Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

For more information on the proposed law itself, see SOPA To see the conclusion of the community discussion, skip down to this section For post-blackout news, initatives and discussion, see /Post-blackout activities and initiatives

This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and our response to it (if any). Jimmy Wales asked for community on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives.

The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. 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.

Voice your support or opposition to the proposals by voting. You may also display a userbox on your userpage with the SOPA template.

Updates on SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN
January 23, 2012 - Senator Leahy made a statement urging the Senate to pass PIPA. From Politico: "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) isn’t backing down from his fight for Congress to pass anti-piracy legislation and said on the Senate floor today he hopes “that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery.” Leahy said he regretted the Senate will not be proceeding with its cloture vote on the PROTECT IP Act, stressing that online piracy costs jobs and poses a risk to public safety. He added that “misinformation” was spread on the Web about what the bill would accomplish. “My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem,” Leahy said." Senator Leahy's full statement is available on his website. For more information, see Sen. Leahy Isn’t Giving Up On PIPA Yet, Talking Points Memo. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 20, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) said that he is postponing consideration of the bill in response to concerns from critics who said the bill could lead to censorship. He stated: "'I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy,' Smith said in a statement. 'It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.'"

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would delay the vote scheduled for Tuesday to begin consideration until the Senate Judiciary Committee could make more progress. "We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.

January 17, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith announced that he expects SOPA markup to continue in February. Here is Rep. Smith's full statement: To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy. Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February. I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property. As TechDirt predicted, earlier claims of SOPA's death were premature. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

January 16, 2012 - Mike Masnick from TechDirt explains the current status of SOPA and PIPA: Issa's office put out a press release Friday night with Cantor's comments (I can pass along the press release if you'd like). Others have confirmed that Cantor has said that and that he's "serious" about not bringing it to the floor any time soon, though he has not made a public statement. As for PIPA... Just yesterday, Reid reiterated his plans to bring the bill to the floor, saying that it was important for "jobs" even as he admitted that the "recent" concerns brought up by "Google & Facebook" are legitimate and he's worried about the impact the bill will have on the internet. But, he also claimed, he's working with Dianne Feinstein to sort out all the problems, since she represents both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Kinda crazy since Feinstein, just weeks ago, insisted that no one in tech was upset about the bill... The New York Times has more on last week's developments in the SOPA and PIPA debate. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 14, 2012 - The official Whitehouse response to SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN recognizes that piracy and rogue sites pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. - Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See SOPA initiative/Ideas. As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For more recent media, see the media page and legislative timeline.

Calls to action against SOPA
As I noted in my blog, this Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up the latest version of SOPA. Some organizations are calling for action on Thursday. For your consideration in this discussion, I'm including some relevant links showing how others are handling their call for action:


 * The Daily Kos suggests calling Representatives and speaking online before Thursday.


 * FYI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has compiled a thorough list of resources and actions that can help you understand SOPA's problems. EFF has a tool that can help folks   contact their representatives.


 * American University calls for individual and organization-wide actions before Thursday.


 * Techcrunch sets out some interesting action plans.


 * In a call to stop SOPA before Thursday, one site allows you to censor your own online content, like this page, with a tool from Stop American Censorship.


 * Mozilla is similarly proposing action this week.

To state the obvious, we probably should not direct community traffic to these other sites if they do not have the technical capacity to handle it.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lobbying" and Government Affairs
Some continue to ask about lobbying restrictions. Let me repost here what I have said elsewhere:


 * Basically, the posting of banners or a blackout landing page that immediately redirects users to call Congress arguably raises issues about lobbying restrictions. In short, these activities, as others may suggest, might be considered lobbying. That said, Wikimedia can engage in lobbying activities as long as such engagement is "insubstantial" compared to overall activity. Insubstantial is not defined, and is based on the particular facts and circumstances. One possible consideration is that total lobbying for a tax year, under a conservative reading, should be less than 5% of total activities (though, I should say, some may say that this is not in itself determinative as to whether lobbying is insubstantial).
 * Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS provides some background here.

In response to some inquiries, I want to spell out some of our government affairs work, though it has been quite limited to date. Once it became clear that the proposed legislation was becoming active, the Wikimedia Foundation hired Dow Lohnes Government Strategies (“DLGS”) to provide educational background on several bills, including SOPA, IP Protect, and OPEN. The crux of the work is to provide us information on the legislation, such as the changing schedule for the various legislative steps; the substance of amendments; the key political players, including supporters and opponents, in the debate; news about the legislation; etc. This information has been useful in updating our community from an educational perspective. Early on, DLGS did have limited contacts with the House Judiciary Committee to understand the initial version of the legislation and to determine whether there would be room for acceptable legislative amendments. However, upon understanding the overall structure of the legislation, the Wikimedia Foundation decided that amendments could not address our community's key concerns. In the immediate future, we do not anticipate significant contacts with members of the House or Senate by DLGS on the legislation. We will continue to employ DLGS to furnish us their expertise on the legislative process and the various procedural and substantive legislative steps affecting the proposed legislation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WMF and government affairs consultants

WMF and recent US media coverage re SOPA
In late December 2011 and early January 2012 US media outlets began speculating that Wikimedia Foundation and other big, US-based web companies were all contemplating major shutdowns to protest SOPA. ExtremeTech published a slide from a NetCoalition representative that produced a list of those companies on record as supporting a possible blackout of services. They also speculated on a date that the blackouts might happen.

