Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action/Archive 3

SOPA Blackout
I hope you find out nobody misses you, Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.219.77 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't miss the internet either.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you're more informed than you seem regarding the functioning of this legislation and the internet. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you're just optimistic that the vague wording of the bills won't ever be tested on sites like Wikipedia ever, promise.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obsidian you're simply being a fearmongerer. Jersey John (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jersey John your head is in the sand. Obsidian is correct. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL the people with their heads in the sand are the ones refusing to accept anything other than the party line of what SOPA would be. Though admittedly the point is moot considering all signs point to it not passing anyway. Jersey John (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (oh what a world we live in where someone like me comes off looking like the champion of corporations, lol....)
 * All you do is call everyone shills (is that a bigger shilling?). So go on. Tell us why we're shills. :) --   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you are wrong with thinking that 'all signs point to it not passing anyway'. Recent news are that Rep. Lamar Smith wants to push for it again next month. Sadly, the blackout is needed. Maybe instead of tilting against windmills here you should actually contact your Congressperson to help kill this bill for good. jfeise (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Worst Part About This
I am dreading the distinct possiblity that the only real and lasting outcome from this silly gesture is that non-US Wiki users will be left with a bad taste in their mouth for anything American. I've already seen contriubtors who are angry about this blackout saying things like "fucking Americans."

