Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Archive 3

Well isn't this bloody ironic?
Fucking amazing. A website which loathes censorship, proposes to censor itself entirely in order to protest censorship. Anyone see the irony in that? What a bloody stupid idea. Grow up, protest to Congress. Don't make the rest of the world suffer because your congress and businesses are paranoid. Jesus. BarkingFish 01:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is something inexplicably gratifying when you see a message of a certain kind and then see that the signing name is completely unsurprising. I guess it's just a feeling of rightness to the universe, that while many thing change the people are still the same. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is something strangely gratifying to me that when I have an unusual or unpleasant opinion, it gets turned on, Gmaxwell. Those of us outside the US don't have a say in your laws.  So why should we (in the sense of "those wikipedians not in the United States") get left in the dark?  US law, let the US fight it - just don't mix us up in your battles.   BarkingFish  11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He's got a very valid point. Did it not strike any of you that perhaps they could have included a "End SOPA" ad above each article page? Or include a detailed section regarding how to express your disproval on the article of every Congressman or politician in favour of SOPA?

Anything that would actually help to fight it outside of shutting down a site that is needed by those not affected by SOPA?

Hell, even just blacking out the whole site and having a singular re-direct to an article ONLY including criticism of SOPA? So that the millions of people attempting to use Wikipedia are re-directed to an article about what's wrong with SOPA?

No? That didn't come up in the brain storms for any of you? 124.169.196.44 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Harlequin


 * He doesn't have a valid point— or do you consider it ironic that workers may strike without pay in order to demand better wages? A day is a tiny blip of time— Wikimedia sites have excellent uptime compared to many other websites. In much of the industrialized world most businesses are only open 5 days out of 7 but our community runs non-stop, and yet organizations which close on some days do fine. If you like, you can consider this as just cashing in some unspent vacation time for the servers to go protest. :)
 * The discussion included less aggressive alternatives like the ones you suggested, but people— including people outside of the US— strongly preferred a full blackout.
 * Your suggestions of attacking the content of the politicians articles are horrifying to me. Considering the 'politicization' complaints I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that at all. The community opposes SOPA/PIPA because of the harm we believe they'll cause to free speech on the Internet, free speech which is essential to our mission. That danger, apparently justifies taking the site down for a day. It sure as heck doesn't justify biasing the articles.
 * "Hell, even just blacking out the whole site and having a singular re-direct", I'm not sure what you think is happening, but that actual blackout will be somewhat similar to that— though it isn't something people would confuse for an article. See the test page. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See, it's sad that you're now bordering on the moronic to try and disprove his valid point. Especially when you can't see the difference between a strike (workers removing their labour from an employer, forcing them to concede long term to survive short term) and this...where those introducing SOPA, wait for it, ARE NOT INCONVIENIENCED BY THIS BLACKOUT IN ANY WAY. Since they don't gain anything from Wikipedia.

Try again? 124.169.196.44 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Harlequin


 * The rationale of the people supporting this is very much "accept a short term harm to improve long term survival", and the fact of this belief remains true even if you don't believe it. If you think this won't adversely impact those pushing this legislation both directly (they and their staff use Wikipedia) and indirectly — well, I don't know what to say, do you really think that? --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
 * "Grow up, protest to Congress." The blackout is a protest to Congress. It is meant to raise awareness and encourage people to contact their representatives in Congress.
 * "Did it not strike any of you that perhaps they could have included a "End SOPA" ad above each article page? Or include a detailed section regarding how to express your disproval on the article of every Congressman or politician in favour of SOPA?" This did occur to many people, along with a lot of other ideas. You can read about them here. The blackout screen design will include suggestions on how to express disapproval, and will provide users with the contact info of their legislators, based on a ZIP code.
 * "Hell, even just blacking out the whole site and having a singular re-direct to an article ONLY including criticism of SOPA?" In case you weren't aware, SOPA, PROTECT IP Act, and related articles will remain accessible during the blackout. Those articles include sections about criticisms to the bills.
 * “those introducing SOPA, wait for it, ARE NOT INCONVIENIENCED BY THIS BLACKOUT IN ANY WAY. Since they don't gain anything from Wikipedia.” That is false. Members of Congress do use Wikipedia.

Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not akin to a strike. We're on fucking Wikipedia and you can't even understand that simple thing. *facepalm* 124.169.196.44 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

Don't block access to the site entirely
I agree with User:haha169's comment on the project page before its full protection. If you want to send a message, great. Paint the screen black, blast a message on the main page, whatever. But a lot of people want to use Wikipedia. By shutting down the site, you're not hurting members of Congress; you're screwing Wikipedia users. There are better ways to do this. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As well noted by Braincricket (talk) (19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)): “those introducing SOPA, wait for it, ARE NOT INCONVIENIENCED BY THIS BLACKOUT IN ANY WAY. Since they don't gain anything from Wikipedia.” That is false. Members of Congress do use Wikipedia.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixed Feelings On the Issue
Although I support a protest of sorts, I am adamantly opposed to shutting down of any of the Wikimedia sites. As Wikipedia is my favorite website, I would have a huge gaping hole in my life. If there is any way to do this without shutting down any of the sites, that would be great! Allen (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If SOPA or PIPA come to pass, sites like Wikipedia could be permanently shut down. The community has spoken already, and the website is going offline for only 24 hours, which is a lot less than "permanently".  Imzadi 1979  →   04:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit that I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to it, but I would think Wikipedia of all sites would be in favor of something like this. Unlike Facebook, blogs, message boards, etc, we like to pretend that we respect copyright here.  I guess that's all for show? --B (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * … There is a substantial difference between respecting copyright and supporting due process lacking broad censorship powers requiring only an allegation of infringement. It's also the case that while we respect copyright, any expansion of copyright or its enforcement makes our work harder and less likely to be successful. Our core methodologies like the fact that we can use a community process rather than proactive editorial review absolutely depends on the consequences of small amounts of infringement here and there being insignificant. Finally, because we do attempt to scrupulously respect the law— it's important to have the right laws in place, far less so for those who will largely ignore them as much as they can get away with. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