To be clear: the Wikimedia Foundation has made no comment whatsoever regarding a possible date for a blackout, nor have we suggested that any specific action or timetable has been suggested by the community. These are purely speculative suggestions from the press. We continue to refer those making inquiries to this page and/or ongoing discussions on other pages. We're also under the impression that the other web companies listed have not made any firm, public statement suggesting a blackout of services. JayWalsh (talk)
 * The following web companies have committed to a blackout on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC): Reddit, the Cheezburger network, Minecraft, Tucows, XDA MLGS and it is almost certain (but not yet confirmed) that the Mozilla foundation and Boing Boing will join in as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Spain
We were informed by Spanish contacts about a recent Spanish "Sinde law." Here is some unconfirmed preliminary research that one of our interns found on this law:
 * The Spanish "Sinde law" creates a commission, headed by the Secretary of Culture, that receives and investigates claims from copyright owners against websites. Once the commission reaches a decision (approximately within ten days of receiving the complaint), a judge will look over the finding and, if the site owners can be contacted, request that the infringing material be removed or the site shut down. If that's not possible, the judge will be able to order ISPs and other web hosts to have the site taken offline.

We encourage any additions or corrections to this summary. (It makes me think that, separate from SOPA, we should be monitoring censorship laws worldwide and keep track on an independent wiki.  If there is support for that idea, I will set that up.  Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Here is an article outlining US involvement in the Spanish Sinde law and the Spanish legislative process: http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatened-to-blacklist-spain-for-not-implementing-site-blocking-law-120105/ 98.24.27.17 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reddit going black on the 18th
http://mashable.com/2012/01/10/reddit-sopa/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC) http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow

-- Jim Reed (Talk)  23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has my whole hearted backing. This is a cause I am willing to die for. Not kidding in the least. Do not pussy foot around this thing. This is an existential threat to the whole internet infrastructure. Not just a playpen for politics. ENUFF SAID. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you go black... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea that they're doing that. But I feel we have to be careful if we decide to do it here. Don't forget, that day falls on a Wednesday, and many people will be coming onto the site for information and so forth, so doing it on here would be risky business. I'm all up for putting some sort of banner on the home page and what have you; but again, let's not go overboard. The idea Reddit has is good, but again, let's be careful about where we're going with this before we actually decide to do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reddit on this one. One day won't hurt our credibility and will send a strong message to the world. A wednesday is an idea day to work as many people will be directed to the site, and thus, made aware of SOPA and its effect on the world. The news media is skirting the situation and we will be doing our moral duty as Wikipedians to inform and educate.  Marlith  (Talk)   05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly in favor of matching reddit's blackout. A wikipedia-specific blackout, triggered by conditions agreed upon here, is fine but this would be a much more effective effort were it pan-internet.  We have a week; let's get the community on board to set Jan 18th as a blackout day. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I'm in favor of a blackout, I think that we need to coordinate with bigger sites if we want to have more firepower. Alexius08 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, that the idea of a wp-en blackout is also appreciated in the german WP. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a 12-hour blackout on January 18th, and having it synchronized with the Reddit blackout. During the next SOPA-related hearing, I would like to have Congresspersons mention how Wikipedia is blacking out in opposition to SOPA. Here's our chance to have an impact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 12 hours is more than enough time to get the message out there. We don't need to take up the whole day to spread the word. But again, let's be careful about where we are going with this. I would agree to a 12 hour protest rather than go the entire day. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think very few people will visit Wikipedia during the night. We should also force some of the Wikifants to take a day off. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why I'd favor a 24 hour blackout; it's likely we'll entirely miss some people. But we should match what Reddit does, and we should be reaching out to other sites (someone mentioned a Facebook blackout of some sort, for example) to coordinate. When multiple top-10 sites go dark, it increases coverage exponentially - which is the entire point. Contacts from voters to representatives is one benefit, but getting high-profile media to suddenly start covering this issue is another, and the broader scope of the blackout serves that end. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to have a blackout. It goes directly against Wikipedia's aims and principles.

I'm not sure how much experience people posting here have with user behavior (particularly on computers), but users will ignore any pop-up or banner ad. If it's obtrusive enough, they'll find the "close" or "x" link. Otherwise, they'll simply filter it out. A total blackout (as opposed to a banner) will just cause people to say "oh, Wikipedia's down" and ignore any message you're trying to get across. It may be disheartening, but it's the reality.