But then... maybe that's what WMF shills want to happen. Jersey John (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got that right John! This is what makes me so angry! Why doesn't wikipedia shut down as a protest of Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax? (Note: Gillard is the PM of Australia - I feel I must mention this because wikipedia is so obsessed with America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lol well... perhaps another time I will debate with you just how much Wikipedia is "obsessed" with the US or not... but that's besides the point. I agree with you in spirit and the point is sound. Jersey John (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't know how to fix what my comment just did.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed it for you Modest Genius talk 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Modest Jersey John (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also cleaned my grammar mistakes and spelling blunders. I've been typing a LOT today...Jersey John (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the main issue here is that SOPA and PIPA will have an effect far outside of America, since so many websites are based in America. As a Canadian, I don't necessarily like Wikipedia taking a stance on American politics, but these bills would censor my internet as much as it would an American's. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you agree WMF should dictate to you how you should feel and to complicate your access to something you contribute too or patronize? Jersey John (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but, where did he say WMF "should dictate to you how you should feel"? This is a community decision about a particular issue, and if you want to put yourself above and beyond the interests of the Wikipedia community, you might as well brand yourself as the sort of tyrant you accuse WMF of being. 23.16.124.120 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way people, SOPA is more than likely going to FAIL anyway. Which makes this all the more asinine. Jersey John (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while the WMF's actions affect the world, the foundation is located and based in America and will be most directly affected by this action.  Marlith  (Talk)  
 * Affected how? Is WMF pirating and stealing copyrighted material that is not their own? I severly doubt it. Therefore they wouldn't be affected. (once again, this isn't going to pass anyway...)Jersey John (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As a non-US wiki user and contributor, I am reminded of the fact that similar proposals may threat the freedom of the internet everywhere in the world, also here in Europe. But I am also reminded that there are people who are active in trying to protect that freedom, like many people at Wikipedia. I fully support this blackout. Oh, and don't worry, we get to hear enough bad news from the US anyway ...;-) --84.75.56.169 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ttranslation: "I think America is backwards and I fully support WMF trampling its foundations for Wikipedia, since it fits my worldview." I think the international shills for this lunacy bother me more than the local ones.Jersey John (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you think I was reading too much into your comment, blame your snarky little parting shot at the end. It somewhat outs your true feelings. Jersey John (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a comment from an observer, please note that there is no requirement for you to reply to absolutely every single comment made on this page, nor is there a requirement for you to mock other users. Remember to keep a cool head, and be more careful about your edits. Cheers, m.o.p  23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool head, no mocking, makes sense. But I find it odd you had to say that I don't need to respond to every comment. As far as I am aware, I can respond as many times as I want as long as I remain within guidelines, and if such are breached, as long as I have not had adminitrative action taken against me. Perhaps you just dislike my contributing? That's fine of course. But I feel there's an implication behind your words that does not sit well with me. Jersey John (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if I may add, I am quite sure I have not replied to "absolutely every single comment" on this page. Might I suggest, that in the future if you are going to speak from your position of authority, that you try to refrain from blatant hyperbole. Don't misunderstand; not trying to insult you hear. Quite the contratry, just trying to help. Jersey John (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In response - if you're comparing people to Nazi leaders and mocking their contributions, then you're not within the guidelines and you may have editing privileges removed. Please keep this in mind and keep future replies neutral. m.o.p  00:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) BITE. Jersey John, I am afraid that attacking the other editors and America in that way reflects back on you more than it does on either the other editors or America. I can understand that you are angry; however, you will get much, much further on Wikipedia by having a civil tongue, taking a step back, and not making your arguments based on emotion. I have to admit that it does hurt to see your emotionally charged comments about my country. Do not forget, most of the servers are based in the US, if I am not mistaken. That means that this law affects you (in the scope of Wikipedia) just as much as it does me. Falconus p t   c 23:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clever, Falcon. Try to make it seem like I'm "attacking Americans" when I'm clearly concerned about the image this sets FOR us. Also, please stop trying to make me adopt your point of view concerning SOPA. As I've said before, I have not related my opinion on SOPA one way or the other. I realize it's difficult for some people to understand that just because you are against this blackout does not default one to being FOR SOPA. I could very well be against it. Or not. But SOPA isn't the issue here.Jersey John (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I notice some more established editors like to play this game where in comments they accuse someone they do not like of more and more things, almost as a signpost for the next one to come in. That's abusive. Jersey John (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) And Falconus, it was OBVIOUS that I was concerned for the image of American wikipedians, not attcking them at all. You purposely, deceitfully twisted my words, because you want someone to take action against me. It was plain as day I was NOT "attacking Americans" which makes your comment absurdly fake and deceitful, and it is only there to stack the deck against me. What SICKENS me is that such things are common practice for the more prominent editors and admins here. And a hotbutton issue such as this will draw them all out. Jersey John (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take a moment to tell falcon to shove his american nationalist pride where it belongs. The United States is no better nor worse than any other strictly defined society of humans in history. -24.17.154.154 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa, wait. I reject the premise that the WMF is shoving anything down anyone's throats.  We asked the question, and were prepared to follow community mandate either direction.  The community made this decision.  Not us.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimmy and the rest of you wanted this from the start. You're a fool if you think playing the one and only political trump card you hold for SOPA is a good idea. -24.17.154.154 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, to be fair, you were attacking America. Was it not you that said, "I think America is backwards".  You loosely disguised that as a "translation", but it wasn't.  I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view concerning SOPA.  I am, however, trying to point out why other people such as myself have our view that it's an issue that applies to all of Wikipedia.  Agree with it or not, I don't care.  It does however help to understand others' viewpoints.  I never said I didn't like you.  I just don't like the way you said what you did.  Honestly, I don't know you; it would be a little foolish to judge an entire person based on a couple anonymous comments, would it not?  I also didn't accuse you of anything that I can't support.  I'm sorry that you feel that we are being abusive.  I regret to inform you that I have the same sentiment towards your comments; all that I ask of you is that you think before responding to something, and try to be kind about it.  Falconus p  t   c 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Jersey John. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning.  It would seem that I understood you in a way that you did not intend, by your last statement.  I really do not want to cause trouble for you.  Also, there's no need to "draw admins out"; as I said, my goal is not to get you in trouble, and I don't think the admins will take action in a conflict between you and me unless one of us asks them to.  Let's just take a deep breath and stop this.  Obviously we're not on the same page, for which I really apologize. Falconus p  t   c 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I just now read above where you stated that you are American. I think I understand now what you were doing; I interpreted it completely a different way.  That being said, I still don't think that your tone in response to 84.75.56.169 was at all justified, and was very much biting, and stand by what I said about not letting emotions rule what you write.  However, I do sincerely apologize for my misinterpretation. Falconus p  t   c 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the worst part in this is that it is Wikipedia which is going to be in blackout. Let me think about it. Politicians are working on a law, and then it is decided to blackout our own site? This is for a good cause, but I think the action affects mostly to Wikipedia and its users than the ones it should affect. 82.141.73.229 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
Please change the banner to say "... protest against SOPA and PIPA". Currently, it just looks silly. Bluap (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The close only said that the blackout would be global, not the language. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Set up accounts on another language fast
Being Canadian I have some skills in French, so have just set up an account in the French language Wikipedia. I suggest others do likewise un case their is a massive news even Wednesday and we cannot use Wikipedia to access it! Use Google translator if you are not proficient in another language, but set something up ASAP! -- Rob NS  00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikinews will still be available. Google News and a wide variety of other news sites will still be available in English, although Google will have an anti-SOPA banner tomorrow. No need to panic.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not panicking at all Cullen, just showing that options exist. -- Rob NS  01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many news options exist, and lots of them are already reporting on the blackout.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's always Unified login, which you should get anyways.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know ...
What are the last ten articles served before the blackout, and the first ten after it? (And the last ten and first ten articles edited.) htom (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, this might be something interesting that could come out of this... 72.193.42.119 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