total blackout?
SOPA_initiative/Action is 763 support vs 104 opposing, where full blackout is "Not only present an information click-through page, but close off editing and reading of the entire site. ... The goal to achieve by a full, temporary blackout is to demonstrate to users what it is like to not have information available. Such a strong, immediate response may also have the effect of setting an example to warn politicians world wide that they could be setting themselves up for humiliating defeat if they suggest similar laws in the future."

The techcrunch.com blackout design and the WMF test site include a "continue to Wikipedia" button, which suggests reading will still be possible. (see Wikitech-l: SOPA banner implementation). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The continue button/link needs to be removed.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur strongly with Imzadi.  Spencer T♦ C 04:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the turning JavaScript off bit quite concerns me. One should not be able to evade the blackout by doing this. --Rschen7754 04:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This. --Rafaelluik (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Problematic reasoning in summary re: global blackout
The summary states: "On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations. For example, one British editor stated "American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest", a principle we felt had considerable support." (emphasis added)

While this is true, if you take into account all the votes it is clear that the majority oppose a global blackout, as the only option including a global blackout (option 2) got 591 votes out of 1209 votes cast, or 49%. It would seem that the "consensus" (which is a strange term to use about near 50% decisions) is that there should be no global blackout. --kissekatt (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont doubt your stats, but .. what method did you use to arrive at "1209 votes cast"? According to the Page revision statistics, 1,893 users edited the /Action page, and 68 were IPs (3.61%). John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was referring to the number of votes cast under the sub-header 15.2.1 US only vs global (all users). I simply added up all of the votes cast for each option. Here are the raw numbers in case you are interested: 15.2.1.1 (1) Blackout US only, global banner - 479 votes; 15.2.1.2 (2) Global blackout and banner - 591 votes; 15.2.1.3 (3) Blackout and banner both US only - 23 votes; 15.2.1.4 (4) No blackout, global banner - 21 votes; 15.2.1.5 (5) No blackout, banner US only - 19 votes; 15.2.1.6 (6) No blackout and no banner - 76 votes; Total: 1209 votes. --kissekatt (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some users didn't follow instructions and voted under multiple sections, but I don't think the outcome would be different. If I were closing I would have probably gone the way of US blackout, global banners, because most people supporting global blackout would have been content with that, but I'm happy with this outcome and hope we can all support it as a community going forward. Dcoetzee 07:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support it? Certainly not.  I have tasks I want to do tomorrow that don't involve contacting my Congressional representatives about a bill that won't come up for a vote.  Powers T 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've compiled a distinct username list for everyone who voted in all of those sections and there are only 1092 different users and IPs. That is 54% support the complete blackout. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Test blackout page doesn't work if JS is disabled
The test blackout page doesn't work if JS is disabled. I think an implementation which is so easily avoided goes against the communities wishes, it also may create a vandalism hazard if editing is not disabled: Trouble makers will bypass by turning of JS (or editing via the API) while regular users will be away, allowing the site to get all crapped up while it's down. Please make sure to go read only during the blackout and consider not making the blackout JS mediated. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do so. --Rschen7754 07:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I reasonably expect the developers will ensure that the text of articles cannot be loaded by anyone by any means during this period (except for the emergency provision). Dcoetzee 07:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * concerns me though. --Rschen7754 08:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we are agreed on a global blackout, we could do something with global stylesheets like MediaWiki:Noscript.css to catch people without JS. Or the Foundation may take more comprehensive action now it doesn't need to be geo-localised; there are concerns about it affecting Google caches, for instance, which are most easily solved if the MediaWiki software is bypassed.  But let's see how things pan out.  Happy‑melon 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: concerns about affecting Google caches, please see Google's guide on how to take down your site correctly for SOPA or maintenance at https://plus.google.com/115984868678744352358/posts/Gas8vjZ5fmB --Guy Macon (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Foresight for those who lack it.
I support the blackout, in order to demonstrate the future repurcussions of SOPA/PIPA to those who are incapable of exercising even the slightest foresight or empathy. To be effective, it is important to also work with Google to BLACKOUT THE GOOGLE CACHE of Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.69.92 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The glorious action deserves a follow up
Since this operation is shaping up to be such a roaring success, with all quotas exceeded by at least 350%, I must insist that it is imperative for The Project to continue on down this shining path in its revolutionary endeavors to bring light to the toiling internet masses and further struggle against the reactionary evil doers out there in the suffering world!

I suggest, comrades, that we follow up what is obviously going to be a powerful statement about all the SOPAs, PIPAs, NIPPAs, DUPAs, KUPAs, and UMPALUMPAs out there, by steadfastly and resolutely standing up against the Presidential candidacy of Jon Huntsman!!! I heard somewhere that he has some wacky views about the intranets and that could mean that Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it!!!