For Reddit, a blackout is even more pointless, as the dozen or so nerds who visit Reddit already know about SOPA and its threatened impact. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The dozen or so"? Reddit had 35 million uniques in December, and over 2 billion pageviews. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia had a few more. And, uh, that was a bit of hyperbole. The basic points still stand: a blackout is a bad idea and the nerds who visit Reddit are already aware of SOPA, making it an even worse idea.
 * I should add that anyone suggesting Wikipedia should follow Reddit's lead in anything ought to be taken 'round back. Reddit is a cesspool of dreck. Surely not to be emulated. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The colloquial way of expressing that idea is "If Reddit jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?" :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the same cynical impulse about Reddit, but on reflection, I'm not sure it wasn't just being curmudgeonly. I can see a reasonable argument that for Reddit's community and audience, it's a motivational action (i.e. it's not that they don't know, but getting people to do something - especially something beyond ranting on discussion forums! - is an entirely different issue). HOWEVER, I don't think what Reddit can do, in terms of being a corporate site with a specific "voice", directly applies to what Wikipedia can do, as a charity with a nebulous "neutrality" claim. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bored nerds attempting to access Reddit at work aren't going to take to the streets because they've lost their "discussion" forum (Reddit is to discussion what Encyclopedia Dramatica is to encyclopedias). Instead, they're going to get on Facebook. Or Slashdot. Or wherever else. And when the site comes back up on January 19, they'll come back and post more noise. What will have been accomplished? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't need to take the streets ("Occupy SOPA"?). There's a chance that a small portion of them might be motivated to contact their members of Congress and engage in a mild amount of real politics. Everything doesn't need to be hyperrevolutionary up-against-the-wall radicalism in order to be worthwhile (or at least I hope so). In terms of activism, the question I think is what's the expected gain, is it worth the cost, and who pays the cost . This is of course difficult. Much of my dislike of Wikipedia, and concerns about Wikipedia activism, are related to cost-shifting, where small "gains" for the top 1% are done at large "losses" for the bottom 99% (sound familiar?). But Reddit strikes me as a low-risk/low-cost effort. It may do a little good, it may just be net-flaming, but there's no big possible downside I see either. Wikipedia is in a different position in terms of that analysis, though. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are people that are going to be coming onto this site not knowing what is going on. All they will want is to get their information and be on their way. And by forcing someone to not be able to view what it was they came on here to get, their negativity will be drawn the other way. Ordinary people will generate negativity towards this site for doing such thing. I'm telling you right now, there's a good possibility that it'll happen. We should speak to those who use Wikipedia just to get information and be on their way. Or else, this protest won't work. Please take my suggestion and ask the ordinary users before we do a protest. And, again, since a majority of people on here seem to think opposite of these decisions, I would like to propose a 12 hour protest. 12 hours will be Enough Time to get the information out there. And, once more, I would like to remind everyone that January 18th falls on a Weekday. Let's all make a decision that is fair to everyone, and think about what we are doing before we actually go off and do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You tend to ignore the consequences of SOPA. It could bring the Wikipedia down for much longer than one day. Where can the people get their information from in this case? SOPA is such a serious problem, that we should adress it. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SOPA will not bring down Wikipedia . See above legal post, quote, "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours.". I don't really want to be "the guy" who goes around saying "You are being lied to", since I'm not in a social position for it, and I'm very much against SOPA on civil-liberties and Internet architecture grounds. I'm trying to advocate appropriate protest, as there's also some caution to keep in mind. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This "new version" reduces the danger of the WMF beeing banned from payment services, but this does not affect the chapters. The DNS blocks are obscure. But even without those two points, the WP has to execute the regular control of weblinks. This point is probably even more dangerous than the other 2 points, as it could force us to waste ressources and to restrict the free-editing-policy. If the link-control can not be completely executed, the WMF would probably have to spend donations on fines, that could also waste their budget. The new version is not as bad as the old one, but it is still bad. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what could happen if SOPA becomes law. And I do agree with Seth. It's just a little confusing, in a way, trying to understand every little detail of wwhat SOPA would do to websites like this one. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's conceivable that a few links might be added to the existing WP:blacklist which is already lovingly maintained to control acceptable sites links at Wikipedia. But as much an offense to freedom of expression that might be, it's not going to bring Wikipedia down, which was the claim above. This is where I just don't want be "that guy", to write lengthy explanations of how you are being manipulated. For example, trying to explain where this sits in the universe of legal risks, compared to e.g. the completely opposite reaction that's generally seen with problematic sexual material. Once more, I am against SOPA, but the sky just isn't falling for Wikipedia . And there's reasons you're being told it is :-( . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're OK with telling us we're being manipulated, you also need to be OK with explaining your position. Otherwise you're just playing at FUD games. --JaGatalk 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - we made a small site in response to Reddit's January 18th blackout - I think it'd certainly be smart if WP joins in on the 18th, but I also think it's equally important for a lot of smaller sites out there to join in as well: http://sopablackout.org Pvvni (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the "(click anywhere to continue)" sopablackout.org is using. Some users disagree with preventing visitors from viewing the content they came to Wikipedia to see, but we could provide a similar method (perhaps a button) for those visitors to view article content after learning about SOPA and what actions to take. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey: What about a short-term, user-controlled blackout option? That is to say, lock the site to anyone coming into Wikipedia. Like a EULA, make them have to read something about SOPA and its effects on the Internet. Include of course what they can do to help stop it. Then, once they have read it (maybe once they've scrolled down or after a set amount of time) a button will appear and when they click it they can gain access to the site again. Is that too difficult to do?

