Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day/Archive 1

Archive of initial discussion at User_talk:Jimbo Wales
'''Note to those just arriving at, or re-arriving at, this discussion: there seems to be emerging support and excitement for a proposal by Jehochman, below. Please engage with that now, rather than a blackout, as there also appears to be emerging consensus that a blackout is not right at this time for this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)'''
 * Note: occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just putting this out here for preliminary discussions: The Day We Fight Back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If WP:RS articles surface we should certainly write a WP:NPOV article on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So is the plan to shut down Wikipedia again for a day?--MONGO 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that is what Jimbo means, regardless of anybody's opinion on government surveillance and related issues, they do not threaten Wikipedia directly enough, imo, for any action to be taken.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No kidding. But aside from shutting down the website for a day, what other means of protest are both available and obvious enough to make our opinion obvious.--MONGO 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And how long do we "fight back" against the amount of data Google and others collect? Intothatdarkness 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhm...without that Google data collection...Wikipedia articles would not appear in a google search. Some collection is part of how your search engine provides data to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm..and their scanning of e-mail for targeted advertising purposes and other activities relate to Wikipedia articles how, exactly? It's not just searching...Google collects and uses far more than that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have essays or related articles ready in time: We can use the words "avoid" or "counter" while the word "fight" is problematic because of connection to wp:ANI WP:BATTLEground mentality, but there might also be conflicts with some users who like mass surveillance. I suggest a new essay "wp:Avoiding mass surveillance" but be prepared that everything new will be dragged to AfD or wp:MfD and allow extra time for people fighting against any progress to improve coverage. Meanwhile, it is good for people to remember those who have been arrested over false perceptions, and those celebrity sex tapes, with people a few months underage, have led to charges of child pornography where perhaps 19 is considered legal age. It is good to remind people to clear the browser's temporary files, to erase controversial work files, and beware of mobile phone zoom-lens cameras at an Internet cafe, or even in public restrooms. There are cameras and snooping everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another case where Wikipedia should avoid politicizing itself. I recall posting several times on this user talk page asking if Wikipedia were co-operating with "collection agencies" (pun intended) and was assured Wikipedia was not so doing. That is far different from the "action" being called for in a political manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. SOPA connected to Wikipedia, but I don't think this connects enough for action. Seattle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another useless protest? Can we avoid politics and attention-grabbing gimmicks and just focus on building and improving the encyclopaedia? Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are enough internal issues here that should be addressed as it is. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Three comments, based upon our SOPA experience:


 * First, because of our community consensus policy, Wikipedia cannot respond as fast as reddit.com or icanhas.cheezburger.com can. If we are going to participate, we need to hammer out the details now, not later.


 * Second, before Wikipedia got on board the SOPA protest, news sources kept speculating on us: "but will Wikipedia join the protest?" Wikipedia joining or not joining is a very big deal.


 * Third, we need to be really careful not to overuse the idea. Wikipedia protesting one thing in four years has a lot of impact. Wikipedia protesting four things in one year has far less impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Beyond any other protest activities, the focus could be on "consciousness raising" as providing information which people might expect, about mass surveillance. Even with the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, Wikipedia was mentioned in discussing the "red carpet" as an obvious website to check for background information. -Wikid77 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that too. The mass surveillance articles can always use help.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The relative importance of this thing needs to be considered, though. It's true that if Snowden's revelations came along ten years from now, the potentially watered-down effect of Wikipedia's response would be a nonissue. But revelations such as these have no precedent in history, so the third point may have less validity than the first two.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Snowden merely provided further confirmation of what many already knew.--MONGO 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He provided hard-core, undisputed evidence straight from the source which has enjoyed 8 months of nonstop, excellent media coverage and sparked indignation and action across the globe. Previous NSA whistleblowers and Congresspersons like Wyden were all but ignored, and have expressed deep gratitude that Snowden blew the lid off this story so that it can finally be addressed in open courts and by the general public. Remember, "We don't spy, not wittingly" was the NSA's accepted line prior to Snowden.   petrarchan47  t  c   21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. And the UK's GCHQ is just as guilty. Eric   Corbett  21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Et al.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear..some countries with similar forms of government, outlooks and language have been working cooperatively behind the scenes...big shock! Thank goodness Snowden blew the lid off all these things or else we would have all been in total darkness as to the nefarious activities of big brother.--MONGO 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The fact that this has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step…in the march to a real debate,” Wyden said, and added that Snowden’s disclosures made it possible. “We wouldn’t have had that seven, eight weeks ago.” This fact was acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by other House members... during a... hearing with officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA. “Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would’ve never known what happened if he hadn’t told us,” said Representative Ted Poe." *   petrarchan47  t  c   02:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * “So, today I’m going to deliver another warning: If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it,” Wyden continued. “The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.”   petrarchan47  t  c   03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A little while ago it was proposed that we join with various multi-national corporations in taking a stand for Internet freedom, and I commented that we would be better aligning ourselves with other Internet non-profits. I still think that, but the aesthetics of the facebook banners they are proposing leave me a little cold. The Franklin quote: try telling that to Winston Churchill. And I'm particularly nonplussed by the image of of some guy (is it Rosanne's husband? have they run it by him?) who's so annoyed with the NSA he's about to kill his work colleagues. I know its just what some random people thought would grab people's attention, but it strikes a tone that's a bit too right-of-centre for my liking. Maybe Wikipedia should be part of this once they've had a re-think about what it is they want to convey. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Snowden's revelations and the spying a big enough deal that we need to shut down Wikipedia? That's the question we should be asking.  Konveyor   Belt  01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a campaign about putting a banner on your site, not about shutting it down. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The question we should be asking is what can we do to support people's right to read freely, without fear that their reading habits on Wikipedia will be used to harass them somehow. This would be a good time to remind people that "Freedom from fear" means freedom from being oppressed and targeted for harassment based on your Internet use. For those who think this is "no big deal," I'd suggest you take a look at "Top Secret America," a reputable, open-source book and website that came out way before Snowden, and get a handle on what we're talking about here. When serious thinkers in intelligence ethics are formulating arguments along the lines of, "Well that guy was a national level legislator, he should have known better that he's fair game for anything anyone can possibly dig up by hacking his digital trail and exposing it to the public ..."-- with social norms like that, what chance do the rest of us have to defend ourselves against smears, harassment or worse? Who's going to want to run for public office under those circumstances?
 * We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a TOR exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for the implementation of TOR as part of Wikipedia's "fight back".  petrarchan47  t  c   01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except Wikipedia bans TOR because admins can't easily catch sockpuppets if they use TOR. You see, Wikipedia and the NSA do have something in common (the NSA usually has to DOS tor users; direct spying on TOR directly being more difficult). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon's proposal specifically addresses this (read only). Guy, is that idea written up anywhere in more technical detail?  –  SJ  +  19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can write up detailed instructions or even provide an image of a virtual machine that is already set up, but I doubt that the WMF developers need either. I have found them to be extremely competent in the past.
 * To expand on what I wrote above, the TOR node I am describing would:
 * Talk to a strictly limited set of domains (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc). It would not have access (read or write) to any other domain.
 * Be blocked from editing Wikipedia or any associated project (Wiktionary, Wikinews) that we may decide to give access to.
 * It should have bandwidth throttling. Just being a TOR relay node that is unlikely to be controlled by the NSA has value; every new node increases the security of the network. That being said, we don't want to give the TOR traffic unlimited resources.
 * Just to be extra careful, we should block read access to any kind of executable file (.exe, Javascript etc.) to make it harder for a Wikipedia editor to compromise a TOR user's privacy See Tor (anonymity network).
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For my part, I would like us to take a stand in favor of the general principle of informational self determination. That's how we run our site-- and that's how people want to live, they want a say in what is done with the information collected about them, and how it is used. Djembayz (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll pipe up as a marketing guy. A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media.  We're an encyclopedia.  On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy.  That will send a strong message, and help educate people.  It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was going to add, including mentioning that we could have a very, very compelling set of DYKs on the subject. First Light (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Djembayz (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jehochman's idea is a fine one, which stands to reason since he's versed in this sort of thing. Without prejudice to other ideas, let's push this forward. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is brilliant. Jehochman has found just the right balance between silence and blackout. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I love about it is that it is NPOV and still allows us to show, in a neutral way, that we think the issue is important. Let people make up their own minds - but let them be informed when they do.  As a side note, and I guess this is an odd place to put it but people are probably curious - I am generally in favor of a blackout in cases where we can have a real material impact, i.e. just before a major vote that is about to do something awful.  But a blackout with no specific ask, with no specific legislation looming, strikes me as overkill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely a better idea than a full blackout - still gets the point across, but does it in a way that matches Wikipedia's purpose of educating. Perfect compromise. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't like a balckout for this - other things are of course possible as well, such as banners. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A thoughtful idea, and one that lets us truly inform readers. – SJ  +  19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put Olympics hatnote, above, to remember "11 February" (Tuesday) occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014, when many Wikipedians will be updating thousands of articles to provide coverage. Already, the pageviews of "2014 Winter Olympics" have doubled since early January. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What percentage of readers will visit the Wikipedia home page when they're here, do we know this?   petrarchan47  t  c   04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do know the percentage as a steady rate, from pageviews of Main_page during the prior 2010 Winter Olympics (Feb. 2010 Main_page stats), as 5.1 million/day unchanged during the event (2014 average: 9.0 million/day). However, the Olympics will take space on the Main_page, as covered each day. Also, "viewing" does not mean reading the page, and so a Main_page banner might be needed to get attention on 11 Feb. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If we decide to say something, we'll almost certainly want to add a link to our statement near the top of every article for the day. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all...this is NOT a Wikipedia protest. Just because Jimbo brought this to our attention here does not mean he is sponsoring this or involved in any way. Guys...this has been out there for a while and Jimbo is not the first to share this. If you don't want to take a stand as a group because that is what our guidelines and policies state then don't...but those guidelines and policies ARE NOT TO CONTROL US AS A GROUP and/or whatever we want to support or protest as that group. Those policies and guidelines are meant to help us write articles not control us as a community.