BLACK OUT PARTY!
Let’s all have a virtual Black Out party tonight, wine anyone? OK, silly I know and this is all very serious, but still! ;-)   -- Rob  NS  02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am drinking Two Buck Chuck right now. I wonder what Chris Dodd is swigging?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

letting the lawmakers win.
by blacking out, you are falling into their hands. is one way of them making it permanent. you black this out, you might just as well not come back on. we all loose if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.126.12 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is the scary part of this event, that the dark side will use this against us. -- Rob NS  03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but, how exactly will "we all lose" if Wikipedia comes back online? So you don't want Wikipedia to come back online? Why are you here then? How about you actually try supporting your blanket assertions with some evidence? Kindly, 23.16.124.120 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done
Good work with the blackout. Having read up about SOPA and PIPA totally agree with what you're doing. Only one thing - with all these replies, surely some link to a reason why you're doing it would be useful to say the least. Otherwise you'll have a lot of angry people not understanding why (outside the core editors). And it needs to be put up now, before the blackout starts! From a UK user --iamajpeg (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will know what they have done when the people comming to visit drops a bit. No I do not support SOPA but I feel that there are better ways to go about this than implying: "Oh yeah well I will shut down my website for a day in protest how about that" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia!
If it wasn't for you displaying the message, I would have never found out that websites were going to be blocked out! And I'm against SOPA and PIPA all the way through.-- JC  Talk to me My contributions 05:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide?
First, I really do not personally care whether or what form of protest English Wikipedia chooses to take. I do believe that Wikipedia, as a whole, represents some of the best that humanity has to offer, and that the sheer broadness of the current anti-piracy bill strikes at its core. (This comes from a person who does believe in the minimum wage and in fundamental corporate regulation in matters of human health and individual ability to pursue a livelihood without having it destroyed, with a real ability to back that regulation up.) Yet I am not gung-ho about this protest, simply because it won't affect the people who make the decisions or most of the electorate who votes for them. Be clear that this is a symbol, nothing more ... which is not to say that a symbol does not have value in itself.

On the other hand, the implied dominance of English Wikipedia worldwide is -- shall we say, troubling? English Wikipedia is even hinting at deciding the support of other Wikipedias on a global basis? Really? And that, after English Wikipedia *specifically* and *explicitly* refused to support exactly the same protest and reason for protest from Italian Wikipedia, deciding that it was not "newsworthy enough"? Peoples, I know the concept of American empire is a matter of ongoing debate, but this kind of thing is its cultural substance. In addition, make no mistake -- the assumption that global Wikipedia support should be a natural thing draws from the same regulatory roots as the very anti-piracy bill itself. - Tenebris 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.248 (talk)
 * "Global blackout" is intended to mean that the English Wikipedia is to be blacked out across the globe, as opposed to just being blocked in the United States. The protest is not intended to affect all Wikipedias.  There are no banners up at fr or de, and I doubt they will be going offline at midnight EST. Resolute 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect you did not see the talk pages on the other Wikis. And I think you mean no countdown banners, not no acknowledgement period, not even a single main page word (which is what English Wiki deliberately decided when Italian Wiki took the same action for a parallel reason). Interesting that only United States law provokes such a reaction, despite the claim that "Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem." - Tenebris 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebris, you are overlooking several important facts. One is that all Wikipedias in all languages are hosted on servers in the U.S. As such, SOPA and PIPA are likely to affect them significantly more than DDL intercettazioni. Secondly, the other Wikipedias have each individually made their own community decision on whether to join the protest or not. The German Wikipedia has voted, by a very large margin, for the protest. Other Wikipedias may have voted against it or not voted on it at all, and consequently will not be blacked out. — Timwi (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, your "several important facts" really boils down to one fact -- the importance of a piece of legislation (no matter how draconian), when it comes to protest or even acknowledging another's protest, depends on the number of English-speaking people affected ... unless it affects ME, in which case it does not matter how many total people are affected. The part you choose to overlook is that English Wikipedia did not care less when Italian Wikipedia protested one of the slippery slope laws, not even to mention it on the front page, but chose to protest the moment United States law was touched. If English Wikipedia's motives in keeping information free were pure, the Italian protest would at least have been acknowledged. - Tenebris 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.57 (talk)