Why don't we have a real vote, whether to have a blackout or not?
 * First edit in a while, but I'll throw my voice behind the blackout idea. Yes, it goes against the idea of wikipedia, but so does SOPA.  It's not like we are promoting censorship, just like cropwalk isn't promoting hunger. Probably should setup a coordinated page for just the 18th blackout and have it linked on the community portal instead of this page, though.--Rayc (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a few days left to get this done. From the comments it appears most editors want WP to join the SOPA blackout on the 18th, so how do we get it done? What's needed, some kind of vote? Let's do it! Steevithak (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So...Why not blackout the front page? Or why not make a separate "blackout page" where every visitor that comes to WP via the home page sees, states what SOPA is, how Wikipedia will be affected, and add a clear link to be "redirected" to the official Wikipedia homepage. Although I favor a WP wide blackout, there are other alternatives such as what I listed above. I don't like the idea of a banner. Many people are annoyed by banners, and they often ignore what they say. To be as up front as possible I think these are probably the best options. Regardless of the decision, something should be done. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on a SOPA message on WP if action is taken
Like many of the folks on staff at WMF, I've been tracking updates on this issue carefully, keeping an eye on this page, and following the movements around the bill in Washington. To assist this discussion and to be useful, we've been trying to think about what exactly might appear on Wikipedia should some sort of advocacy action around SOPA take place in the future. We've put our heads together at WMF on this language, but it shouldn't be construed as an official or approved text from us, rather some kind of a starting point for what sort of text might appear to readers should actions on the project unfold (I haven't seen such text in other parts of WP so far, but if I should be looking there too I will). I've always admired how Wikipedians frame these issues up to readers, so I know that whatever text ultimately comes together it will be quite good - clear, direct and simple. As with Geoff, Philippe, Ryan and others, the communications team is also here to share ideas, provide feedback and support the conversation. I'm also pleased to report that WMF is ready from a communications perspective if or when any action unfolds. It will almost certainly become one of the most important media stories in the world, and we should be ready to talk to the press and point them to the right info in the event it all happens.

Two variations for a possible landing page are shared below. One would be more relevant for US readers, the other for non-US readers. It seems much of the conversation is making a clear distinction between the two audiences, which makes a lot of sense to me. In the case of the US message we've reached out to friends at the EFF about one scenario in which readers could be pointed to their current advocacy page (the URL is a bit brutal, but you get the idea). We've asked what kind of capacity they could handle, and the short answer is 'a lot.' This portal is also very simple for US readers and being EFF, it's very careful with private information. As I understand it, this advocacy tool is one of the most privacy sensitive and stores the absolute minimum of data. It's very important that if action takes place, where readers are sent to 'act' really must be chosen carefully. As others have observed, there could be millions of users flooding that link in a matter of hours. EFF's tool is ready for that traffic.

Here are the messages we put together. Of course we expect they'd see considerable change and adaptation - or a completely different message may come together. Happy to share more thoughts... DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia
 * Users of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers - they contribute millions of hours a year to this project because they are passionate about sharing free knowledge. Today Wikipedia is available in 282 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is the fifth most-visited website online, with over 480 million unique visitors.
 * All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space. Wikipedia is absolutely dependent on this fact. Our editors and our readers must have access to websites hosted around the world - to verify and add facts, to research articles, and to offer critical context for encyclopedic articles. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users. On Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, upload freely-reusable pictures, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factually correct information anywhere on the web.
 * Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new bills - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that, if passed, will harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills endanger our Constitutional guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening model of Internet censorship for more repressive regimes around the world.
 * How you can help
 * Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.
 * The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.