I support this Jimmy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, as noted above, we can expand (or highlight) the related background articles, beyond "mass surveillance" without actually protesting any specific issue. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very strong support. Let's not go black over this, but a banner and a tailored main page are fitting. It just wouldn't look right for all our closest allies to participate only to have Wikipedia remain silent on an issue of such gravity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We could use the same mechanism we use to put Jimbo's smiling face on our fundraising banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for HectorMoffet's every word.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for banner and main page educational words and pictures. Let the free encyclopedia spread the news. Jus  da  fax   07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We should not silence our coverage of the Olympics. That and other things can continue while we highlight the issue of Mass Surveillance.  Jehochman Talk 11:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I like this idea and implementation. –  SJ  +  19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Jehochman proposal.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as clearly educational in contrast to a blackout which would be the opposite of educational and what we need is to educate our readers generally, and specifically on this issue. Annoying them with no wikipedia will irritate people without informing them of these very real surveillance issues. I do though wish wikipedia would allow editing with tor, the use of which is one of the best ways we can all show our opposition to mass surveillance♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were done naïvely, it would be tantamount to lifting all blocks and bans, a radical affirmation of the principle that anyone can edit. If edits from the Tor network could be clearly identified in the history, or if they all went through a review similar to pending changes, then edits by Tor users could get extra scrutiny. &mdash; rybec 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I could only see supporting this if it was expanded to deal with the sort of surveillance conducted by Google and other tech companies on a daily basis. Otherwise it's just more politically-motivated electronic masturbation. Is Google's surveillance "good" because they do it in the name of advertising profits? If we're going to NPOV it we should include all these activities. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why non-governmental global surveillance isn't worth mentioning too. Although, to put it into perspective Google doesn't have prosecutors, prisons, an army, an air force, or armed drones.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Jehochman proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - And as we are an encyclopedia with much in the way of information, I think should last a full week, not just a single day. Out goal, as noted above is to inform by sharing what others say. I think that this is something we can do well here. - jc37 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Caution - Ideally, this could be the beginning of a series of one-day featured topics on timely concepts from politics, as well as other fields like extrasolar planetary systems. But filling the entire Main Page, even for a day, means creating and polishing a lot of material.  We have to make sure that we don't declare to the world we're going to do something big, then show them a sloppy job.  We also have to make sure that the NPOV is not compromised, as this is not something that we can easily argue is strictly necessary for our continued operations. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A most excellent idea put forth by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jecochmah's idea of using our own articles in a protest stunt as total madness. A potential banner or similar on the issue must in no way be linked to Wikipedia's ordinary content unless is a very neutral manner to explain background. Using our own articles to argue a cause would totally damage our principle of neutrality. Iselilja (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, we would never change articles away from NPOV. What's proposed is to display a custom, one-day-only message at Main, and to have a banner of some type above articles. I suspect your objection still stands, but just wanted to clarify that our articletext is sacrosanct.HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not because it so much matters, if you could get it together in a few hours, but that seems doubtful, making it a considerable distraction for far too many resources (our editors' time) from article creation/curation, which given the size and difficulty of that vital task cannot actually afford such distraction. These libertarian/authoritarian issues are undoubtedly as ancient as the first time two people decided to live together but this project is not going to do much for it, except to create informational content that people demand/desire -- by hook, by crook, through persecution, and prosecution -- to read and pass along. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would completely contravene the no advertising, it doesn't matter if the articles were neutral, so were Gibralterpedia articles in DYK, and I know enough about that to know it caused uproar. We should not resort to backing any cause, (almost) no matter what. Mat  ty  .  007  17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for agitprop. If that's your desire, Pravda always needs writers. We're here to build an encyclopedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: It's a well-thought-out proposal, will be fine as long as we stick to NPOV -A1candidate (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This is a political statement and we must not take political positions. It is antithetical to our mission. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that's it. It is not a vehicle to promote ANY political agenda, at all, no matter how nice or nasty it is. If the WMF wants to jump on the bandwagon for this campaign and they feel it is line with their goal to promote free knowledge, then fine, they can issue statements and do interviews etc., but they're encyclopedic projects must remain neutral. I opposed the SOPA action, and I will oppose this for the same reason: we must not stray from our original purpose to provide a compendium of neutral free knowledge into some kind of internet activist group. It's an insult to our donors, we promised them that we would not be like all the rest of the internet wikis with clear POV's (e.g. Conservapedia), and would be genuinely neutral on political matters. Please stop. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Main Page Project

