being down tomorrow will suck because I need it to compile materials for these meetings. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a favorable impression of Chris Dodd for many years, but now have severe doubts. Looking at it from another direction, he is just aggressively doing his job. His interests are contrary to ours, at least when it comes to freedom of information online. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck with your meetings. If I still lived in CT I would have loved to join you. I've met Murphy and found him to have a sophisticated take on complex issues, although he probably has a lot of ESPN employees in his district. Haven't met Courtney. GabrielF (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As a Connecticut resident, I wholeheartedly share all the sentiments above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Dodd is himself a corporate pawn. And Wikipedia has been pressed into service for political activism. Both realities are deplorable. Writegeist (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has interests and needs to protect them. Democracy can be ugly. If you can't stand it, look away. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anybody in Murphy's or Courtney's districts are welcome to attend if space permits. We are also trying to set up a meeting with Blumenthal's people. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm further southwest (Himes, though I'd rather have Shays back), so good luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Talking points

I tried explaining to my grandmother what was wrong with SOPA . It was harder than I thought. She was very receptive to the idea that piracy is bad and therefore SOPA is good. So, I came up with some talking points; next time I'll be better prepared:

Piracy is a problem, but frankly the internet is a much more vital asset than the entertainment industry. SOPA further erodes safe harbor provisions. It includes circumvention prohibitions that would criminalize tools which protect privacy and empower activists and dissidents. It institutes DNS blocking that emulates repressive regimes and breaks basic infrastructure and security. It targets websites through intermediaries without robust due process. It contains overly broad and vague language, and overly harsh penalties. It gives rights-holders excessive power. It gives the attorney general unchecked regulatory authority. It threatens vital entrepreneurship, collaboration, and productivity. It raises costs for pioneering technology innovators. It is biased towards old media which has failed to successfully adapt to modern business models. It was written by music and movie lobbyists without input from the internet community and technology experts. It opens the door to censorship and limitations on free speech. It doesn't even accomplish its goal of effectively cutting off piracy, and is easily circumvented. It is vulnerable to abuse, threatening non-infringing sites and users. It encourages preemptive censorship to avoid liability. It punishes innocent users, and is ineffective against those dedicated to piracy.

If I missed anything, let me know and I'll add it to my rant when I call my representative tomorrow. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c}

I heard this analogy today, not sure what the original sources is, but banning the internet because it might be used to facilitate copyright pirating is like banning cars because they might be used in the commission of a bank robbery.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN interview

[18] Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 01:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The blackout is ON TOP OF GOOGLE NEWS :o [19] (perma-view: [20])Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How to access Wikipedia during the blackout

Disable JavaScript

Since “Wikipedia” blackout implementation uses javascript, it’s so simple to get it back. Just turn of/Disable javascript in your browser and Wikipedia will be accessible again during blackout.

Here is how to disable Javascript in Firefox:

* go to options and then content and uncheck “Enable Javascript”.

For Chrome:

* In settings, Go to “Under the bonnet” then click “content settings” and disable Javascript.

Cheers! Stubbleboy 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple

Anybody who really needs to edit tomorrow can visit http://simple.wikipedia.org and do some good there. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout a success before it is even underway

An argument that some people - whether Wikipedia users and readers, or commenters on other websites - have missed or skimmed over up to this point is that the goal of the blackout is to raise awareness of the potential ramifications of SOPA and PIPA to the general public; that is to say, not just the people behind Google, Wikipedia, and the multitude of social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter) and what we could perhaps term the internet culture that supports them, but the people who spend a minority of their time online and who would otherwise be unaware of the bills in question. In short, the purpose in blacking out Wikipedia for a limited duration is to inform ordinary citizens, both Americans and worldwide, of how SOPA and PIPA will affect the freedom of the internet.

As of the time that I write this, with just over three hours yet to go before the blackout is enacted, the Wikipedia blackout is among the top news items on Google News, BBC News, National Post, CNN, CBC News, The Guardian, and The Telegraph, among an almost uncountable multitude of others. Indeed, a simple Google News search for 'Wikipedia blackout' shows nearly 3000 recent articles on the subject. This cursory internet search does not, of course, factor in news reports broadcast over other mediums, such as television broadcasts and radio reports. Additional sections above note reports broadcast in nations where English is not a primary language. In this regard the driving goal behind the enacting of a global blackout, to increase awareness of SOPA and PIPA to the citizens of the world, appears to have been successfully achieved before it is even underway. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I support the blackout, but now I wouldn't care if it was retracted for whatever reason. The potential damage by SOPA and PIPA truly reaches greater public we had hoped. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Timing

Please see Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Timing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)