Some weak minded lumps might argue that Huntsman is no longer relevant and that we would be wasting our time. Do not heed these misguided words, my brothers! They are merely a product of false consciousness deviously implanted over the years by vicious propaganda from the likes of Wikipedia Review! We can never be sure that he doesn't decide to come back into the race and try and implement ... whatever those internet related ideas might be!

I demand that we starting in less than 21 seconds - this matter is too urgent to procrastinate, the enemy doesn't sit idle - we institute a global blackout of the entire site and maintain it until we can be absolutely, 100.14% sure, that Huntsmen is not running for the Republican nomination for US president nor will he ever, nor will his progeny ever, nor will his next door neighbor ever, nor will his next door neighbor's progeny ever, nor will his next door neighbor's progeny next door neighbor ever, nor will his next door neighbor's progeny next door neighbor's progeny ever, nor will his next door neighbor's progeny's next door neighbor's progeny... sorry got lost on that one ... ever run again!

I look forward to the support for this proposal, especially from those of my colleagues who have joined Our Project in the last couple of hours! This is the perfect opportunity to get involved! Revolution will not wait for you.


 * Support as nom. Volunteer Marek  08:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Invalid - Jon Huntsman withdrew from seeking candidacy on Monday. BarkingFish  11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that was the point. SOPA has also been tabled, analogously.  Powers T 12:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to avoid using the word "tabled." It has a different meaning in the UK than in the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, opposite IIRC. I suggest "deprived of all sustenance" in order to accomodate both languages.  Collect (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your attempt at humor. ::shakes head, sighs::  Jim Reed   (Talk)  22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Wikipedia blackout article
The 2012 Wikipedia blackout article has been created. The "background" section needs to be expanded. Any editor who has been closely involved in this process will have the necessary knowledge to be able to do that, and is invited to improve the article. Obviously off-wiki sources will be preferable to on-wiki discussions, but that will depend on such coverage by off-wiki sources. See talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout for further comments by myself on the useablility of these pages as a source of info. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please test US rep. lookup feature
We've built a small feature for US citizens that lets you look up your representatives.

If you can help, please test it here:
 * http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip=

Replace with a ZIP code, e.g. 90210:
 * http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip=90210

We're only supporting five digit ZIP code precision for now.

Note that the landing page copy & design isn't final yet.

This is based on Sunlight Foundation data with some community additions.

Please report errors here.

Many thanks! --Eloquence* 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 23456 and 23457 do not work ... they should be Scott Rigell. Instead, they're showing someone from North Carolina. 23322 is Randy Forbes.  It is also showing the NC guy.  23703 is mostly in Bobby Scott's district (it may actually completely be in his district - not 100% sure if Randy still has any of it now or not), but it is showing up as Randy. --B (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, nothing came up to enter zip code into, on the screen. Just said "Your representatives" and that's it. Petersontinam (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to edit the URL. If you want 75948, go to http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip=75948.  --B (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, embarrassingly didn't see that... Petersontinam (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For 49801, All were correct and all "Contact forms" brought me to their contact pages. Petersontinam (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://pitts.house.gov/contact.shtml gives a 404 error. It should go to https://pitts.house.gov/contact-me or https://pitts.house.gov/contact-me/legislative-contact-form. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 06117, 06107 and 06002 come up as Chris Murphy (CT 5). As far as I can tell from the map they should be in John Larson's district (CT 1). GabrielF (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors of Wikipedia
Even though you, me, we and they are not done yet, I want to say thank you. First and foremost to the administrators and editors who have pulled a large weight in this affair. You know who you are and I thank you. But also thank 'you' (yes you), the editor who simply voiced your opinion on this and related pages, with an IP lingering at the back of your vote or comment. That is much more than what could be expected for the Internet at large. I may be called naive by claiming this "comparison", but it is what I feel. I could explain in more detail why, but I'll keep it short.

All of this is a testament to why I support Wikipedia (in time, money and spirit). Katana (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disingenuous
In the "Summary and conclusion", it is said that


 * "over 1800 Wikipedians [...] is by far the largest level of participation [...], which illustrates the level of concern"

I was one of the 1800+. But, my concern was not about SOPA (I am concerned about it, but that's another matter) but about the proposed radical action and its possible negative consequences for Wikipedia.

Disingenuously misrepresenting the purpose of our participation is just one indication of the misguided radicalism that is behind this proposed action.

I also point out that given the way the vote was organized, it is clear that the majority of those who participated did NOT vote for a global blackout; this radical option was supported only by the most vocal minority. I recognize that the voting process is informal to begin with, nonetheless I feel that such radical action should never be taken unless it has clear majority (50%+) support. This blackout does not have majority support.

Calls to black out Google's cache or block attempts to bypass the JavaScript blackout page for the blackout to be "effective" further demonstrate what I call misguided radicalism. If the "effect" you are trying to achieve is truly to raise awareness of SOPA, it is amply accomplished without such vindictive thoroughness.