It's perfectly fine to do so in all countries, I think. Indian govt. too is creating problems for various websites and posing a threat to free expression on the internet. So I'd say it's perfectly fine to internationally highlight how important these websites are for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Advisor (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there the Necesarryness to Black out Wikipedia?
I feel it is kind of overeaction. Nobody have to shut down a online encyclopedia just to protest. I know nobody wants to use violence. But there should be some other ways to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouKnowTheStuff (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose the intent is to make an example. As in "This is what will happen if we do not resist things like SOPA." Some thing it's a good tactic. Some don't....Jersey John (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being the voice of reason on the issue Jersey John. Cheers! -- Rob NS  02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And to you as well, Rob. Jersey John (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that people (The ones pushing this law forward) dont give a flying crap, shutting down an entire website just to make a point is both over the top and a waste in my opinion, just look at petitiononline.com. If people really want to do something write in a letters or emails to the people who are pushing for this law. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And what do you think is going to happen when the site goes dark? People will do exactly that, write in letters and emails. Can't quite equate that to some obscure petition site. Tens of millions are going to see this specific call for action. I guess the flood is coming to Congress after all! :-) CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this but the issue is just in the United States, shutting down the english wikipedia to the UK and other english speaking countries is not going to gain support it is only going to create anger. When the website goes dark the people who can read other languages other than just english will just go to the other wikipedias as for the ones who dont know other languages there is always other websites that are in protest of the proposed law but are not shutting down because of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX
 BroadSt_Bully  [talk]  03:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but with this stunt, it's been made a soapbox. 72.193.42.119 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait...did you actually read WP:NOTSOAPBOX? 'bWikipedia 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.' This isn't about an article, or a category, or a template, a talk page discussion or even a user page. This is a meta-issue about the consequences concerning the accessibility of Wikipedia as a whole. About the long-term sustainability of the entire project. Applying WP:NOTSOAPBOX is like applying WP:NPOV and saying Wikipedia shouldn't promote the free access of information to people around the world as a good and important thing because that's a point of view. Two separate things completely... --iamajpeg (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And anyway an argument about an article policy in something that could affect Wikipedia's existence is like saying one should not jump into the water to escape an angry bear because the sign says "No Swimming. $5 fine" --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or standing aside while a mob storms the Wikipedia offices to potentially end its existence, and meekly saying "i don't take sides because i'm neutral...." We aren't neutral about Wikipedia's existence. First Light (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of how I used to be: Overreacting to potential threats, that most often never materialized. Thanks for the flashback. 72.193.42.119 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Better being overprepared than underprepared. Better to head something off at the pass and wonder if it might've happened after all or not, then have waited and found out it did :D --iamajpeg (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh... maybe you're right. 72.193.42.119 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be good news if it really doesn't. But if it did, we can't exactly say "wait wait, stop! I thought it wasn't going to happen."


