User:Raindrift/SOPA Draft

Coordinated SOPA reaction in early 2012 RfC
It was announced on December 16, 2011 that a floor vote on SOPA is delayed until early 2012. While the threat of this legislation still looms, the brief reprieve gives our community time to reach a meaningful consensus about whether to take action, and what action to take.

Background information
The Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA", H.R.3261) is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States. The bill would expand the ability of law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. It has seen widespread opposition from all corners of the Internet, and poses a unique threat to Wikipedia's continued operation.

Two proposals for a response from the Wikipedia community have been advanced so far (first proposal, second proposal), but neither was conducted with enough lead-time to reach a meaningful consensus.

Proposal
Here is a proposal that we believe strikes a reasonable compromise, chosen as a moderate sampling of the ideas posted on Wikipedia:SOPA initiative:


 * Triggering event: When SOPA has passed committee and is scheduled for a floor vote in either the House or Senate. The banner runs for the week before the vote, and switches to the blackout on the day before.
 * Scope: Response is geotargeted to United States IP addresses only
 * Duration: Maximum of 7 days for banner component, maximum of 24 hours for blackout component. Blackout is triggered on the business day before the vote.  If the vote is on a Monday, blackout runs for 24 hours starting Friday.
 * Action (banner): Banners encourage people to contact their Senators and Representatives (priority given to whichever is urgent, House or Senate).
 * To the maximum extent possible, readers are given instant information on how they can take action. Campaign is designed to mobilize the public maximally.
 * The focus is on generating high-value congressional contacts (phone calls and in-person contacts vs letters or emails)
 * A VOIP-based callback system (such as the one used recently by tumblr) is an option if we can find one that fits our needs and allows us to remain acceptably independent.
 * Banners operate like the fundraising banners (served via CentralNotice, can be closed per-user, etc).
 * Action (blackout): All requests are answered with a black page. The page is semi-protected Wikitext.  Once the page is displayed, a cookie is set which prevents its display again.  Exact wording to be decided, but it hits the following points:
 * SOPA puts Wikipedia, and the rest of the free Internet, at risk
 * You can help by contacting your representative and senators (with maximally easy help with ways to do that)
 * A "Learn more about SOPA" link which points to the relevant article on the English Wikipedia
 * A "Why am I seeing this" link which points to a page detailing the process for reaching this consensus
 * A link to click through to the originally requested page
 * "You will only see this page once"

This gets the message across clearly, explains how to help, is targeted to people who have the ability to effect change, shows that the protest was a community decision, and doesn't reduce the utility of Wikipedia for readers.

To set this proposal in the context of similar actions in the past, see this summary.

Need
While most of us understand the power that Wikipedia has in this situation and the size of our audience, some are still skeptical that a citizen response can change the course of this legislation. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, member of the House Judiciary Committee addressed this concern on Reddit:

"My best assessment is that most members of the House who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee have not yet focused on SOPA. People should realize that incredible power they have to impact the thinking of their own Representative on the subject. For example, a very intelligent colleague who is not on the Committee approached me today asking about the bill. Why? He had received an urgent and forthright telephone call from a small business person in his district who is tremendously opposed. He wanted to know more about our Open Act Alternative. This is the power that each of you have with your own Representative. --Rep. Zoe Lofgren"

Critique
The most common critique of this proposal is that it controverts NPOV (the spirit, not the letter which specifically regards article content). This came up often in response to previous proposals, so it's worth addressing directly. We'll try to re-state the objection and respond:

'''Objection: Presenting unbiased information is one of Wikipedia's most important values. This sort of action demonstrates a clear bias, undermines our integrity, and sets a dangerous precedent with regard to the possibility of future actions.'''

The encyclopedia should be neutral. Nobody is suggesting that we make biased pages to wreck the careers of politicians who vote the wrong way, or that our page on SOPA itself should be biased. "NPOV is non-negotiable."

However, the project space need not be NPOV, the Foundation need not be NPOV, the community need not be NPOV. There are very good reasons to avoid general political activism that might split the community or cause drama, but that's more about practicality than principles. There are also very good reasons to embrace political activism when the core policies that make the Internet successful are threatened, and when that activism can actually draw our otherwise diverse community into a sense of unity around a cause that we can nearly all support by the nature of being Wikipedians. Such an event is so rare and extraordinary that we can't imagine this sort of protest becoming common practice.

SOPA threatens the very same values that the many well-meaning editors making this argument seek to protect. User:Neilk articulated this in a comment on a previous proposal:

"I believe that NPOV is a reason to take a public stance. This proposed law would ensure that some points of view are not represented on Wikipedia. It would be as if the government were removing information from Wikipedia, and then threatening jail time for anyone who dared to revert. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to take a stance on issues that directly threaten our project and our values."

We agree that there is value in staying out of political discussion. It's important that the world perceive Wikipedia to be neutral, and distinctions between content and community are often lost on the uninvolved public. Ultimately, the question we're asking is this: is the potential for harm to Wikipedia's reputation worth enduring to oppose legislation that could threaten its very existence, and undo years of work in creating a free and open Internet? We believe it is.

Personal statements from proposal authors
Ian Baker: While I work for WMF as a developer, this proposal is made by myself as an individual. I am aware that the Foundation officially opposes SOPA, but am in no way representing the Foundation when I write this. I care about Wikipedia deeply, and am therefore very concerned about this bill's imminent passage.

Jimbo Wales: I have sought to assist Ian in trying to make this proposal mild and widely acceptable. We do not have a lot of time for debate, as markup is set to begin again on December 21st and this could still make it to the floor of the House quite quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)