 * On the assumption that the proposal has already been supported, I've gone ahead and created The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming likes for Jehochman's (IMO brilliant) compromise above. Please don't hesitate to add to the basic framework I created (and partly ctrl c, ctrl v'ed off the AFD pages) :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a post on Wikipedia talk:Did you know with regards to this, as if this happens that section would need advanced preparation. CMD (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you're jumping the gun in declaring this proposal supported. There may be support to make the proposal, but it should be taken to the community as a whole, not just the limited group that follows this user talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, we need a centralised discussion, but we need to keep in mind we don't have that much time. benmoore 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you realise just how massive and fractured the Wikipedia community actually is. If anyone who has every touched the edit button is required to have a say so all thousands of us can have an organised discourse on the topic, then I really don't think we'd ever get anywhere. This is a genuinely good idea and I see no reason why we can't just go with the flow rather than resort to overly-bureaucratic systems. In any case, I didn't actually declare the nomination supported. Instead I explained that I created a page (created prematurely because I think the proposal will go through anyway), so when it eventually does we'll already have a basic framework to work off of. But Ben Moore is right. We don't have much time at all to be flapping about.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need for hyperbole, no one is suggesting "anyone who has every touched the edit button" need be consulted. Just e.g. a week-long straw poll or mini-RFC with a limited number of properly-developed options, per precedent. benmoore 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Centralized discussion needed, or this will look like a hijack by the few. Also, there are other main page interests in addition to DYK that need to be included in a consensus. — Maile  (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to put together a concrete example of what the page might look like. People will have a  much easier time evaluating the proposal if they can look at something.  We can prepare the page while concurrently having a centralized discussion to decide "go" or "no go".  That way we aren't caught short of time.  Lastly, I suggest Edward Snowden be considered for the featured article that day.  We'll have to work hard to get it up to featured condition in time, if it's even possible.  Love him or hate him, he's been a central character for this issue. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, Maile-- I think everyone recognizes that a decision of this magnitude can't be made by insiders on Jimmy's talk page.  As Jehochman says, we're informally just working out what it is we're proposing.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree - those of us reading this page tend to be fond of "drama" that many others can do without. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. There's a difference between "drama" and a legitimate controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is plenty of Support for this, but I also think it should hopefully only help to try to garner a wider consensus from the community, and/or seek out consensus from members of the community that frequent the above-mentioned individual project pages for the various subsections of the Main Page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I left comments there and propose we copy further discussion, including the survey below, to that page. – SJ  +  19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

 * You can call spirits from the vasty deep; but will they come? It's all fine and dandy to schedule a day of Main Page features, but you'd better organize a brigade of editors to get that content ready for prime time.


 * NPOV. We have to ensure that we are featuring the topic in response to the day, not decreeing an official POV - that means a pro-spy dissent is possible, and if we're not careful, it might overshadow our own.  Don't start a war you're not committed to win.
 * Or simply "pro-big-brother" / "pro-surveillance". There are definitely prominent speakers, writers, and political groups who support this in different parts of the world; not just spy organizations.  Similar discussions arise arounbd national IDs.  You can also have entirely public and transparent surveillance / data-gathering / data-mining.


 * Are they notable enough? As much as I like the direction of their mind, I find  underwhelming.  Apart from the nifty artwork with the subtle black flag motif, it looks like something I could hack together myself.  Are we sure this event is big enough to make a big deal out of?  There's nothing worse than "demonstrating" a lack of support.
 * I have heard a lot about this but only from people in the organizations listed. I'm not sure yet how much of a public presence it will have; this is fair to ask.  On the other hand, a solid thematic main page on something that's topical in a given month/year would be pretty great, and this seems like both a good candidate and something that many people affected know little about.  (thank you, low-signal mass media :-! ) –  SJ  +
 * Reddit has announced they're doing it, so it's going to be a big deal. But more to the point, we're the sixth most-visited website on the planet earth:  we don't have to worry about throwing a party and no one showing up-- we ARE the party.  If we do it, it will definitely be a big deal.--HectorMoffet (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is a way to expand this idea into a long series of perhaps weekly "featured topics" that provide fair and timely highlights to a wide range of political and other social issues, and that by doing so we can combine political activism (i.e. by making people think, which people on all sides should think benefits their own side) but also preserve and enhance Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 – SJ  +  23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work
I had created Mass Surveillance initiative which replicates your attempt here, except you did a much better job setting it up. I'll mere my content to the appropriate places in on this page. Good work! --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bendable 'rules'
I agree that ,in so far as possible, we should try to hold ourselves to the same guidelines that are normally used on Main Page. That said, I would like to suggest that the 'rules' here are a little more flexible than they would be on a normal mainpage, so long as there's a strong justification. And obviously, whatever guidelines we use to craft this page, it will only go into effect if the total work has community support.

So, for example, if an image was used on the main page a few years ago, maybe it's actually okay to use it on Feb 11, if there's a compelling reason. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: I think the Featured Article actually needs to be a Featured Article-- that's not a place for bending.   If there are articles we want as FA for Feb 11, we need to get them to FA status ASAP.
 * In contrast, a Featured Picture is very subjective; Featured pictures often have only had handful of supporters.  So I'm confident that if we have consensus for "Surveillance awareness day", then whichever picture we choose would be okay on Feb11 Mainpage.  Ideally we'd choose a picture and submit it to FP ahead of time. But unlike featured articles, I feel like almost any public domain image could be 'featured' on Feb 11 if there is consensus to feature it.
 * Main message: Featured articles on Feb 11 really need to be Featured Articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Question
Isn't is kind of hypocritical for Internet users and advocates, like Wikipedians, to protest what the NSA is doing? You know, don't you, that the Internet was not really designed as a private communication mechanism? In fact, anyone who uses the Internet, social media, or email should be aware that there is only a limited expectation of privacy? Also, although the NSA does apparently vacuum up almost all data transmissions on the earth, including satellite, phone, and Internet, it is only allowed to access the data under certain circumstances. From what I have read in the newspaper, the NSA was only given permission to access about 200 phone call recordings made from the US last year. Our employers, on the other hand, are allowed access to anything we do from our work computer or work phone, including what we say on Wikipedia.

So, wouldn't the best form of protest against the "guvmint" be to boycott the Internet altogether? That'll learn 'em. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The ACLU makes a good point about why government spying has dangerous implications: "If we allow the NSA to retain the powers it wants, it’s not at all crazy to worry about how those powers could be used now or in the future to grab even more frightening power through blackmail of ostensible overseers. And it doesn’t require crude, explicit blackmail to affect behavior and confer power through personal information; even the vaguest threat or intimation of eavesdropping and exposure can introduce substantial chilling effects, even on those who may think they have "nothing to hide". In many ways such fears, although often unspoken, lie at the core of what so many people find objectionable about allowing government agencies such vast eavesdropping powers." NSA whistleblower Russ Tice reveals more here, including testimony about a wiretap order he was given for then-Senator Barack Obama. Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted "The information collected by the NSA has the potential to give an unscrupulous administration enormous power over elected officials." When asked, the NSA told Sanders they could not guarantee the data of Congresspeople isn't being stored.