 * It's just 1 day. I wrestled with the same question myself before !voting and I hope this won't ever happen again, but seriously - you can praise a lemming for being unerringly principled, but he's still at the bottom of the cliff. Never mind that it's an an urban legend per WP:WHAAOE :P And wtf's with all my animal analogies, lol --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   04:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Not Political Leverage long worded essay to follow-Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make sure you sprinkle the world "shill" throughout, as you've done six times just on this talk page ;-). First Light (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to have Fcb981 confused with another editor, First Light. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, indeed I did. First Light (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are forgiven. Jersey John (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia editors
Thank you all for helping to protect the Internet from censorship. Spitfire19 T/C 05:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tens of millions of people paid very close attention to what we had to say today, and we made a significant difference.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . I've been hearing a lot of bragging and chest-beating but no statistics. How much correspondence did senators receive? How much of it was driven by Wikipedia? Similarly, how much damage was done to Wikipedia's reputation as a result? I've already seen a few articles critical of Wikipedia being used to champion a political cause. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation: "The lawmakers rushed to distance themselves from the legislation after Wikipedia went dark at midnight and several other Internet giants expressed online outrage."
 * I don't know how many senators were influenced by the Wikipedia blackout, however it is clear that 1) Wikipedia participated in the protest, and 2) several senators have changed their views, as cited in the above article for example. Did Wikipedia do that?  Did Google?  Who knows.  However, it's obvious that the protest that Wikipedia participated in has had a profound effect.  Check out some of the nearly 9000 news articles on Google News if you'd like to look further.
 * Thanks everyone who participated! Falconus p  t   c
 * Falconus, you just outed yourself as a troll. Most here may not get the "9000" reference but, for better or worse, I happen to be one who does. Jersey John (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I always simply assumed that "9000" was the number between 8999 and 9001, but perhaps I am mistaken. The Google News page gives 8,967 hits; roughly the same as what I remember from this morning.  In math class (think elementary school), I learned that when rounding to the nearest 100, when the last two digits are 50 or more, convention is to round up.  If anybody else here thinks I was trolling in my above statement, kindly let me know.  Otherwise, I'm going to take that particular accusation with a grain of salt. Falconus p  t   c 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know damn well what you meant by 9000.... Play naive if you must but you're not fooling EVERYONE... Jersey John (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a message on your talk page. I would recommend that any further discussion of this matter should take place either there or on my talk page, not here. Falconus p  t   c 06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly acknowledge there's plenty of news coverage that mentions Wikipedia (along with most of the other high profile participants). My concern here is more that people are mistaking correlation for causation. Our participation set a very concerning precedent that Wikipedia can be used as a vessel for political activism, and I'd really hate to see people in future referring back to this blackout saying 'Wikipedia protested before and we got what we wanted, so it means we're an effective tool for protesting X, Y and Z in the future'. I try to approach things as neutrally as possible but this new mark in the sand and its implications for the reputation Wikipedia has worked very hard to build seriously concerns me. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For further information on the effectiveness of the protest, please see ] and click on the "thank you" banner at the top of the page. Risker (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting article: Wide Web protests turn tide against anti-piracy bills as Congress effort goes down in flames: SOPA, PIPA bills pushed by Hollywood to stop Internet piracy, but House and Senate backers log off after blackout protests by Wikipedia, Google and others  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is deliberately misinforming people
The Legislation Currently in the United States Congress is good legislation. Wikipedia should be ashamed of misinforming people. Have any of you people actually read the legislation or are you opposing it because someone told you its bad? It's really sad how much lies and misinformation have been spread about these bills. Everyone should have the right to protect their intellectual property and have recourse with actual consequences for those who exploit pilfer and steal. The legislation and blocking provisions are the last resort if offending sites can not be contacted. These are laws protecting free speech. These laws will in no way make the United States control the internet like Communist countries.--Þadius (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fact is many people do not read proposed laws in their entirety simply due to the massive verbage. This includes both proponents opponents. In the end, the "true believers" on either side tend to have their opinion molded by what others with their own agenda have summd it up to be. Problem is, putting things in summation begs the question, What did they decided to leave out or incomplete? Jersey John (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer but here are some problems in the previous versions highlighted by those who are here, here, and here. As well as here for the amended version. So... what exactly are they misinforming about?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So, where was the blackout?
I thought the aim was to totally block accesss to Wikipedia. But all it did was stop people from editing it. Moriori (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't have JavaScript enabled, the blackout wouldn't have worked for you. That's my understanding, anyway. Falconus p  t   c 10:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was some last-minute discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative when some Wikipedians discovered that the community's preference for a full blackout was overridden by what presumably was the WMF Board's decision together with techies' advice and efforts to implement a javascript-only blackout. If i can exaggerate a little ;), it's a bit like the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia - for the moment, pending further developments in the Saudi Arab Spring, its recommendations on legislation are advisory but not binding on the King (disclaimer: there are some flaws in this analogy). A more serious way to put it is that the WMF itself does not have any rules saying that it is strictly obliged to follow decisions by the community. We also (AFAIK) do not have any formal algorithm for "English-language Wikipedia decisions by the community about actions that the WMF must or must not take". This is an interesting question in group decision making.
 * If you think you can propose an English-language Wikipedia decision-making algorithm to make decisions that are binding on the WMF Board, then please propose this. IMHO it's a good idea, but it'll take a huge discussion before it gets anywhere achieving consensus. It would require the legal advisor(s) of the WMF to accept it. Maybe see WP:RFC for hints of where to start. Boud (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for future events
Include the GMT equivalent for those who prefer calculating from that time zone. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Er... future events? I fervently hope this does not happen again.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And here I am agreeing with Obsidian...!Jersey John (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative – We might have to do this again next month because the community chose not to adapt to the changing House schedule. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely very strongly support the first blackout, but I do have to wonder about the wisdom of doing two in four weeks. Let's see what the results of this one were first, I guess.  Falconus p  t   c 18:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars – The results are looking good so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If they don't drop this completely (it's an election year, so my bet is they will), then a banner might be all that's needed a second time. The blackout definitely got people's attention, and started the education process. First Light (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the readers (voters) of the online Wall Street Journal, who some see as a defender of corporate interests, are more than 90% opposed to SOPA. These bills are likely to die a quiet death in this election year. First Light (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

