Public Service agencies shouldn't go on strike. Doctors and nurses would be ostracized for doing so. Although I agree with your position on the topic at hand, you are quite wrong to shut down in protest. Would it be okay for a fireman to protest while homes burn down? I don't think so. Is it okay for you to protest while I miss deadlines, unable to complete my research? I hope it makes you feel better, but for me, it only hurts. Just out of curiosity, what are you going to do for the next protest? Burn books? Delete content? Enkelisiipi (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that might help, beside your local library ;), there are multiple copies of Wikipedia Content spread througout the web. You can find some URLs at WP:MIRROR. -- Luktalk08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll survive just fine without Wikipedia for 24 hours. Think long term: your research would really suffer if five years down the road Wikipedia's quality is diminished by a suffocating web of legal requirements. Dcoetzee09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is PRECISELY why there should be a UK-specific wikipaedia. As if navigating the poor spelling and grammar and the Americocentric articles wasn't bad enough, UK users are now faced with a denial of service as a result of a protest against proposed country-specific legislation in another international state.Jatrius (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, Jatrius, Brits are just as guilty of poor spelling and grammar--and of writing articles relevant only to their own country or as if other countries didn't exist or were irrelevant--as Americans are. Angr (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a Canadian, I am fully in support of a global blackout. Attempts to censor the internet are a global problem, not just an American one. The MPAA/RIAA and it's Canadian counterparts are heavily involved in lobbying efforts to do the same here, and I believe your Digital Economy Act has some fairly dangerous provisions in it. While this protest is aimed at US lawmakers specifically, hopefully it will cause people in other countries to take an interest in what their governments may be doing. Resolute15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales once said "Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral" (Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005)".. Looks like that's gone out of the Window. Wikipedia will be disrupted to make a political POINT.--Scott Mac12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your position, my position was, and remains, that working with the people in Congress (or any legislative body - including in the EU) does a great deal more than making noise in this manner. Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does the work (Twain). I know it is fun to "make noise" - but even at football games it is not the "noise" which wins games - it is the normal routine of playing the game which wins. If Wikipedia wishes to be involved in the political process, it would accomplish a great deal more by "playing the game" than it will ever gain by "making noise" (fun though it might be). Collect (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with this. What exactly are people intending to do with this massive toys and prams moment? The people who understand SOPA will carry on campaigning using constructive methods (whatever they are), the masses of people who just come on here to look up information will think "SOPA? WTF? Bloody geeks." If this act is as bad as people say it is, they need to educate people using plain and simple English on what to do - not throw a massive hissy fit because they're not getting their own way. Perhaps, heaven forbid, there may be people who casually edit WP who support the act? Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Ritchie333(talk)13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a uniquely important issue that directly affects the existence of Wikipedia as we know it. It is not taking sides in a partisan dispute, as both conservatives and liberals can be found opposing this legislation. It is not a uniquely American issue, as censorship is on the rise globally. The form of the protest is orderly, will cause no lasting damage, and will not threaten anyone's health or safety. This is the right action to take, for everybody. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go and have a look what Frank Zappa did about censorship. He went into the courts and fought it first hand. Do you honestly think anyone actually proposing these laws is going to care in the slightest about some website being offline for a day? --Ritchie333(talk)16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not directly, but I do think that the blackout will significantly raise awareness of Internet censorship among the public, leading people to contact their government representatives about the issue (as I did today, and encourage all to do the same, regardless of your nationality). That is something that lawmakers care about. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This will make people think that the Wikipedia is purely American, which will damage its credibility with Australian readers more than the proposed legislation. They will be confronted with a protest about something they have never heard of. If there is a problem, WMF should move the servers outside the US. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Special report