 * Three hops: "The NSA has said it conducted 300 searches of its telephone database last year. Left unsaid ... was that three-hop analysis off those searches could mean scrutinizing the phone records of tens or even hundreds of millions of people." * Chart of three hops. Judge Leon, who found the NSA's phone metatdata collection program to be illegal, elaborates on this in his "Dominoes Pizza hypothetical".   petrarchan47  t  c   03:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good point - see as an example of the sort of future some want.  If we do not commit to end increasing social stratification - if we accept a social Darwinism (properly Spencerism) that pits the poor in a deadly rivalry to conform best to the whims of the wealthy - then there is no limit to the abasement that will be expected of people in the competition for favor.  There is of course an existing antidote to this - open warfare, and especially, the acceptance of destruction that can come with sufficient faith - but I don't want to have to make a choice between 1984 and Al-Qaida.  I want people to find themselves a spine before things get that far. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The NSA hasn't got much to do with saving us from terrorists.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Review: NSA Data Have No Impact on Terrorism
 * NSA program stopped no terror attacks, says White House panel member
 * Yeah, but can you imagine how they and their friends must be doing in the stock market with all those juicy tips? Wnt (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Huawei and Petrobras have long been threats to our homeland.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Other considerations:


 * NSA Spying Seen Risking Billions in U.S. Technology Sales
 * Tech executives to Obama: NSA spying revelations are hurting business


 * How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet   petrarchan47  t  c   07:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, when the Dutch certificate authority was royally hacked, the Dutch interior minister said at one point: "Don't do that any more (use the Internet for such things). Use letters and transfer papers, like I do." – SJ  +  19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism from main page

 * The main page is proposed to be themed around "mass spying, privacy, and related topics". Not a single one of the above proposals, as far as I can see, is remotely related to these areas. --Yair rand (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT :). --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fix what? The candidates? The stated goal? --Yair rand (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Carter
I added just a couple of sentences about Justin Carter at terroristic threat, but he seems like a perfect example of the "business end" of the NSA spying. It's a BLP1E, but there ought to be an article about the event by this point. Question -- have any reliable sources actually looked into the seemingly obvious question of who the unnamed Canadian woman reporting him was, and whether she happened to be work for CSIS at the time? Oh, and February 14 is the one-year anniversary of the arrest, if that matters. Wnt (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Three Types of Responses to Threat/Featured topics
In considering the general issue of main page featured topics, I note three unique "Conditions" we could set in response to a given issue. Of course, the framework extends beyond the current issue: Under this framework, I think Feb 11 should be a WP-Con-3 an "Editorial Day". --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's really no reason to wait for relocation, and every reason to do it ASAP. I think The Pirate Bay and associated sites have a need for legitimate content to offset allegations that they might tend to copy stuff, and Wikipedia could benefit from having a fallback, international, tough to block distribution mechanism for its material in case officials show up in their offices and start telling them to delete things.  Pirate Bay also values extremely small amounts of cash (by Wikipedia standards, that is) and so I think a very happy arrangement could be made. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of this framework or naming scheme: with its overtones of conflict. But I edited it to make it more parallel.  –  SJ  +
 * Excellent point-- removed the norad-ish "condition numbering" for descriptive names. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Official statement
To kick off the conversation, Jimmy Wales' comment:   petrarchan47  t  c   20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The freedom to read and learn what you wish, without being spied upon, is a fundamental human right which is core to everything that we do and everything that we stand for. --Jimbo Wales


 * What do you mean by "official statement"? Has Jimbo indicated that he wrote it in an official capacity as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees?  —David Levy 03:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The terminology comes from the project page. The addition of Jimmy Wakes' informal comment from his talk page was meant to, as I said, kick off the conversation (leading to an "official statement" created by the community).  petrarchan47 t  c   03:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for clarifying. —David Levy 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My fault, I'll try to be more clear :)  petrarchan47  t  c   05:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifications
I just saw on Talk:Main Page that this initiative was being planned for February 11. What I want to know is why none of the relevant processes – Main Page talk, TFA, TFL, etc. – had been notified that this was in the works. If you guys wait until other content has been scheduled, the authors of that content will rightly be upset that they were bumped by something that they didn't know about. Also, the various processes may be able to provide help on some aspects that may cause you trouble. Without having dug deeply into the proposal, I see two problems right off the bat. First, TFL does not run on Tuesdays, so a TFL cannot be included on the Main Page on the 11th. You can ask to have a list featured on the 10th, a Monday (when TFLs appear), but you should decide which list you'd prefer quickly, since WP:TFLS is filled right now and any open spots may not last long. Second, it is unrealistic to expect any of the non-featured articles to be brought up to standard in time, so you should try to find a relevant article that hasn't appeared on the Main Page yet. Again, please tell the various projects what you are doing so that there are no sudden surprises. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 02:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for heads up that you weren't informed-- we need everyone, but we especially need our experts who regularly curate Main.
 * As far as timing goes, we do have a little bit of leeway because this will have to be brought to the community directly-- this is sufficiently different from Status Quo that we can't just slip this into our usual Main Page processes as if nothing unusual is happening.  It's a big change.
 * So, for example, IF there is a consensus to actually do anything special on Feb 11, I suspect we'd also get consensus to preempt our regularly scheduled programming (like WP:TFLS) or consensus to run a Featured List even though it's a Tuesday. IF any of this achieves community-wide consensus. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you speak wisdom when you say "it is unrealistic to expect any of the non-featured articles to be brought up to standard in time". Stability is a FA criteria, so we can't just make an article featured by working on it really hard-- the process takes time.  The most optimistic we could possibly be is to find very good Good Article and perhaps push it over the line into FA. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifying the different Main Page sections of the project
I've sent messages for each of the different main page taskforces so they can become aware of this proposed project and lend their expertise and ideas to help it underway. This has made the conversation relatively fractored across different pages, so I'm putting the links here for easy access:


 * Wikipedia talk:In the news - ITN
 * Wikipedia talk: DYK - DYK
 * User talk: Jimbo Wales
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured Articles - FA
 * Wikipedia talk: Featured pictures - FP
 * Wikipedia talk: Featured lists - FP
 * Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries - OTD

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps...
... there could be mention of Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it's relevant, though perhaps the advice in this section is relevant: " Blinded by success, he winds up organizing an action that he considers decisive and that puts into play the entire resources of the organization. Since we cannot afford to break the guerrilla struggle in the cities while rural guerrilla warfare has not yet erupted, we always run the risk of allowing the enemy to attack us with decisive blows." Let's remember that if the only thing that comes out of this is that a bunch of editors write and update some articles, that's progress; but if we create an opportunity for allegations of sitewide bias or showcase a main page full of substandard content, we could be set back a long way.  We must be ready to limit the scale of this event, even at the last moment, to what we can really be confident about. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Want to change the contents and purpose of the main page? Start a sitewide, well-advertised RfC!
This is so far a proposal made by a relatively small incrowd, originating on one user talk page (which is used as a restricted community discussion board when it suits the user involved). Before this gets discussed here as if it is a thing that certainly will happen on Wikipedia, this should get a community discussion (preferably an RfC with a general site notice). Those proposing and supporting this proposal probably should start it soon, as there is less than a month left until the proposed date for this. Fram (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You speak wisdom, Fram. We need to begin widening the circle of people who know about this.  I will start working on some front-matter to explain what we're doing at this stage and how to help, so participants don't have to sort through a whole discussion that started on Jimmy's talk. As soon as that's complete, we can seriously widen the number of people who are involved by placing notices in the appropriate place.  Jehochman has in past been useful in helping us with high-level decisions, and perhaps he will have some guidance on timelines.


 * And eventually, once we have tangible to present, in the form of actually screenshots of proposed mockups-- then we do a notice that hits the eyeballs of every editor to test consensus.