New section
Global blackout of Wikipedia and all its affiliate mobile sites, Google, Facebook and other sites effected by these laws that prevent free access to information. These laws do nothing but to prevent new innovative talent from emerging into the entertainment industry and because a burden for every other internet user. These are anti competitive, pro monopoly acts, by industries that are scared that they cannot remain competitive in the future. Lets keep this internet that we build free and open for everyone to use around the world. I am proposing this black to be on January 24 for 24 hours, When the PROTECT IP Act to be voted on in Senate. This will send a very strong message to governments around the world that we will not accept this bill or any other bills of similar nature. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having fun are we? Jersey John (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity
Some newbie who has no right using Twinkle reverted this !vote. Would someone with the rights put it back in?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 12:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the blackout
English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout/Post-mortem – Please participate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You will Never die!!
I love you wikipedia, could not live without you! that people don't know and don't understand how important the web is for humanity, and for students especilaly .. You Never will die, because is more the young people and students who are on your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.237.107.145 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Congressman Rush Holt NJ 08873-4813, Reply Regarding SOPA &PIPA
Dear Mr. Massey:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H. R. 3261, the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. I appreciate knowing your views.

As your voice in the U.S. House of Representatives, I always strive to represent my constituents' concerns and interests and to provide personal service to them. I truly value your input and suggestions on the issues before the House. In a representative government such as ours, it is essential that I know what you are thinking in order to do my job. It is also important for you to know that I hear from thousands of your fellow New Jerseyans every year. While some share your views, others do not. For me, that is a reminder that we are all part of a community, and that reasonable people of good will can and do disagree on the important issues of the day.

The goal of preventing the piracy of movies, music, and other intellectual property is something I support strongly. Unfortunately, SOPA shifts the current federal focus from going after the individuals or organizations directly responsible for copyright infringements to forcing web hosting services, online payment vendors, and other intermediaries immediately to take down entire domains if a copyright infringement is even alleged. The damage done to our valuable free communication could exceed by far the danger and damage of the piracy and copyright theft.

Like you, I have many concerns about SOPA and its potential practical and legal consequences if enacted in its current form. Groups as diverse as the American Library Association, Human Rights First, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Freedom House have noted that with regard to the domain filtering requirements, the bill would also "...undermine the U.S. government's commitment to advancing a single, global Internet. Its inclusion risks setting a precedent for other countries, even democratic ones, to use the same mechanisms to enforce a range of domestic policies, effectively balkanizing the global medium of the internet." In short, the bill would undermine the ability of the U. S. government to encourage the spread of democracy abroad. The overbroad language of the bill would ensure major negative spillover effects, which is one of the reasons why I will not support it in its current form.

I am encouraged by the fact that Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Jerry Moran (R-KS) have introduced a SOPA alternative, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act (S. 2029). The OPEN Act would utilize the International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate violations of digital trade and websites found to be "willfully" and "primarily" infringing on copyright material can be shut down. Utilizing the ITC to create a transparent and adversarial process where all parties would receive due process and IP rules can be consistently applied is a more rational approach than the ones proposed in SOPA or the Protect IP Act in the Senate. Should the OPEN Act come to the House floor for a vote in its current form, I would support it.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. To learn more about my work on this and other issues, please visit my website at http://holt.house.gov. I look forward to hearing from you again about this and other issues.

Sincerely,

RUSH HOLT

Member of Congress

20:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)AMassey08873 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMassey08873 (talk • contribs)

Here we go...
I had intended not to make any edits this week, but I cannot let this story (confirmed by the ominous words "We're not done yet" in today's banner) pass without comment.

I take this to mean that the WMF is planning further disruption. I see nothing in the summary and conclusion that mandates this, indeed looking at the comments above it seems clear that most users, even those supporting the action, regard this as a "one off". I do not feel that any further disruption would have any benefit. To the WMF, I would say "You've made your point, now let democracy take its course."

Therefore, before any further action is even contemplated, I would strongly urge that the following takes place. Even if SOPA/PIPA goes through, and the worst case scenarios that some predict above comes to pass, I would rather live in a world without Wikipedia, than in a world where major policies are decided by a relatively small* number of internet users instead of their elected representatives.
 * A full debate takes place, clearly advertised even to those users with banners switched off. This should last for at least seven days. It should be made clear in advance whether !votes from newbies, unregistered users and SPAs are to be counted or not. Opposing any further action should be a clear option.
 * In order to alleviate the allegations (whether valid or not) that the protest violates WP:NPOV, I suggest the WMF invites one of the leading supporters of the bill to give a right of reply, to state their opinion of why they feel SOPA is required, and will not threaten Wikipedia. This reply should be clearly linked from any future black-out page, in order to give users a more balanced view.
 * * based on 8 million users looking up their representatives, out of a population of the USA of over 300 million. To simplify things, I have ignored those outside the USA, who have no say in American politics.