Last but not least... now that SOPA is effectively dead, and presumably, the mere threat of a WP blackout contributed to its demise, what's the rationale for going ahead with the blackout anyway? Stay the course, like a good(?) politician would? vttoth (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I pointed out the bypass primarily out of vandalism concern. It pains me to see mud flung in my direction like this.
 * You disrespect yourself by using weak arguments like "oh, 1800 but some oppose!", yes, some— a few— did, and the text of the closure acknowledged that. But really, the full blackout option was added late (presumably because many of the comments in the blackout section seemed to be indicating they wanted a full blackout) and yet managed 763 commenting in support against only 104 commenting in opposition. The prior 'blackout' section before spitting into kinds had 119 vs 16. This action doesn't have majority support, it has a super-abundant super-majority support, I think it's the strongest support for a non-status-quo action I've ever seen on the project, when considering the size of the participation. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Majority of whom? 763 may in some sense be the majority of "the community" but it's a much bigger question than such a small community.  Jim.henderson (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I want you to imagine a room with 763 people in it and with that image in your mind, tell me that this it is "such a small community". Can you do this with a straight face? This isn't a new discussion— it's been going on since early December. In every place we've had it the clear majority of the participants has favored action. Consider people silly, if you like, but the support was certainly there. In this particular place the page was advertised by the site notice, so it's not like it was something obscure that people had to seek out. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not misrepresent my statements. I did not say anything like "oh, 1800 but some oppose!". I merely pointed out some (many?) visited this page driven primarily by concern over the proposed action and not concern over SOPA and it is disingenuous to misrepresent the intent of our participation.


 * As to the "oppose" votes, may I remind you that the voting page specifically asked us "To avoid clutter, please Support only your favorite option (do not Oppose)". I suspect I am not the only one who, following this explicit instruction, avoided casting "Oppose" votes. I apologize for trying to play by the rules.


 * As to who disrespects whom, I do not know, but allow me to point out that I focused my comments on the process, not on its participants, which I think is the proper thing to do. vttoth (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I was misrepresenting your statements. Since the number of people in the class you're proposing is obviously very small, and you're not even bothering to suggest a number— I think the only reasonable characterization is that you're suggesting that because there were ANY in that class a count of overall participation can't be used as a gauge of the level of concern.
 * I'm disappointed that you continue to misrepresent the closure text. The text reads "Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA." this is a simple factual statement and is no way misleading. The text continues, "This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation.". This is again another simple factual statement.  It does not state or even imply that every participant was concerned about the legislation— though by looking at the page you can see that the vast majority were expressing concern. The number of people who turned out who were concerned only about the concern were rather few in number, but even they would not be there for lack of the existence of a large concern in the community about the legislation so their numbers are still a proxy for the level of concern. If you want to be a real pedant the number of unique users to edit the page was 2004 by the time it was protected, so if it makes you happy you can imagine that the 1800 number excludes every single person who came to comment only in concern about the project's response (and then a large number more).
 * Okay, opposes marred by process— fine, ignore them. The no-blackout/no-banner option had only 76 supports. There is really no way of rationally cutting this up to show anything but strong support.--Gmaxwell (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was framed to get the desired result. Rather than asking if SOPA is a good piece of legislation or, if it is not, if Wikipedia should stage a protest against SOPA, and settling those two questions first, you chose instead to ask the question, presupposing that there is going to be a protest, what form should it take.  In other words, you had already decided that there was going to be a protest and that Wikipedia would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia. --B (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a do-nothing option on the poll from the very start, but it only managed to gather 76 supports. Yes, there were assumptions in how it was laid out— but they were well justified: Your yes/no question started back around December 10th and discussion has continued since then. There isn't any reasonable way to cut any of the prior discussions that don't conclude a strong majority supported doing something, so the primary purpose of this poll was to validate what support existed for some particular options. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

News to me
I had not heard of this initiative. I do not agree with blacking out Wikipedia to protest anything politically. I resent that it is made to seem like I support this initiative when I do not.

Are you guys really going through with this?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * News to most. Just as when Marion Morrison was told he had been renamed to John Wayne without first telling him the question would be under discussion, most editors and almost all readers were only told after the decision had been made.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Darn. I was sure your personal invitation was sent, I guess we'll have to change the blackout page from saying "Paul McDonald supports Freedom on the Internet" to "Wikipedia* Supports freedom on the Internet [*]Except Paul". I hope the graphic artists can handle it in time!
 * More seriously, this has been discussed all over the project for over a month— there were prior watchlist notices for the discussion— this most recent discussion was announced via a sitenotice. What more do you want? An invitation in the newspaper? Oh wait, you got that too (and in many others, that was just the first google hit for wikipedia blackout news prior to this week).
 * But don't worry, few people will make the mistake of assuming that every Wikipedia contributor supports this. In fact, I fully expect the press— many of who have scrupulously avoided covering this subject before we started making blackout noises— to give a super healthy double helping of unequal time to the minority who do not in order to portray the matter as controversial (not because they're terribly biased, though they are, but just because controversial sells more stories). --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, you don't need to be mean. Jim and others who are opposed to the blackout have a perfectly reasonable complaint; it is an unusual and novel thing for English Wikipedia to be doing; and it is certainly going to annoy some people.  This is not their fault; if anything, the majority who are committed to pushing forward with a blackout should be compassionate towards those who do not appreciate the action, and even apologetic that there was no time to implement a more nuanced solution.  66.31.200.47 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an unusual and novel thing indeed, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the concerns— and, in fact, did not lodge support for the full blackout myself— But at least to my ears the "I had not heard … I resent" is deeply disrespectful of the many hundreds of people who did participate in the process, especially considering that reasonable notice— by any workable standard— was provided. I think it debases our process to have a small minority, who either didn't participate by choice or by unfortunate accident or did but didn't get their way, monopolize the talk page here after the fact creating the appearance of opposition far more substantial than was objectively measured by the poll.
 * If any feelings were hurt by my barbed comments, for that I apologize. Some of my remarks— like pointing out that you'd have to be living under a rock to miss the discussion considering the coverage it got— are simply too good to omit, even if they do come out a bit harsh. It's nothing personal. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't live under a rock. I've edited on Wikipedia likely every day for the last month-256 edits so far in January, 628 in December (according to my log). I can find no notification to me on any watchlist.  I don't subscribe to the Washington Post so I didn't get an invitation in the newspaper.  I saw no poll.  I found out when I saw the header stating it was already done.  So yes, I had not heard.  And I do still resent that it is being played as if I support the initiative.  It is deeply disrespectful by the "many hundreds of people who did participate in the process" to come to such a conclusion that affects so many and then spring it upon the world, then act like the remaining tens of thousands of Wikipedia regular contributors should have known about it and that we all agree and support the decision of a few.
 * In closing, GMaxwell, you state that "Some of my remarks... are simply too good to omit, even if they do come out a bit harsh" I completely disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Notification was previously performed using the same message used for the current countdown— the site notice. The prior notice was via the watchlist notice, the signpost, the village pump, the wikimedia mailing list. Some people do, of course, miss the site notices for various reasons, browser caching, accidental dismissal, etc. But what to you want? How is it being played as if _you_ support this initiative? Do you agree with every single action taken on the process? Were you consulted before Wikimedia deployed the new search or the vector user interface changes? What standard would you hold the project you which was not met? Perhaps there is at least someone more we can come up with to improve notice? --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I only found about the actual discussion, while it was well under way, via an external site, Wikipedia Review. And I DID participate in some of the early discussions. The only thing that I was notified off was about a discussion on the SOPA article itself.