 * That's how I'm thinking at this time, anyway.  There are far wiser people than I working on this.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous consent for name change?
Per commments above to Fram, it's getting to be time to start expanding the circle of people involved. To that end, is there any objection to the proposed name change to "Surveillance Awareness day"? Or any other name ideas? --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What, apart from obfuscating the proposed endeavor's fundamental connection to the protest called "The Day We Fight Back", would such a name change accomplish?
 * And is the inconsistent capitalization intentional? —David Levy 11:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not obfuscation-- it's a distinction with a difference. The EFF is fighting back; it is far from a foregone conclusion that we will take such a definitive stance as being "against" surveillance.  More likely, our message will be more like "Surveillance is an important subject".   --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And we just happen to be delivering this message on "The Day We Fight Back".
 * If we're going to participate in the protest, we can at least be frank about it. Trying to pass off our involvement as something neutral only adds a layer of disingenuousness.  (To be clear, I'm referring to how all of this comes across; I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith.)  —David Levy 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree the connection should be presented to the community-- it's not a coincidence we're doing this on Feb 11-- "That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
 * I actually think our involvement will be far more neutral than the participants of TDWFB.  I don't know all the answers to these questions, I don't have a manifesto that can explain the way we should run things. hehehe.    The EFF, on the other hand, is an advocacy group, and I'm sure they'll have all sort of specific policies they're advocating for.   That's why I don't think we should just "sign on" to TDWFB-- best to go our own way, while noticing others doing similar things.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if our special main page content is 100% neutral, presenting it in coordination with the "The Day We Fight Back" is not (and cannot be). Participating in the protest, even by merely compiling encyclopedic material intended to draw attention to it, constitutes an endorsement of the underlying cause.
 * I don't believe that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to engage in such advocacy. But if we do, downplaying the association won't help anyone.  Calling it "surveillance awareness day" or similar would only come across as an attempt to disguise our involvement via a deceptively neutral designation of our invention.  —David Levy 16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't neutral.  Our articles are written from a NPOV, but we are not neutral spectators, we are active players advocating for the radical change of free global public education.    --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And we do so by presenting an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view. This includes Main Page.
 * The 2012 blackout occurred in response to proposed legislation believed to directly threaten Wikipedia's very existence. We responded by suppressing the encyclopedia for a day, thereby illustrating the effects that its loss would have.
 * This is very different from transforming the main page into a soapbox by compiling encyclopedic content intended to advance a political cause — one that doesn't even pose a direct threat to Wikipedia.
 * But I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, as you evidently don't care what I have to say (see below). —David Levy 01:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - The proposed name seems to be short and concise. If it somehow gives the impression that we're advocating for a particular policy just because it falls on Feb 11, we could move it back a day or two. But frankly, I think its quite a stretch to claim that selecting such encyclopedic material equals endorsing a certain cause. -A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed!  I didn't like the word "fight", and I like us doing our own thing.  But I'm not enthralled by "Surveillance awareness day", so if you have an other ideas other name ideas, shout 'em out.   ---HectorMoffet (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I agree though, there must be a title that is easier-on-the-tongue.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did you initiate this discussion (seeking "unanimous consent") if you were just going to proceed with the move as soon as one person expressed support, thereby summarily dismissing the only other respondent's feedback about eight hours after the discussion began?
 * If you intend to routinely disregard the input of those with whom you disagree, please don't waste our time with the pretense that our opinions matter. —David Levy 01:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course everyone's opinion matters. I think there may have been a misinterpretation. I saw this as "is there unanimous consent, as it would appear?" rather than "seeking".  petrarchan47  t  c   02:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HectorMoffet inquired as to whether there was "any objection to the proposed name change". I stated mine.  Then one person expressed support, and HectorMoffet moved the page.
 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting that unanimity actually was required. Certainly, consensus can exist without it (and usually does).  But HectorMoffet provided almost no opportunity to gauge consensus; he implemented the proposed move about eight hours after initiating the discussion.  Only two users had commented, with one expressing opposition.
 * Evidently, HectorMoffet intended to move the page almost immediately, irrespective of the responses received. So what purpose did this discussion serve, apart from wasting everyone's time and conveying that dissenting parties' opinions are to be deemed irrelevant?  —David Levy 03:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The goal of this wiki project, I would hope, is to encourage people to read certain Wikipedia articles, not to encourage people to go snipping communications cables or smashing up listening stations. "Surveillance awareness day" conveys that better than the original title. Your first objection, however, is on the mark: we must be forthright about the fact that we're timing this to coincide with the unfortunately-named Day We Fight Back protest. Yes, the move was hasty, but the page may still be moved back (with the help of an administrator) or may be moved to yet another title. Do you think the original title is best, or do you have a better idea? &mdash; rybec 04:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a component, but the overriding goal is to take part in the protest occurring that day, thereby supporting the underlying cause.
 * Certainly not. And no such objective exists among the groups organizing "The Day We Fight Back".
 * It implies neutrality that simply doesn't exist. If we're going to participate in a political protest, we should at least come right out and say so, not pretend that we're dispassionately covering related topics.
 * I agree that the protest probably should have been called something other than "The Day We Fight Back". But for better or worse, that's the name, and it's my opinion that using something different at Wikipedia is disingenuous.  —David Levy 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It implies neutrality that simply doesn't exist. If we're going to participate in a political protest, we should at least come right out and say so, not pretend that we're dispassionately covering related topics.
 * I agree that the protest probably should have been called something other than "The Day We Fight Back". But for better or worse, that's the name, and it's my opinion that using something different at Wikipedia is disingenuous.  —David Levy 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the protest probably should have been called something other than "The Day We Fight Back". But for better or worse, that's the name, and it's my opinion that using something different at Wikipedia is disingenuous.  —David Levy 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the protest probably should have been called something other than "The Day We Fight Back". But for better or worse, that's the name, and it's my opinion that using something different at Wikipedia is disingenuous.  —David Levy 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * David, I want to really apologize to you about that. It must have made you feel very much like I didn't care what you had to say, and I really sorry that I didn't handle that better.
 * First, I had meant for "unanimous" consent to be in jest as how few people were involved at this point.  Secondly, I didn't make it clear that I actually proposed this name change two days ago and it found support.
 * But most importantly, I didn't interpret your objection as being decisive because, based on the totality of your comments, I interpreted your position as opposing this proposal, no matter what title it has. "You do not support it here or there, you do not support it anywhere"?   On the other hand, I support the proposal if it has a more neutral title, but oppose it if it has a more pointed title of "Fighting Back".
 * That's for communicating this. I want to emphasize I value your role here very much. The diamond of a good proposal is created by the pressure between different viewpoints. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology and sincerely thank you for sharing your reasoning.
 * As I mentioned, I had no intention of demanding actual unanimity. Were that a requirement, practically nothing would get done at Wikipedia.
 * I'd seen the tag on the project page and read all instances of "surveillance awareness day" appearing on this talk page. When you say that the name change "found support", are you referring to the one reply in the Thinking strategically about the "Fighting Back" section, or was the matter discussed elsewhere?
 * In any event, a move discussion typically lasts a week or longer, thereby enabling interested parties to comment and address each other's concerns.
 * You're correct that I currently oppose the proposal. I try to keep an open mind, however, so I can't swear that I'll continue to oppose it in perpetuity.
 * Regardless, I care very much about how Wikipedia presents itself to the world. If we decide to feature special main page content on February 11, I want to help to ensure that this goes as smoothly as possible (even if I remain personally opposed to the idea).  So I'm commenting on what I believe should occur in that hypothetical scenario.
 * You've explained that you discounted my input on the basis that I oppose the proposal. That's exactly the impression at which I'd already arrived, and I perceived it as a slight, not a mitigating factor.  It appeared evident of an approach in which only the input of editors supporting the proposal is considered, with those of us who oppose it having absolutely no say in how the plan is implemented if it moves forward.  I hope that isn't so.
 * I'd strongly prefer that Wikipedia not engage in such an endeavor, but this doesn't mean that I'll root for a disastrous failure if we do. I don't enjoy standing back and saying "I told you so".  As Wikipedians, whatever happens, we're all in it together.
 * I do not support it in the rain. Not in the dark.  Not on a train.
 * But if we end up taking the train together on a rainy night in February, I don't want it to derail.
 * I'm more inclined to oppose it if it has a neutral title, which I regard as misleading and more problematic. If we use the name "The Day We Fight Back", Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest.  If we use a seemingly neutral name, Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest and seeking to conceal our biased motive.  —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly prefer that Wikipedia not engage in such an endeavor, but this doesn't mean that I'll root for a disastrous failure if we do. I don't enjoy standing back and saying "I told you so".  As Wikipedians, whatever happens, we're all in it together.
 * I do not support it in the rain. Not in the dark.  Not on a train.
 * But if we end up taking the train together on a rainy night in February, I don't want it to derail.
 * I'm more inclined to oppose it if it has a neutral title, which I regard as misleading and more problematic. If we use the name "The Day We Fight Back", Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest.  If we use a seemingly neutral name, Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest and seeking to conceal our biased motive.  —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to oppose it if it has a neutral title, which I regard as misleading and more problematic. If we use the name "The Day We Fight Back", Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest.  If we use a seemingly neutral name, Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest and seeking to conceal our biased motive.  —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to oppose it if it has a neutral title, which I regard as misleading and more problematic. If we use the name "The Day We Fight Back", Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest.  If we use a seemingly neutral name, Wikipedia will be criticised for participating in the protest and seeking to conceal our biased motive.  —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The special main page content was proposed specifically as a means of participating in the protest, thereby informing the world that Wikipedia endorses the cause. How is it a stretch to claim that its purpose is exactly what's been stated?  —David Levy 06:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The special main page content was proposed specifically as a means of participating in the protest, thereby informing the world that Wikipedia endorses the cause. How is it a stretch to claim that its purpose is exactly what's been stated?  —David Levy 06:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The origin definitely had its roots in TDWFB, but our message is very different. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back (article)
I'm working to get The Day We Fight Back to readable prose size so it can be submitted as a DYK. Any help with that is appreciated.  Ross Hill Talk to me!  21:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Day We Fight Back is now at readable prose length, and I believe satisfies all the other requirements for a DYK article. Should someone do a review? The DYK fact is in the DYK section on WP:The Day We Fight Back.  Ross Hill Talk to me!  05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it to "On this day" per suggestions.  Ross Hill <font style="padding:1px 5px;background:black;"><font color="ADE6E1">Talk to me!  16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back banner developers have agreed to link to the Wikipedia article's from the banner on the day of protest. There will be a "learn more about surveillance" link and will link to the most appropriate page that the Wikipedia puts fourth. -- (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thinking strategically about the "Fighting Back"
I think phrase "The Day We Fight Back" will be a hard sell to our community. Wikipedia doesn't 'fight', it doesn't normally 'take sides'-- mostly, it educates.