NON-US Focused message DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia
 * Readers of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years volunteer Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Today Wikipedia is available in over 280 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is a top 5 global website with over 480 million unique visitors.
 * All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space for sharing information. Collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that the readers of Wikipedia have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factual information anywhere on the web.
 * Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new laws - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that would harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites. These bills endanger the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening precedent for more repressive regimes around the world.
 * Everyone who uses the Internet can make their views known about these pieces of legislation. SOPA and PROTECTIP, if passed in the United States, set a frightening precedent for free and open speech on the web around the world. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free and open web.
 * Let your local United States embassy know that you value the free, secure and open web. You should also reach out to your own elected representatives and tell them that there’s no room for this type of censorship in your country either.

JayWalsh (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I approve. One idea that I think would help is to lock down access to all articles except the ones on SOPA and PIPA, which will work well given the aims and parameters of this action.  Marlith  (Talk)   05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have prepared this message at the german Wikipedia. It consists of four parts: First, the existence of SOPA Second, the 4 critical points, in detail section 102, which demands us to control and censor our links, the restrictions on VPNs and similar tools, the Domain blankings and the restrictions on payment services. The message is concluded by a list of other organisations, that oppose SOPA. In my opionion, a message to the readers should not only state the fact, that SOPA will cause problems, but also describe these problems in detail .--Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The German message is excellent. Whilst the proposed text above is OK it's not very easy to understand for a reader who has no idea what is going on. At the very least the first sentence needs to say "Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary blackout in protest over two new proposed US laws" etc. The first paragraph is nice, and all that, but seems a bit sappy ("oh look how awesome we are"), which reduces the punch and impact on the message. I would scrap it in its entirety. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users.; this seems to be over-egging the basket a bit :) it's only SOPA that has made us sit up. Also; it should always be "English Wikipedia" as we are only representing ourselves - to represent all Wikipedia's is a decision we can't make :) Perhaps (with some style copy-editing):
 * English Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary **ACTION** in protest over two new proposed US laws which may limit internet freedom and material impact our goals.
 * For over ten years volunteer editors from around the world have been compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the English Wikipedia you use and enjoy every day. All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space, a fact on which the English Wikipedia is absolutely dependent. Our editors and readers must have access to websites hosted around the world to verify material, research articles, and obtain critical context for articles. On English Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add information, remove vandalism, upload images, engage in wide-ranging debate and discussion, and help ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written and factually correct information.
 * The United States House of Representatives and the Senate are currently considering two new bills (The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP) which may make our task impossible. If passed these bills will harm the free, secure, and open web and create new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills would endanger Constitutional guarantees of free speech and create a frightening model of Internet censorship.
 * How you can help
 * Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate English Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.
 * The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that English Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.
 * Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Observation: I have a feeling that if the claimant had a complaint against us the law would simply take away the whole domain and Wikipedia would be no more, unless we relocated to another country. So it would be worth verifying somewhere that the bills would drive out the information technology industry out of the US. --Marianian(talk) 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not so. See above - "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This "new version" tends to make the DNS-Censorship and the restrictions on payment processors not a very serious issue for Wikipedia. However, the dns-blocks remain an obscure thing and I could not find a source, that states, that Wikipedia is completely out of danger from the dns-blocks. The definition of a "foreign infringement site" is very obscure and there is one line, to which we should pay attention: A “foreign infringing site” is a [...] Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents [...] that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site. The Operator of Wikipedia uses to be someone else than the owner of the site, the WMF. What happens, if someone claims to have a problem with things done by someone from Siberia on WP-RU and/or translations/transfers of this content to the volapük-Wikipedia by a bot? In this case, the User from Siberia is completely foreign to the US, the bot probably too. If you watch this video from the house of representatives, you will get an idea of how little the organizers of SOPA know about how the internet works. For Wikipedia, the line the owner or operator of the Internet site could mean anything, as the organizers of SOPA are probably not informaed about Web 2.0 . Of course, the final line is according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc., but as the definition of the person, that is responsible for the content of the site is too obscure, I would not trust on this line.
 * I am refering to the analysis by Geof Brigham, I do not know, if according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. was added by him. It would be good, if we would not have to fear dns-blocks, but this "new version" forces us to stay in th US forever. We have had a discussion at the german Wikipedia about setting up a strategic plan to become more independent fro, the WMF and to operate the german Wikipedia from Europe. Such things would become hard to do with SOPA.
 * Even if there would be a guarantee, that we would not be affected by the dns-blocks, SOPA still demands us to control and censor our weblinks, which is bad enough. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider myself corrected in part, although it is worth noting that I feel really strong over the scale of the plan. My thought is that DNS blocking is not an option for any site other than child porn and terrorist activity like Neo-nazism. If they wish to tackle online piracy, they should instead target companies that sell counterfeit goods for actual profit. But overall I respect other's opinions as well as making mine clear. --Marianian(talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The part about according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. is in Geoff Brigham's original blog post. Wikipedia has far greater problems with non-US law, particularly third-party liability for content -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we could come up with an opener with more punch. For example, if the action is a blackout, imagine this headline in big, unmissable text on a black page:
 * Contact Congress now or Wikipedia may go dark forever.
 * This hooks readers into wanting to see more, and makes it clear that this is not a fundraising pitch. &mdash; Brent Dax 03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline is that you will make readers feel under pressure or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sure would hook people, you're completely and absolutely right there. It would also be completely false. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline like that is you will make readers feel under pressure, or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This message is a good start, but the big problem is that we should (as in Geoff's blog post) list at least one concrete way that SOPA/PROTECTIP will hurt Wikipedia. I suggest the following:
 * "SOPA/PROTECTIP will prevent Wikipedia articles from linking to relevant websites that are accused of infringement, even if such accusations are baseless. The ability to reference sources and suggest further reading is critical to Wikipedia's reliability and utility."
 * Thoughts? Dcoetzee 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the drafts it is not clear at all how it will hurt Wikipedia or others (Just says it will). I believe that before people take an action to contact their representative, they want to be very sure what they are protesting! Language needs to be created to precisely spell out what the possible (or inevitable) harm is from SOPA...not just hint that it is a bad thing. Would you sign your name to something if you didn't understand it or could not see what the fuss was all about? Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Further DRAFT messages for the public to use RE SOPA
We've been thinking about other important text to share with everyone asap. These messages are different from the proposed landing page text above. These are proposed texts we could and should put on an 'other things you can do to help' page. IF people want to go above and beyond using an advocacy platform, they should know what they can say and to whom - again, very much US focussed. These are broken into three topic areas... JayWalsh (talk)