 An  optimist on the  run!  20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Optimist, I dearly hope your suggestions are taken to heart. I especially like your suggestion that the voting process be advertised in a more noticeable manner, and that it last for a solid week. Also, you raise an excellent point, on how a leading proponent should be invited in to make their case. Sadly, I think your suggestions will fall by the waysaide though. Jersey John (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative – I knew that a second anti-SOPA blackout would happen if we went on with the January 18th blackout, and SOPA won't be the last bill that the Internet will whine about. We're going to have many, many more blackouts over the course of the decade. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as people become less independent in their thinking, and as mob rule becomes more and more of a virtue. Jersey John (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr. Wales and Wikipedia
I just want to give a heartfelt thanks to Mr. Wales and Wikipedia for their strong stance against the ill-conceived legislation on Capitol Hill. It was a true manifestation of wisdom and courage.

Sincerely, Philip Lupo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.76.116 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"We're Not Done Yet."
I would be a lot less hostile toward this new precedent Wiki has set for itself, if the powers-that-be would just come out and say they have decided to turn Wikipedia into a a venue for expressing political and social opinion. That the blackout (which had workarounds anyway) having gone through, and with this new statement, it could not be any more obvious. Wikipedia has changed. Rightly or wrongly, it has changed, and it can not continue to purport to be NPOV and not a soap box, and still be considered honest. It's a lie of ommision. Jersey John (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I came to this party a bit late (on January 15) and, for the past few days, I've been content to be an observer. However, I'm compelled now to suggest: it's time, I think, to drop the stick. I realize that the (partial) blackout was implemented in the face of vehement opposition by a minority, and that some within it completely reject the justification for the blackout. However, we are approaching the point where this is becoming refusal to acknowledge (not to be confused with 'accept') the opinions and perspectives of 'the other side'.


 * It has been pointed out, repeatedly, that the decision to use Wikipedia in this instance to make a political point was justified by the perceived threat to its existence, and that the blackout was not meant to constitute a first step into a new era of social activism. Whether one chooses to believe that the threat was real or imaged, and irrespective of one's opinion on how slippery the slope is, there can be no denying that pro-blackout editors considered this instance to be a unique moment – and not just because it was the first time – and have expressed no intention to slip down the slope any further.


 * It has also been pointed out, repeatedly, that WP:NPOV and WP:NOT apply to content and not to Wikipedia itself as it is impossible to be wholly, completely and utterly neutral in every aspect of one's being. The theoretical neutrality of which you speak is violated by the mere fact of having five pillars which dictate, among other things, "respect copyright laws", "do not plagiarize your sources", "strive to find free alternatives to any media", "all your contributions are freely licensed", "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner" and "avoid personal attacks".