I would propose instead we call Wikipedia's effort "Surveillance Awareness Day" or "Surveillance Awareness initiative", or some other variant.

Obviously, still held on Feb 11 and still explicitly connected to the EFF/Reddit actions. Just a tweak in the wording.

As we look towards presenting this to the community, I can imagine some people skeptical of "fighting back" against surveillance. I have a harder time imagining that people will object to a special day where we make our readers aware of an issue the community deems important. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to make it our own. Wikipedia has a unique presence on the web with our commitment to NPOV. An encyclopedia could participate in a way not done by any other media source/groups. I like "Surveillance Awareness Day".   petrarchan47  t  c   05:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

International content needed
The current drafts are all very US-centric. Although the US's global surveillance role is certainly unique, we can't ignore global surveillance by other government and non-governmental entities.

Can anyone nominate content about other regimes/entities and their on-going abuses of mass surveillance? --HectorMoffet (talk)

There is a draft resolution floating around the UN for declaring a certain standard of privacy as a human right. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/21/un-reject-mass-surveillance --Thomasalwyndavis —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ongoing surveillance efforts by the UK/GCHQ deserve a mention, although those efforts are directly related to NSA, UK has their own project goals, staffing, funding and infrastructure. We already have a number of great articles on the topic, notably the following:

General Overview:Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom Agency Overview:Government_Communications_Headquarters Regulation:Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act     Interception_Modernisation_Programme Telecommunications_data_retention Specific Initiatives:Global_Telecoms_Exploitation Mastering_the_Internet Tempora Technology used: Edgehill_(decryption_program) UK/NSA Joint Programs: MUSCULAR DISHFIRE Stateroom_(surveillance_program) We also have content regarding EU legal framework and technology proposals for mass surveillance. For example: Clean_IT_project Directive_2006/24/EC and INDECT Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not yet Featured quality content

 * 1) This is not enough time to get an article up to FA status.
 * 2) Heck, it is not enough time to assuredly get an article through FAC with 100% certainty in that time period, for an article of already high quality that doesn't need any more work or improvements.
 * 3) It's not feasible and a waste of time to focus on articles that aren't already WP:FA quality for TFA for an event that is less than one month away.
 * 4) Strongly suggest the TFA portion of this discussion be limited to current WP:FAs.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Cirt speaks wisdom. We can't WP:IAR on Featured Article status.   Let's focus on featuring articles that already have featured status or are extremely likely to get to FA before Feb 1. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating a menu of options
The guidelines for Feb 11 must be determined by consensus. Until that consensus is formed, we must prepare for all contingencies.

With that in mind, please review the draft The Day We Fight Back/Options. If your own proposed guidelines for Feb 11 are not represented, please add them! There are lots of ways to do this, and we want to find the best way. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Coin
My thought process (due to the limited amount of time we have to get this thing off the ground): I was thinking of utilising the already available content rather than rush to drag a lot of new stuff to FA level. Also, on another note, remember to not make the references too literal. We do not want an NSA attack page. Let's try to be creative with our choices for content, convering a wide range of issues across many different time periods and locations. Why have a picture of the NSA headquaters when you can include a striking historical image that represents what can happen when civil liberties are not upheld? Why clog the DYK space with references to NSA, when you can have a reference to a perhaps-obscure espionage story that will enlighten and entertain readers? Similarly, anything we do cover needs to remain un-editorialised. For example, IMO:
 * Statement by Coin


 * ... That the first global wide area network was built beginning in 1981, for the ECHELON surveillance system? ✅


 * ... That in 1988 a Lockheed employee revealed the ECHELON surveillance network when she "blew the whistle" on interception of a US senator's telephone calls?


 * Second Coin's statement. We are in brainstorming phase-- the greater the diversity ideas we generate, the better our finished product will be. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * About the red cross for the second item, is the expression "she 'blew the whistle' on" deemed too editorial, or is there another reason? How about "she told Congress about" (slightly inaccurage: she initially told one member of the Congress, who then started an investigation)? &mdash; rybec 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved this from the main page about this project to the talk page here. It was quite distracting sitting there at the top of the page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In the news
Proposal: This section be kept how it usually is in order to keep Wikipedia's audience up to date with the Olympics and other world events. .--Coin945 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that this section should run normally. We can't plan for what's going to be "in the news". --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that you seek to reframe the proposed event as one conveying the message "It's important to be aware of surveillance. Read these articles so you can make an informed decision about where you stand."  But that won't be anyone's takeaway.
 * As I said, even if our special main page content is 100% neutral, presenting it in coordination with the "The Day We Fight Back" constitutes an endorsement of the underlying cause (and not merely an implicit one, as it was explicitly devised as a means of supporting the protest). —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we use an FA that has already been previously used at TFA?
I don't think we should use an FA that has previously appeared at WP:TFA.