Cyber Security

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would seriously damage the security of the Internet (in the House the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important part of our personal and business life. Therefore, a safe and secure Internet is vital to our privacy and economy. Over 100 well-known Internet experts believe that requiring blocking of Internet sites is badly conceived and threatens the security of the Internet. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Censorship

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, the PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. These bills would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites, risking the suppression of protected speech, even when that website or its information is not the subject of a complaint. This violates both the American concept and the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. It sets a terrible precedent and provides a frightening model for repressive regimes. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Innovation

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you as my representative to oppose bills that would seriously chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, PROTECTIP Act). Our economy has benefited enormously from innovation on the Internet. Not only has the Internet created successful multi-billion dollar businesses that didn’t exist 10 years ago, it has benefited literally thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market. These bills would put unreasonable burdens on the Internet Service Providers and search engines, the backbone of the Internet, and strip the safe harbor for innovation the law now provides. Less drastic alternatives must be considered which do not suffocate our Internet economy. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Other options
I've been trying to comment my concerns down below these sections here, but I don't believe they've been seen by, well, anyone. Apologize ahead if I'm posting in the wrong area, but I really do want to bring out a couple of points. First off, I've been searching for news on the status of SOPA/PIPA, and from the information I've read, it seems as if both bills will not be going up for debate this Wednesday (the day we've proposed as the day of our blackout), as they will further look into the bill. I was going to ask if we should keep that date, scrap it, or still do a blackout but not a full blackout. Second, I understand we're all very heavily debating about the blackout on here, but I don't believe neutrality is being brought up here. I just feel like things should be fair on both sides, regardless of where all of us stand on the issue. I'd rather have things equal than go out of hand. If anyone knows if there are any other pages where I can have these topics discussed, please let me know. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise?
When any reader comes to Wikipedia on January 18th, or subsequent proposed date for action, the page they are presented with is a clear message and description of SOPA, it's repercussions, and a way to contact their legislator. They can click to contact, or click through to the information they were seeking. I understand the arguments of a powerful impact (protest) being needed, but it makes no sense to me to literally force readers to be a part of it. Wikipedia has a responsibility to it's readers as no other website does. An historic and self proclaimed responsibility. I've seen those ready for a blackout argue that taking a different route is somehow equal to not fighting for civil rights. I don't believe that is true. Would a school shut down to protest? A hospital? Wikipedia is here for learning, not like other websites who are either clearly or inadvertently selling a product and who can make such a statement without real risk to their credibility. The only way to make a difference with Congress is to have a voice at hearings and committee meetings. One important thing I learned as a city councilmember was be careful what precedent you set. Afterward, where do you draw the line? I fully understand the critical nature of the SOPA act, as described many times in these discussions. But please consider that there are so many unknowns at this moment with the progress of the Bill, the changes made, and the possible dates of discussion by House and Senate. I believe we should give readers the opportunity to learn about SOPA, the opportunity to act, and to also provide them with what they count on us for. On another page, it was suggested that the SOPA article itself be released from the WP:NPOV! Talk about setting an unhealthy precedent! Wikipedia has been in the process of being built for a very long time, and I don't think a hasty decision that may hurt it's neutrality and credibility should be decided in a few days...no matter how noble the cause...it may not be Wikipedia's place to jump in the political ring. Let those that can...do. And then show support by INFORMING the masses. I know, I know...I am new here. But for something like this it can be an advantage to have an outside point of view amongst the intense passion. Politicians may actually dig in their heels instead of listen when they feel forced. Educating them is far superior to anything resembling aggression...putting them on the spot publicy to answer to the rotten parts of SOPA might yield more results...sadly, many legislators aren't always aware of the "devil's in the details" parts of a Bill until hearings and committee meetings. For the future, I think that Wikipedia should fiercely protect it's neutral reputation. Petersontinam (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In some things Wikipedia is NOT neutral, and has never claimed to be, in a meta sense, Wikipedia is very much pro-neutrality. At first I did think that lobbying on matters like this would be quashed by the community, but then I thought, can Wikipedia be neutral if no one has neutral access to it?  