Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA initiative/Ideas


WP:SOAP at the very least. We are not a project that takes political initiatives to legislative bodies, or even discusses the idea. We are writing an encyclopedia. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blanket comment to those that argue that there needs to be a place to discuss this: There's a whole project devoted to this kind of thing. http://meta.wikimedia.org. I wouldn't argue with issues like this being discussed there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote from main SOPA initiative page: "The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here." It doesn't seem that WP:SOAP and WP:NOT quite fit as deletion reasons here...there is no propaganda or recruitment going on, just brainstorming. It was started to provide a place for input/ideas from anyone who cares to do so. The purpose of any ideas is to help provide information towards future legislation that seriously impacts Wikipedia. If Washington does call upon organizations such as WMF for input, which they have said they will, this is a location where the WMF can add ideas from; a location of sincere input from Wikipedia users who have suggestions to avoid faulty policies that directly impact them. Very simple and no malicious intent whatsoever. Petersontinam (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Why Mfd this specific page rather than SOPA initiative. Is there a reason? -- Klein zach  02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject as a whole is a response to a direct request from Jimbo. The better part of valor and such prevents me from going after that mess. There's no need to let it proliferate beyond the problem it has already created. Additionally, while the parent page was targeted at an internal action, this one is specifically soliciting ideas for input to outside bodies: that's a violation of WP:NOT by any reasonable reading.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - brainstorming ways to help support the project isn't a violation of NOT#FORUM which is written to limit the scope of discussion on article talk pages, not project pages. Selery (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that WP:NOT only applies to article talk pages? The plain text of the section contradicts that notion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "... talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk...." Selery (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that from the little blurb that goes at the talk of an abused talk page? WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for ...". Perhaps you should click on WP:NOT and read the policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is where that quote is from. You are quoting from WP:SOAP. Brainstorming about ways to help the project isn't using it as a soapbox, either. Selery (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An amazing brain-fart on my part. Corrected rationale, but WP:SOAP specifically prohibits "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind", and that is what this page is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we are allowed to advocate for the project, and I am not sure what you see as propaganda or recruitment. Selery (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – I think that the issue with Wikipedia and SOPA is a unique one, and while I don't support special treatment regarding SOPA in the mainspace, I do support, to an extent, relevant discussion in the project-space, as it is most certainly relevant to the encyclopedia (especially given the aftermath of the blackout). I feel that this is such appropriate discussion. --MuZemike 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The wikipedia community has to decide whether they want to write an encyclopedia or engage in political action. Actually, the blackout was a first step in the latter direction. If we want to follow that course, I think it is a much better idea to come up with constructive ideas (as are discussed on this page) than to simply protest. Mhkoepf (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is a need for somewhere that wikipedians can air their opinions on this subject. However, it would be nicer if it was not limited to discussion of US law. There are other countries in the world.  Deb (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - In 11 years, this was a unique situtation. I see where WP:SOAP is a concern, however, input from those affected by a law that threatens the existence of Wikipedia is not your typical soapboxing. Perhaps there should be a formal outlet for this input put forth by the WMF. Either way, the protest happened (successfully), Washington said "put your money where your mouth is", and a reasonable response would be that somewhere there should be constructive input towards legislation...input which explains clearly to lawmakers the unintended consequences of SOPA and PIPA. On this "Ideas" page there may be critical input that makes a difference...is that soapboxing or survival? I don't think anyone believes that some form of SOPA and PIPA isn't going to come forward in the future. Petersontinam (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As others have said, SOPA is a unique issues, the likes of which Wikipedia has never before had to deal with. The most important policies regarding neutrality and the like are maintained in the mainspace; our article on SOPA adheres well to those guidelines. However, the SOPA initiative pages are relevant to the future workings of Wikipedia and are behind the scenes enough not to undermine our dedication to neutrality. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for the humor value alone. That page is hilarious. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:SOAP, and belongs on a political action site rather than in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -Discussions for betterment of the "Flow of Knowledge" --Ne0 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This particular page is patently idiotic. "universal social wage"? "public campaign finance"? I stopped reading after that. T. Canens (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is very impolite to call anyone's ideas "idiotic" or to make fun of people sincerely putting forth their ideas. Disagreeing (without contempt or superiority) is a much better way to get your point across. It takes courage to put your suggestions forward, even more so when it seems there are people ready to pounce to try and make you feel foolish. Petersontinam (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting discussion, following naturally from the Blackout. -- J N  466  22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above keeps. No valid reason for deletion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a place to discuss ideas to promote the survival of the project. I actually don't read this as a WP:SOAP violation at all, but for those who construe it as such, consider: if the project dies, WP:SOAP and all other policies die with it. If that happens, wouldn't it would have been better to invoke WP:IAR? Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While I agree the reaction was a bit...much, and seems to violate WP:SOAP, I believe that WP:IAR was created for instances like this. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.