There is an easy way to see what has already appeared at TFA:

Cheers,
 * 1) Place this code on your .css subpage:
 * .has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }
 * 1) Go to the page WP:FA
 * 2) Then you will see that FAs that were already on the Main Page once before, appear in a green color.
 * 3) We cannot use those FAs highlighted in green.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is, unless there is strong consensus that we could select an FA that has already appeared before at TFA. Thoughts? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For a themed day, I feel like we should probably use the Best featured article, rather than the '''Best featured article that hasn't already ever been used on mainpage". This might be a case to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
 * We need a strong consensus to do any of these, of course, so we'll find out what consensus will support. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds reasonable, I can get on board with that. Hopefully we can soon get a strong consensus for this idea. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate your feedback on the FAs-- I feel like once we have a couple ones that aren't controversial among us, we can use them as a 'for example' and then start soliciting wider input.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I provided some suggestions of FAs that have not yet been TFA... &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If anybody thinks I'm going to suggest a special exception to TFA so that we can get a TV series featured because we like its POV, that's just not going to happen. If there's any IARing to be done here, it should be to get one of the main articles on NSA surveillance through the FAC process in a finite amount of time. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Essay: How global surveillance affects Wikipedia
Is there anyway we can link this essay with this project? -A1candidate (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How global surveillance affects Wikipedia


 * The fact that 1 in 6 journos self-censor now, as well as any details we have about spy agencies' interest in Wikipedia readers and editors, seem like essential additions to this project, although I'm not sure how it could be incorporated.  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we willing to include signals intelligence successes?
I'm concerned that this proposal is implicitly advocating a particular viewpoint even if it does not do so explicitly (e.g. by calling the campaign "The Day We Fight Back"). The proposed links seem to overwhelmingly represent articles that highlight the dangers of overreach by intelligence agencies. There is very little representation of articles that highlight the successful use of signals intelligence or the geopolitical context that led to the development of signals intelligence capabilities. If the goal is to raise awareness of issues regarding surveillance so that our readers can form educated opinions, then we should also willing to highlight articles that highlight both sides of the story. To do otherwise would be contrary to our core values.GabrielF (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Some specific topics to consider:
 * 1) Bletchley Park, Magic (cryptography) and other articles related to allied signals intelligence during World War II
 * 2) Venona Project, the NSA's successful effort to break Soviet codes, which revealed that a number of senior government officials and people involved in the Manhattan Project were Soviet agents (including Harry Dexter White and Julius Rosenberg)
 * 3) Stuxnet, Operation Olympic Games and other efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program

Yes, why not? We should highlight all sides of the issue. Our goal is to educate the public so that people can decide for themselves what sort of surveillance they would allow their government to do. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When I first learned of this project, the topic had been chosen as "mass spying and privacy'. Now it's been changed to "global surveillance". My own preference would be for the topic to be only mass surveillance, excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers. Everyone's being surveilled now, not just soldiers and ambassadors; the current title of the project implies that we'll be asking for a soap-box to encourage people to think about that.


 * I agree that we haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance. Perhaps we haven't looked thoroughly enough. Someone had proposed saying "Did you know...that due to increased security measures instituted post-9/11, many terrorist plots have been uncovered and foiled?" but we didn't find sources to support the statement. I did find National_Security_Agency which says "On July 31 NSA Deputy Director John Inglis conceded to the Senate that these intercepts had not been vital in stopping any terrorist attacks, but were "close" to vital in identifying and convicting four San Diego men for sending US$8,930 to Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia."


 * I was going to get around to mentioning this success, but it would seem like damning with faint praise, wouldn't it?


 * If there are noteworthy, documented examples of mass surveillance successes (or whatever the topic ends up as) but we don't include them in the material we propose to present, consensus is likely to be against us. &mdash; rybec 03:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers" constitutes Begging the question. OF COURSE you "haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance" when you exclude from consideration all surveillance that serves a national security objective!  The whole "debate" is over the extent to which incidental in-country surveillance is acceptable.  There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge.  Evidence of surveillance that has as its objective furthering the domestic political agenda of the party in power is evidence of a scandal, not evidence that provokes any "debate."  If one's going to argue for moral equivalency between western democracies and their targets (China, Russia, al-Qaeda, etc) then of course it is far more difficult if not impossible to justify the NSA's activity.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Stuxnet/Olympic Games example, added after my comment, was sabotage. I don't know of any use of mass surveillance or SIGINT in its production. Also as far as I know, the breaking of the Japanese Purple code did not involve mass surveillance. If you know otherwise, adding it to Magic_(cryptography) or the Stuxnet article would be helpful.


 * I didn't mean to beg the question, rather I made the assumption that governments do not typically use mass surveillance to learn about other governments or their armies. An exception I hadn't thought of is spy satellites. If you have other counterexamples, they are on-topic and welcome.


 * If you disagree with the choice of privacy and mass surveillance as the topic, feel free to suggest a different topic. If you have examples related to either the current topic or your preferred topic, feel free to provide them. In programmes such as DISHFIRE, PRISM and Golden Shield, it's interception of other governments' communications that appears to be incidental. "There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge."


 * Perhaps you meant "can" rather than "can't"? Regardless, feel free to provide justification for mass surveillance. &mdash; rybec 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everyone agrees that government surveillance that can't be so justified is illegitimate, morally if not legally. Surveillance that CAN be so justified MAY be legitimate, some civil liberties extremists can be expected to still object.  re "justification for mass surveillance", this is not the "debate".  The debate is on a point of fact, namely, just how extensive is "mass surveillance" in the United States of Americans and is that extent acceptable?  There is an enormous qualitative difference between some ginormous mindless database noting the number I dialed and human eyes or ears looking at or listening to what I am doing.  The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media.  I go into detail on the Dual_EC_DRBG Talk page as to how overblown the allegation is that that cryptography standard was deliberately undermined by the NSA.  I have edited the Russ Tice article to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower."  Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice.  These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right.  If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories.  It's one of the things that has propelled the success of RT (formerly Russia Today).  Obama himself has noted that "The sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light."  That's not a moral argument, that's disputing the extent to which the reporting has served the public's understanding.  What if Obama is right here and there is less conspiracy here than is popularly believed?  Does Wikipedia stand for knowledge or for conspiracy mongering?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Did Mr. Obama provide any specific, factual examples of how Mr. Snowden's documents are false or misleading? Have there been denials that Xkeyscore, PRISM, DISHFIRE etc. exist? Didn't Mr. Obama give a speech on 17 January, promising to make changes to some of the mass surveillance programmes? That would seem to be rather at odds with the notion that they are mere conspiracy theories. If he's begun giving such speeches, I do look forward to the one about the extraterrestrials at Area 51. &mdash; rybec  00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the sensationalized, breathless reporting on the (occasionally misinterpreted) documents that has been misleading. Again, the issue is NOT whether Xkeyscore, PRISM, DISHFIRE etc. EXIST, the issue is whether jumping from that fact to "the U.S. government is engaging in mass surveillance" with all the pejorative associations that could potentially imply is misleading.  The conspiracy theory is you thinking someone at NSA has ever looked at what you've done on the internet and had a conscious thought about it.  If you don't think that, does this issue warrant trying to use the Main Page to push some sort of liberation agenda?  You keep using those words, PRISM and DISHFIRE etc., I do not think it means what you think it means.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that PRISM means collection and storage of people's Internet activity and DISHFIRE means collection and storage of SMS. Whether someone has specifically looked at mine or yours, I don't know. If no one looks, or will ever look, at the messages, then what is the purpose of their collection and retention? If, as you seem to believe, the activity is benign today, who can say that future use of this data will continue to be benign? What if there's a change of government? What if it's put to criminal use? Consider the ease with which Manning and Snowden copied documents; others may have done the same without going to the press. &mdash; rybec 05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to be able to look back and identify what a targeted individual did before he was targeted. You can't fill out the back story if there's no database to query.  Why I don't I care about that?  Because I don't plan on becoming a target by blowing up a Federal Building or engaging in espionage on behalf of a foreign government!  Yeah, I COULD be targeted anyway, but the same could apply to personal information given to the IRS.  There COULD be a dictatorship that emerges that engages in "criminal" executions of innocent political dissidents.  But there also COULD be a military conflict where the militaries of western democracies suffer significant losses because of hamstrung counter-espionage capabilities (see the Jan 19 NYT story noting that "Mr. Snowden stole about 1.7 million intelligence files that concern vital operations of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force").  If the government is targeting the wrong people, that some database somewhere has the last 10 numbers everyone called is the least of the country's concern, since targeted surveillance is real surveillance with real victims and of far greater concern than any other surveillance issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jehochman says "Why not?", I might go even further to say "Yes, definitely".   GabrielF's essential question is "Are we going to be balanced, or one-sided?"  I think we definitely need some balance, though I don't know precisely what form it should take. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Milestone and status of the proposal
So, we now how enough content to create a Mockup of Content for Feb 11. It's an entirely arbitrary mockup, choosing content that seems leat controversial among the proposers we've had here so far, in my completely arbitrary and unimportant opinion. Obviously, actual content is chosen by consensus-- so it's just a mockup.