 * In short... let's discuss to our hearts' content whether the blackout was the right choice, what negative and positive effects it had and what to do next. Let's not, however, continue with comments that imply either that the pro-blackout editors have not made clear their thoughts and intentions or that they are deceitful and/or evil. Respectfully, -- Black Falcon (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Time will tell. Jersey John (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Wikipedian of almost seven years, I can assure you that we're in no danger of changing for the worse. The blackout was unprecedented, yes, but we've also done unprecedented things in the past that have made people cry doom and say that the end was nigh. It's simply not true - the core values of the project haven't changed, and, hopefully, they won't change. I understand that you may not have the appropriate context right now, and things may seem a bit unclear, but don't worry; we're not washing into the sea any time soon. m.o.p  18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mop, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? You are purposely misrepresenting what I am saying. At no time have I said "evil" as you implied I said a few comments back, nor have I said "we are doomed," nor have I made any statement that Wikipedia is going to turn into something bad in general. What I AM saying is that the climate has most certainly changed into one where Wikipedia can now be used as a socio-political soapbox. Don't inflate what I say to a level that was not intended just to add weight to your case that I am wrong. Jersey John (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I've never said that you said evil - look through my contributions if you'd like - but that's not the point. Given your level of contribution to this topic, and the overtly negative view you have about it, I think it's safe to say that, when you say "they have decided to turn Wikipedia into a a venue for expressing political and social opinion", you aren't talking about a better Wikipedia (in your mind). Of course, I could be mistaken, and the front of apparent frustration that you're exuding could just be misleading when you're actually quite content with Wikipedia - who knows.
 * Either way, just take comfort in the fact that Wikipedia is still as neutral as it has ever been on content, and that the unprecedented action of opposing legislation which would directly effect our demise is a one-time thing. Keep calm and carry on. m.o.p  22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MOP, your comments just appear to be a whole load of your personal opinions presented as if facts. With, I will add, a heavy dash of scaremongering and exaggeration thrown in. Definition of demise, death or the end of existence or activity.   You  really  can  22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you've looked up that definition for me. m.o.p  22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stick to words you understand and save me the worthless work.   You  really  can  23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A wild blue link appears! Cheers, m.o.p  23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn. So stop presenting your opinionated exaggerations as if facts.    You  really  can
 * I found this just for you! It's even sourced, because we all like citations. Enjoy, m.o.p  23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mop, the more you add, the less intellectual you sound, and the more like a juvenile having a passive-aggressive verbal war on a BBS. Jersey John (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can keep this up all day. m.o.p  23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, evidently you can. Do you not see how that reinforces my point? Also, your predilection for having last word also discredits you. Jersey John (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're not retracting your personal attacks, then? m.o.p  08:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
You can show your support by putting this template by using  onto your user page =) --111Alleskoenner (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added this "userbox" to my user page. I include my userboxes in a "helpbox", so they will float along the right side.  Maybe someone can create a special userbox for voters to put on their user pages, instead of the big userbox mess that I used.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  16:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could create Barnstar(s) for people that voted. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems elitist and selfserving. Jersey John (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support the barnstar idea only if would say "thanks for your participation in the SOPA initiative discussion" or words to that effect, regardless of how they voted or what position they took on the blackout. Expressing appreciation to all who lent their voice in the matter - regardless of where they stood - would be a constructive and perhaps (to some degree) unifying gesture, whereas using barnstars to commend various users for taking the "right" stand would likely just contribute to further division and disharmony within the community.--JayJasper (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that without reservation. While I'm clearly a strong opponent of those bills and supported Wikipedia's blackout to help fight them, the people who opposed the measure or who preferred other measures did so out of real concern about the project and their concerns were no less legitimate because the majority did not agree with them or felt them compelling enough to sway their votes. Wikipedia as a group taking a political position like this was unprecedented, and regardless of whether one thinks it was a good idea or not, it should not be used to divide the community into camps.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point I was trying to make. Thank you for expanding on it, Coren.--JayJasper (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, though I plan to leave it on my user page. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my comments above were pertaining specifically to the barnstar idea, not the userbox. Two different things.--JayJasper (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please come up with a passover method for lawmakers that are opposed to SOPA/PIPA
For the love of God, can we get some lambs' blood on the lentil for those Congressmen and Senators that are actually sponsoring the OPEN Act, or are opposed to SOPA/PIPA? It really would not take that much effort to inform folks as to who supports SOPA/PIPA and who is opposed to it. In fact, if you advertised the idea that Congressional offices should confirm their position with Wikipedia, I am sure that you would get a lot of phone calls from those parties that agree with this protest, and you would direct the protest in the right direction. When you offer up office numbers for a ZIP code entry during the next blackout, can you please put a green check mark or something for those parties that are confirmed to be against SOPA/PIPA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.22.115 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ Selery (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We actually couldn't do that. It would probably be perceived as illegal electioneering.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not shut down the internet.
Please dont shut it down, we need to be able to connect to people around the world and communicate and share our opinions. We need free sharing sites, everyone mostly does, mostly everyone is against this. Please SOPA and PIPA stop this and leave everything alone..

Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.73.182 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, no-one's gonna shut down the entire internet. In fact, I don't think anyone can. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was considering shutting down the internet, but after 68.*'s heartfelt plea I've decided not to. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've postponed it to next week so you all can have enough time to evacuate to Mars. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make a few hardcopies of it before it is shut down.WHPratt (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request — shortcut template
sudo

Please fix the shortcut code. Also, if so inclined, please also unprotect the page. There's no reason for continued full protection. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected the page; the reason for protection (preventing further activity on the page until completion of the action) is no longer germane. You can probably fix the template yourself. Risker (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, thanks. :-) I just fixed the shortcut code. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What is wikipedia protesting about exactly and when is it going to end?
I know it's about SOPA, but what are the things that wikipedia finds objectionable in SOPA? Does wikipedia oppose SOPA and legislation like it in any form at present and into the future? I feel this should have been discussed before the blackout. As far as I know no official list of demands were made by wikipedia so it's difficult for me to know when or how the SOPA initiative will end (if it hasn't done so already). Geoff Brigham | lists sections of the bill he has problems with but he does not propose how it should be changed so that it is acceptable to wikipedia. LowStar (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)