This was railroaded through. The foundation and Jimbo made up their minds to go for a cheap publicity stunt, they then structured the discussion to give it a veneer of legitimacy. The kind of nonsensical claims and idiotic hyperbole (end of the world as we know it!!!!!!!) that went on in the related discussion would not survive a tag for an hour on a regular, highly viewed, Wikipedia article (well, actually...). And the hysterics, the attacks and the mob mentality drove off the few reasonable people that had somehow managed to get aware that this discussion was taking place.

And now, SOPA's dead anyway but the black banners have already been printed so we MUST go through with the blackout regardless, facts be damned! This is soooooo going to backfire (and already is), both internally and externally. Good editors who didn't sign up to be political activists will get even more disillusioned (and leave), while to the outside world Wikipedia will look silly (again).

Cheap publicity stunts *do* get you attention, but there's a reason why that modifier "cheap" is there - you get what you pay for. Volunteer Marek 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SOPA's dead, huh? It's not like a bill has been pronounced "dead" before, only to be resurrected and "railroaded" through the Congress the night before a major federal holiday! Until this session of Congress closes, this bill is by no means "dead". Let's not forget PIPA, either: you know, the slightly less ugly sibling of SOPA that is now hurdling its way through the Senate? I understand your sentiment completely, I really do; however, seeing as how until we pushed for this the bills were on track for passage as soon as early February, this is cutting a bit close in my opinion.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Like this.--Gmaxwell (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please correct the wrong numbers - this is embarrassing! Double-check of user count
"Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together..."

Many of the people who commented for either US-only or global options also commented independently either for or against the full blackout option. So the numbers cannot be added up just by reading the "vote" counts on the rendered page.

The following bash script: wget -O SOPA_I_Action_history 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&limit=10000&action=history' grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\"[^>]*mw-userlink" SOPA_I_Action_history |sort|uniq|wc

gives me: 1401   5859  123001

That means 1401 unique editors. This is a fair amount less than 1800.

The "72 hours" is also wrong. # (cur | prev) 17:23, 13 January 2012‎ Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs)‎ (4,919 bytes) (Create)

We can count the number of unique editors for the 72 hours starting with Philippe's page creation, or we can count the number of unique editors for the 72 hours from 00:00 UTC 14 Jan to 23:59 UTC 16 Jan:

tail -n 3825 SOPA_I_Action_history |grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\"[^>]*mw-userlink" |sort|uniq|wc  1270    5313  111546 tail -n +89 SOPA_I_Action_history |head -n 3741 |grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\"[^>]*mw-userlink" |sort|uniq|wc 1377   5751  120887

So there are at least two possible correct options (assuming i have counted correctly) to replace the false statement:
 * 1) Over the course of the past 79 hours, 1400 Wikipedians have joined together...
 * 2) Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1300 Wikipedians have joined together...

Could someone please correct this or provide an alternative analysis showing that my count is wrong? Anyone using a GNU/Linux system can check these counts in a few seconds. To understand the two different 72 hour counts requires understanding enough about the tools to play with them and read files. The downloaded (html) SOP_I_Action_history file was about 5 Mb in size when i downloaded it. Boud (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1800 figure was from here (look for 1,894), if I recall correctly. NW ( Talk ) 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The toolserver link claims "1,894", you are correct. The source code seems to be here: http://code.google.com/p/soxred93tools/source/browse/trunk/web/articleinfo/index.php
 * So the question is: are my two lines of shell script wrong, or is a 700 line php script wrong? The author of the tool does not seem to have edited Wikiprojects since 6 Jan. Boud (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Red link users have a more complex html line than blue link users.

grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" SOPA_I_Action_history |sort|uniq|wc
 * gives me

1775   7779  154199
 * and

tail -n 3825 SOPA_I_Action_history |grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" |sort|uniq|wc  tail -n +91 SOPA_I_Action_history |head -n 3741 | grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(User:[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" |sort|uniq|wc
 * give me

1599   6972  138311   1744    7630  151436
 * i added 2 to the head part of the file to cut because of two edits since i last downloaded (i accidentally removed my first download).
 * So this would make two possible correct statements:


 * 1) Over the course of the past 79 hours, 1700 Wikipedians have joined together...
 * 2) Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1700 Wikipedians have joined together...
 * The difference in counts is now much less significant. Let's see if i can trace the remaining 194 would-be users according to the 700-line php script... Boud (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The missing users were the IP users. So bluelink + redlink + IP users together give the 1894 over 79 hours, and from midnight to midnight 72 hours, we have 1861 unique editors:

$ cat SOPA_I_Action_history| grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(\(User:\|Special:Contributions/\)[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" |sort |uniq |wc  1894    8136  167291  $ tail -n 3825 SOPA_I_Action_history| grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(\(User:\|Special:Contributions/\)[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" |sort |uniq |wc 1683   7224  147547  $ tail -n +91 SOPA_I_Action_history| head -n 3741 | grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(\(User:\|Special:Contributions/\)[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" |sort |uniq |wc   1861    7981  164306
 * No modification of the text is required, and the toolserver script is correct :). i've modified the section heading here to take this into account. Boud (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 2004 people have participated on the page before it was protected, in fact. You don't have to lodge a 'vote' in order to be a participant. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell us concretely how you calculated this? Boud (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That number is dumping the history of the page an sort/uniq on the usernames. I don't know how the 1800 number was counted, I presume it's just an earlier number of the same technique rounded down. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that participants include anyone who edited the page, not just people who "voted". Regarding the actual count, you missed some crucial details: how you "dumped" the history, and how you regex-ed it prior to sort|uniq|wc. In any case, this is now a moot point - my bug was that my regex only caught blue-link logged-in users. My later regex catches blue-link + red-link + IP users and matches the toolserver count of 1849 overall, and 1861 over the 72 hours prior to about the time the page was protected. So "over 1800 over 72 hours" is correct. Maybe your regex included some (155) lines of html that were not actual users?
 * In any case, NW and Gmaxwell, thanks both for your fast responses. Problem solved. Boud (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not regexing the signatures, I'm looking at the actual edit entries. A signature count is going to under report due to fancy custom signatures and the original "blackout" section which was moved to another page after the blackout was split into hard/soft. But I'm glad we found at least some procedure that explains the page. Hm. I see you were checking the history too, perhaps I was managing to double count users with minor and non-minor edits. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep working on this until everyone agree on a number for the last 72 hours before protection. This is going to go down in history. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, the "last 72 hours" is constantly going to change. I think you mean the 72 hours of discussion from midnight UTC to midnight UTC, or the 79 hours from page creation to midnight 23:59 16 Jan. Anyway, here is a slightly fuller script:


 * 1) !/bin/bash


 * 1) (C) User:Boud (on Wikipedia) 2012 (CC-BY-SA as per WMF) or (GPLv3 or later)
 * 2) CC-BY-SA as per WMF: see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use
 * 3) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/
 * 4) You may use either or both licences at your choosing.

MAXEDITNO=10000
 * 1) MAXEDITNO might, in principle, need to be increased in the distant future

URL1="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?" URL2="title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&limit=${MAXEDITNO}&action=history" URL="${URL1}${URL2}"


 * 1) get the html rendered version of the page
 * 2) wget -O SOPA_Action_history "${URL}"

csplit SOPA_Action_history "/23:52, 16 January 2012.*User:NuclearWarfare/" > /dev/null mv xx01 SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan echo "SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan starts:" head -n 1 SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan # check that the first line is what is expected echo ""
 * 1) remove edits more recent than the last edit on 16 Jan 2012

csplit SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan "/00:07, 14 January 2012.*User:JayJasper/1" > /dev/null mv xx00 SOPA_72hours_only echo "SOPA_72hours_only starts and ends:" head -n 1 SOPA_72hours_only tail -n 1 SOPA_72hours_only echo ""
 * 1) remove edits prior to 14 January

for DURATION in SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan SOPA_72hours_only; do   echo ${DURATION}: grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(\(User:\|Special:Contributions/\)[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" ${DURATION} |sort |uniq |wc done echo ""
 * 1) count all unique users

for DURATION in SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan SOPA_72hours; do    echo ${DURATION} minor users: grep "This is a minor edit" ${DURATION} |sort|uniq|wc done echo ""
 * 1) count minor users

echo "check against toolserver count:" grep -o "history-user[^>*]><[^>]*title=\"\?\(\(User:\|Special:Contributions/\)[^\"<>]*\)\(\"\|\&\)" SOPA_Action_history |sort |uniq |wc

exit 0

This gives me: SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan: 1891   8125  167087 SOPA_72hours_only: 1860   7972  164155

SOPA_to_midnight_16Jan minor users: 389  24591  526860 SOPA_72hours minor users: 371  23470  502856

check against toolserver count: 1894   8136  167291

These are 3 and 1 less than i found above. This small error is because of hardwiring the numbers of lines to cut in my previous one-line scripts. This longer script is easier to double-check. It is hardwired in a way that is easier to check. This means that there may be a small bug in the toolserver script, or else there are still three users that the new script misses.

So my best count is: 1860 for 72 hours, or 1891 for 79 hours.

Gmaxwell - sorry, i don't seem to have found how to get your count of 2004. Accidentally counting minor edits a second time would give a lot more than 2004. Boud (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I thought was clear enough in my comment— I wasn't time limiting, I was counting from start to protection. Does that cover the difference? --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added another few lines to the script to check against the toolserver count and corrected a typo. This gives 1894, i.e. it includes edits after midnight 17 Jan. So, my count with the script above is consistent with the toolserver tool.