I'm still ambivalent, I admit.  I don't like the idea of a complete dead-stop, but... perhaps SOMETHING is appropriate. - BalthCat (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing I'd underscore is that Wikipedia as we know it cannot exist under SOPA. We're not bystanders here, we're future victims.  NPOV appies to articles, not foundations.  We have to speak up while we can still stop this. HectorMoffet (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like for the time being, we are able to take a breath..:The Hill", article on SOPA being SHELVED But this has been extraordinary conversation on what should/shouldn't be done in this situation. "The Hill" article mentions something about future online piracy legislation, but hopefully there is time to find the absolute proper way to protest. Petersontinam (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reddit, Boing Boing, Minecraft, Mozilla, etc., etc. are not "taking a breath" and neither should we. Stopping the blackout/protest now would send the message to congress that they can use their ability to quickly shift scheduling, make changes to the law that later get undone, etc. to torpedo any coordinated Internet protest. We simply can not move as fast as they can, so we will lose every time if they lure us into a game of Whack-a-Mole. Better to go ahead with the protest so they get the message that such tactics will not work. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. Badon (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority opinion seems to point to using a blackout...with many excellent arguments on why it is important to do so. Respectfully, I still feel that it shouldn't inhibit readers from accessing information. Inform them on SOPA and PROTECTIP, yes, in an easy to understand format...give them the opportunity to act, yes. Let them continue on to what they were seeking? Yes. Block readers from Wikipedia for 24 hours? No, I just can't agree with that. How about this:
 * Show a black, blank page when anyone lands at Wikipedia...after 3 seconds, have a message that says something like "This is what Wikipedia will(may) become if SOPA and PROTECTIP pass." And then explain what they can do to stop that from happening, and then let them either act or not...then continue on to what they were looking up. Petersontinam (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to have a page that does something after 3 seconds on my computer, because I don't allow web pages to load and run software on my PC. 20% to 25% of users disable javascript and all other forms of scripting. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a full-blackout shouldn't be the way to go about with this. Soft blackouts with a very visible message screen describing the harmful effects of SOPA/PIPA should be good enough - and a small link at the side saying, "Continue to Wikipedia". --haha169 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As a member of the motion picture/music industry, and contributor to Wikipedia I find it hypocritical that you "censored" my work for 24 hours in the name of supposed anti-censorship. Wikipedia claims to be for knowledge, but politicking in support of Internet thievery is not the way. SOPA and PRO-IP are great bills and they should be passed. Your propaganda about "breaking the Internet" and causing censorship is based on falsehoods. Freedom of speech is not the "freedom" to steal somebody else's speech. If you want movies and music and don't want to pay the creators, make your own movies and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, people have made their own music and still been successfully sued. (See, for example, the case of "My Sweet Lord".) Second, the incumbent publishers still have a stranglehold on promotion of music and movies to people who have not chosen to make their lives revolve around the Internet. Third, the SOPA and PROTECTIP proposals go much further than necessary, would impose unfunded mandates on Internet service providers, have a far lower burden of proof than the competing OPEN bill, and would in fact interfere with protocols such as DNSSEC. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like restaurant chains come up with their own birthday jingles so they won't get sued for public performances of Happy Birthday to You? I expect a lot infringe that simple folksong's copyright, not realizing that Time-Warner owns its copyright and still collects royalties on it. Imagine: Jane posts a vlog entry singing Happy Birthday to her friend, and the vlog site gets its DNS blacklisted. An extreme example, but allowing such an extreme result makes this a bad bill. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Musicologists who compared "He's So Fine" with "My Sweet Lord" all agree it was an infringement. I'm a Beatles fan, but I agree with the Judge in that case who found an "unconscious infringement."

And what does that case have to do with SOPA? There's nothing unconscious about the off shore web sites who are offering up American movies for free. Who is going to spend $150,000,000 creating a movie if it is going to be available for download free while it's still in the theaters? (Google "download movies for free" and help yourself.)