 * Gmaxwell: The number you need to compare with is 1891. i cannot debug your analysis, because you haven't said:
 * what you mean by "dump", i.e. wget the html rendered version served by the WMF servers, or a text version saved with the help of your browser, or some other method;
 * what your regex for selecting only the info that id's a user and/or rejecting info that varies for the same user (edit ID, timestamp, edit comment) is.
 * You seem to say that you didn't use a regex. I don't understand how you could use sort|uniq|wc on the command line without using a regex in some way. Multiple edits by a single user should give different edit lines (edit ID number, timestamp, edit comment). Without either sed-ing away the info that changes or grepping in the user identification info or using a regex in awk, or some other equivalent, i don't see how you did this. At the moment my summary is:
 * from start to 11:18, 17 January 2012:
 * toolserver tool: 1894
 * my script above: 1894
 * from start to midnight 17 Jan:
 * my script above: 1891
 * Gmaxwell: 2004
 * 72 hours from midnight to midnight:
 * my script above: 1860
 * Boud (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please dont blackout
Please don't do the blackout I have an assignment to do. and WP is very valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To quote Jimbo: "Student warning! Do your homework early." Just try to imagine life without Wikipedia!  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't used this much, but on the left-hand side there's a Print/Export section. I think this allows you to create a PDF of an article or topic space that you can use tomorrow.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does blackout apply to simple version of Wikipedia and the other Wikia encyclopedias?
Does the blackout apply to simple version of Wikipedia and the other Wikia encyclopedias such as Wookiepedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)


 * Regarding the simple English Wikipedia, i don't know.


 * Regarding Wikia, please look up Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation. Wikis run by Wikia are a commercial project and not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo is active in both, but separates his roles. You'll have to ask over at a Wikia website to find out whether Wikia intends to take similar action. Boud (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm just wondering what I will do tomorrow.  Perhaps we should all 'invade' Conservapedia tomorrow.  I'm sure we can have some fun content disputes with their regulars!  :)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Simple are discussing their own decision about SOPA. I'd suggest asking about Simple at Simple. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BIG BLACKOUT and saftey
I personally agree with Jimmy, but, i think that it should be all versions of wikipedia. what i mean by this is it should be all versions in all languages. Also, is it safe? Like, is there any chance any articles will be lost? Alpedio'
 * No, I'm sure that they keep backups of everything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All versions? Well, the several projects are responsible for themselves. If they wish to join, let those communities agree to it using their own internal processes. Safety: I would be shocked and dumbfounded if the techies don't have a full backup. The data will be safe in this regard.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would seriously doubt that anything is being deleted from the database for this blackout. Once it's over, they will just switch whatever setting needs to be switched and it's done.  --B (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Google should totally go black too
Don't you think it would really make them think if google shut down too? if it already is planning to somone tell me please. Alpedio' —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Companies like Google, AOL and Facebook have shareholders and earnings to meet. Everybody suggests they go black, but they won't. Note that most of the websites going black are backed by non-profit foundations. Do you know how much money it would cost Google if they were dark for 24 hours? - CaptainAmerica (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Google will never go blank lest people start using Bing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Necessary
It's false that this protest is necessary.

It seems to have the support of a majority of those responding to invitations to discuss a protest, despite the threat to resign of many international editors from outside the US.

It would be honest to say "desirable by a large majority" I believe. It's not honest to continue with "necessary", a word repeated in the lede. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting
This protest is disgusting.

I hate SOPA as much as the next guy. I think it's wrong and I'm adamantly against it, but I don't want to see Wikipedia become a megaphone for political causes. Where is the line drawn? A black-out in support of gay marriage? A black-out in favor of abortion? A black-out to free Private Manning? Maybe a black-out during fundraising, because you know without donors, Wikipedia would go away.

This isn't Wikipedia's fight. Wikipedia shouldn't fight. This is the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to make a statement and using Wikipedia as a loudspeaker. It's disgusting and wrong. I'm disappointed in WMF and Jimbo Wales. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with the slippery slope argument in this particular case is the fact that in order to do any of those, you would first need to gain consensus for them first, and that will never happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree - This most certainly is "Wikipedia's fight". I think that you may be missing the point that, as noted elsewhere, none of the other topics that you mention affect the existence of Wikipedia per se. As I noted in the original community discussion, PIPA/SOPA has the potential to impact Wikipedia's very existence. Otherwise, I agree that absolute neutrality must be maintained. This is not just just another "political cause", this is a political cause that directly impacts the free dissemination of information by Wikipedia. We are a primary party to the matter because we can be directly affected. Even with the language changes there is still the potential for direct impact. If we as a community do not formally object and raise awareness to this issue, the ability to freely disseminate information would be subject to the control and caprice of non-accountable private entities without due process of law and judicial review. This is a "life or death" situation for Wikipedia and nothing less.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a life and death situation. In fact it would not constrain Wikipedia anymore than it would already constrain itself, if you actually went through the legislation in detail and considered its likely enforcement.  The WMF has put on a massive misinformation campaign to try to convince the community otherwise, and it succeeded.  The WMF never set up a forum where informed people could have a back and forth about the actual facts of the case.  In China one can argue that Wikipedia is being throttled to death, but the WMF seems to be obsessed with what's happening in the US.  Don't expect this to be the last incidence of activism, given WMF Exec Director Sue Gardner's statement that it "opens the door" to more.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Regarding "likely enforcement", I note that humans in government have proven to be quite arbitrary and unreliable, not to mention capricious and corruptible. "Assuming good faith" is a great principle in general but that does not mean ignoring that the opposite is all to common and well documented. Consider Obama's responses to the "Counter Terrorism" sections of the NDAA 2012: first he "opposes" them and then he signs the bill "with reservations" and a statement that he will not enforce all of its provisions. I note that there is nothing legally stopping him or his successors from enforcing its full provisions contrary to his previously stated intentions. "Likely enforcement" is meaningless in that it is an assumption and non-binding; the issue is possible enforcement. The problem with SOPA/PIPA is that those who would enforce it (privately-held non-accountable entities) are notorious for their capricious and arbitrary definition and enforcement of existing legislation, at best, with the only motive for or against action being profit. Knowing human nature, this is the very purpose that accountability and checks and balances are critical, which this law does not sufficiently provide. In that a bad accusation (even assuming good faith) can effect a back-end web site shut down for any period of time without appeal or recourse, this is a "life and death" situation for all web sites. In short, everyone will have to kowtow to the big media industry representatives or face a government enforced shut down. You may trust them. I don't.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * CaptainAmerica, I am pretty sure you are violating Marvel Comics' IP. I am sorry, somebody will have to erase all your signatures and lock your account. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Only if SOPA/PIPA passes! :-D  Jim Reed   (Talk)  20:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

ANTI-PIPA PROTEST
Maybe, if passed, they could save all of the articles and then keep the titles but replace the conten with "NO PIPA NO PIPA NO PIPA" etc. Alpedio' —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

New Participants
I have seen a banner from the russian Wikipedia and an info-site at the arabic Wikipedia. Well done. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Add 2012 Wikipedia blackout to excluded list?
Can someone add the article to the Blackout excluded list?  It Is Me Here   t / c 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice Wikipedia article - plenty of external mainstream dependent media sources. :) Boud (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an exclude list? Can someoone post a link to it, please?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This documents the list, but presumably the actual technical bits are in MW namespace or Meta or somewhere.  It Is Me Here   t / c 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Sounds good to me. The purpose of the blackout is to raise awareness to and inform about the issues surrounding these bills. The facts concerning this blackout are germane and with the blackout being what it is, a large number of people can be expected to scour for what few pages are left available. All the better way to make the point that SOPA/PIPA is bad legislation.  Jim Reed   (Talk)  00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Bravo Wikipedia - acting against this bill is perfectly consistent with the WP mission
To those who claim that Wikipedia is somehow abandoning its longstanding neutrality with this stance, I should point out that there is one cause that Wikipedia has always championed:


 * Creating a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

SOPA endangers that mission because it would make Wikipedia liable for the actions of its editors, without the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA. Thus, opposing SOPA is completely consistent with Wikipedia's longstanding policies and mission.

Wikipedia's articles (even the article on SOPA) don't (or shouldn't) take sides (except to the extent that reputable sources do). And Wikipedia should stay out of politics unrelated to its core mission. But its stand here is perfectly appropriate.

96.237.8.34 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

An allie
Baltic States Wiki [] will be posting a protest note on it's main page and has a blog thread on it's site against SOPA. 82.18.203.72 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on excluded pages
If as suggested some pages are to be excluded from the blackout, see SOPA_initiative/Blackout_screen_testing; since they won't be editable through normal means, we should ensure that they are in a clean state when Wikipedia goes dark. We should be especially wary of any last-minute vandalism, so we should determine a clean version, double check it and fully protect it a reasonable time before the lights turn off. Developers may still propose us a better alternative for handling those pages, but we should plan as such for now. Cenarium (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A staggered approach should be enough:
 * Semi-protect them to allow editing only by autoconfirmed users at UTC 03:00 18 Jan
 * Stronger protection to admin-only editing at UTC 03:30 18 Jan
 * Boud (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SOPA initiative/Blackout screen testing is ambiguous about whether the blackout will start at 04:00 or 05:00 UTC. Well, let's leave the techies to do it... Boud (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, why do we have links to three nonexistent special pages? Are they typos?  Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they're not live yet; they should be before the blackout. --Rschen7754 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So is there a formal plan for protecting these? I'm at the ready to take care of it, but I don't want to accidentally create a huge mess. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably too late to point out the obvious, but image description pages for any images for images in use on these pages need to be enabled for obvious reasons. --B (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Notice for All sopa opponents
I just went to the comment boards of some mainstream media channels. there are many negative comments there, by three category of people

a) paid shills and trolls B) only trolls c) ignorant guys who have never googled about sopa D) some guys with a logic that shutting down wikipedia for one day is cheating, while ignoring the fact that due to these laws wikipedia and other sites can be down for a much longer time, if not permanently.

I have also seen that there has been an increase of such comments from today, and there is a very less number of comments opposing sopa.

So why is this important, this blackout is intended to track that part of the population, which rely only on mainstream media for news, so there is high probability that they will depend on the comment section of these newsboards for making an opinion, as googling is thought to be too much work, and the misinfo which is spreading there now like wildfire, will distract them from the main issue.

This is the most crucial step in our opposition to this draconian act, we must actively go to these news boards, and educate the people there, with actual examples of what is at stake here.

This is important, i have been following political issues in the US, i am neutral about ows, but this also played a major role in destroying that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.251.2 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's project, of a volunteer free encyclopaedia has been the object of scurrilous gossip in the past. The best way to respond to gossip is to ignore it and write the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)