The on-line thievery which killed the music industry (3/4 of those who worked for the record companies 10 years ago have lost their jobs and the artists are making a fraction as much money) is now at work demolishing the film and television industry. That's the "cause" which Wikipedia went dark for? Destroying the livelihoods of America's most creative and hard working people? As somebody who has contributed to Wikipedia from the start I feel this non-profit enterprise has been hijacked through the blind ignorance of the leadership, who are aiding the for-proft companies who have made a fortune ripping off the creative community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The music industry is not dead. Have you some sources showing otherwise or to back up what you say about artists? The companies making records may well be dying because no-one wants records any more, that's progress. Hopefully the media moguls will die out too because they have been taking most of the money in the past for just controlling the channels. As to searching google for 'download movies for free' did you actually check up on any of the sites that came up and see what they actually meant by that? For instance you can a free taster and then signup for a monthly fee, or have free access to things nobody would want to pay for, or they advertise the access but don't have it for anything worthwhile. There might be something there down deep which is ripping off hollywood but I certainly didn't spot it easily. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What steps should people take to avoid unconscious infringement? The parallel to SOPA is that if son-of-SOPA erodes the protection afforded by the OCILLA safe harbor, service providers can infringe without knowing what their users are uploading. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I support to wikipedia in all, an hug Carliitaeliza (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet should b clean and free. I'm glad that the wikipedia community is taking the threat seriously, yeah...I too support to wikipedia in all. DRAGON BOOSTER (talk).

Plan beyond victory
Wikipedia deserves congratulations for this action, and news about withdrawn support and veto threats is very encouraging. Yet Arden Hathaway's comments above, and similar positions, need to be given fair and careful consideration. This is Wikipedia --- we, as much as anybody, should be able to offer verifiable fact-based answers to questions like that. Articles like music industry and SOPA might accommodate some of this information, but we should set aside a special place for such should-be-FAQs (maybe run them through the Humanities Refdesk?) We should dialogue with our opponents (i.e. RIAA, Viacom) and test the quality of their information.

We should also open discussions on the larger issues - perhaps on Wikiversity? - considering whether we can propose a true and workable alternative to the copyright system, both to restore any profits lost to piracy and to create a world where people can freely communicate without fear. Our object here certainly is not to destroy livelihoods, nor to destroy all the cultural information we so love to read and edit about here - it should be to make these things available to all without limitation or restriction. We can do this with something as simple as an income tax-based funding system where contribution is mandatory but the taxpayer chooses recipient organizations. Any such change will have winners and losers and will step on some well-entrenched industrial toes, but if we do it right it will also mean more art and music, less corruption and degradation, more for artists, less for middlemen. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.146 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Next Stop Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)?
These days the EU parliament is expected to ratify ACTA. Now may be one of the last options to prevent ACTA (in comparison to which SOPA pales if I am informed rightly) --SchallundRauch (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Avaaz is calling it "an even bigger threat"; see also Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement. The EU rapporteur for ACTA recently resigned in protest... There's a petition against EU ratification of ACTA here. Rd232 talk 14:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: Stop CISPA
The worst portions of SOPA have been incorporated into CISPA. I can find no rational justification to go black over SOPA but not protest CISPA --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I may or may not disagree with you, but i wanted to note that according to Wikipedia, "however, the most recent version of the CISPA bill has removed any reference to intellectual property". I absolutely think we should be vigilant about them sneaking back in various provisions that we protested against before, but I also think we should be very very careful to not over-protest.  I have not yet fully reviewed the current bill myself, so I reserve judgment on it for now, while acknowledging that the array of opponents is impressive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is http://www.privacyisawesome.com/ what you had in mind? 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CISPA. Rd232 talk 12:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What if we protest in a different way? What if we do something like black out only articles about the US Government? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, the passed bill sounds if anything worse than the one proposed before.

One action we could take is rather indirect, but could score a newsworthy point: McGraw-Hill is a publisher named by Anonymous (group) (supposedly) in a call for protest today. Their call for protest is something weak and stupid (sorry guys!), namely, defacing textbooks made by the company, which would only increase sales. But we could hit McGraw-Hill with overwhelming force. All we need to do is decide on one of their most profitable textbooks that a lot of people can competently edit a substitute for on Wikibooks. Imagine if we got together to create a better textbook, freely available, for every school to use! There's nothing they can do for that - but scratch that asset right off their list. And we can do it again if we feel like. (indeed, sooner or later we will anyway, but like the Berserkers or Necromongers, we can spare our friends... till last :) ) True, McGraw-Hill is only one of a lot of 800+ companies represented in a statement by Business Roundtable, and so it's not like we'd be taking out the whole supporter base.  But as an act of open, absolutely legal terrorism to demonstrate that the people of this country have power and can respond to these companies' actions meaningfully, it would be an important morale booster.  If we announced a date to get started on the textbook, and they withdrew membership and support in Business Roundtable before that, then we'd have a newsworthy story. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)