I think it may be time to start actively widening the circle of those involved, starting with relevant wikiprojects. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think it's time for you to look for a fallback position. It's not that opposing surveillance isn't a great cause, but so is Wikipedia, and bending every rule to hack together a Main Page like that is just not a good idea.  It smells like POV, yet it doesn't communicate our POV - what we want is the opposite of that.  At WP:The Day We Fight Back/Options I pointed out that FISA Improvements Act (presently a sentence in Political positions of Dianne Feinstein and USA Freedom Act (presently a sentence in Edward Snowden) have not yet even been started.  And days later, they still haven't been started -- even though they are two of very few things directly mentioned in the "The Day We Fight Back" website!  Face it - we do not have the level of involvement and support we need to take the grandest lectern in the world and parade around for a day.  What we can do is try to work within the rules, as they are sometimes bent - we can fish in those contentious waters off Gibraltar and try to feature a set of DYKs for the day.  Right now I'm not even sure we'll get people to write ten or fifteen DYKs though. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of support or involvement doesn't disturb me at this point-- virtually no one has heard about this yet, and the worst that can happen is the community chooses the status quo, which of course would be a fine option if that's where consensus lies.
 * Planning for the status quo is easy, and after that, the next easiest option to be able to provide the option to show a mainpage-like message and that has reasonably enough relevant NPOV content in it.
 * But more options will follow, and perhaps one will be worth implementing.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on WNT's excellent advice, Petro and I have created USA Freedom Act. It's still start-class, please improve it! --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be checked for: wording, structure, and bias. I can fill it out in the next few days, but do feel free. It's the beginning of a very interesting article.  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Surveillance awareness day/Arbitrary Mockup 1 is using an FA that already has appeared at TFA. Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, please immediately feel free to replace the FA section of the Arbitrary mockup with a section that you'd be more comfortable with.  The mockup was arbitrary, just to show "where we're at".
 * "Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner?"?? Do we have strong community consensus for any of this!? hehe.  However strictly or loosely we adhere to WP:TFAR, we're clearly departing from the status quo in a way that every editor should have a say in.
 * So I've been trying to create a 'menu of options' that we can present, and not surprisingly, the easiest option to produce is one that involves using a page that was already at TFA once in 2007.
 * If sticking to the "No repeats" rule is important to you, we'll just be sure to include that as an option. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at doing writeup and blurb for Afroyim v. Rusk, a FA which has NOT been to TFA before.  Please feel free to improve it  and it you like it better, use it on the Arbitrary Mockup. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review
I'm trying to make the List of notable people under FVEY surveillance a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project. As time is running short, is someone willing to help me to do a peer review? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!


 * Please review it here: Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1

-A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You do know 11FEB14 is a Tuesday, right? Featured lists don't run on the Main Page on Tuesdays. smh. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ColonelHenry, we're proposing a significant change to what the Feb 11 page looks like, and we'll need to get a consensus to do that. There are good reasons to object to a proposal, but it doesn't illuminate just to re-iterate this would be different than status quo. Hehe-- we know it's different, that's why it's a proposal.
 * We are definitely shooting for shooting for top-quality content that is Verifiable and written from a NPOV. But WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant. NOTADVOCACY is a good objection, NOTONTUESDAY isn't.   :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
I see nothing that is close to NPOV on this proposal. Have you no shame in taking Wikipedia in this direction?Patroit22 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we fail to propose content that is written from a NPOV, then the proposal will fail to achieve consensus.  We're not "taking Wikipedia" anywhere-- we're just brainstorming options to be considered by the Wikipedia community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC);

Hector-Get your point but Wikipedia Community reaches consensus on many issues based on personal or political viewpoint and not factual information. The internet and most digital systems were created in a way that it did not ensure privacy.Patroit22 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What specifically do you take issue with? What would you like to see changed? Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On using Featured Articles that has previously appeared at TFA on our Feb 11 content
There is an ongoing debate about this. (Discussion moved from project page to talk)


 * These articles were already at TFA once before. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay to propose an article, even if it was already at TFA. ✅ --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not strenuously opposed to the idea of occasional "theme days" like this, but it seems that they should disrupt the flow as little as possible. Why break rules like this when it's not even necessary? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we can't know which options the community will support ahead of time. So we're generating the widest possible menu of options for them.  Just cause we give them the option to select a repeat for Feb 11 doesn't mean they'll actually decide to do so. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple - whatever comes out of this proposal, as the TFA coordinator I will not be running any FA for a second (or in Obama's case, third) time as TFA. BencherliteTalk 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}
 * As TFA coordinator, you don't have the authority to run a FA for a second time, so you speak wisdom.   The community as a whole, however, may choose to display a re-run, assuming we got sufficient consensus for it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as TFA coordinator, I think you'll find that not only I do have that authority but I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA, for better or for worse. (You will never get a community consensus to run a TFA twice for a reason such as this either, and you would do well to listen to the views of Cirt and GeeJo even if you think you can ignore me.) I'm certainly not going to be exercising the exceptional power to run TFAs twice for any of these suggestions on 11th Feb so please save your limited editing time for coming up with something more useful, like actually finishing a proposal so that the community can shoot it down in flames. BencherliteTalk 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA If you believe this, then I see why you would oppose any proposal that argued content should be determined by Community Consensus in some circumstances.   I can tell this proposal really angers you, and I'm sorry.   Lots of people I respected asked me to help work on it, and I won't be upset in the slightest if nothing comes of it.  But I am gravely upset that the mere discussion of such a proposal is so troubling to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied to this at HectorMoffet's talk page, if anyone is interested. BencherliteTalk 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite thank you for moving this discussion off of this page. Jaydubya93 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Important question
Bench asked me,"Why are you ignoring the established method for the community to discuss TFA appearances - WP:TFAR?"

The answer is I don't think Surveillance awareness day is something we can seriously do as if it's "just like april fools". We've never used that url in this way before, and I don't think it's somethin a few insiders should decide, whether they be at TFAR or UT:Jimmy Wales.

So, despite stylistic similarities, I don't even really see the custom content we'd display as an actual "main page" in the traditional, status quo sense of the word. It's custom content, created to send a custom message, timed to coincide with with a outright protest run by our allies. We need to alert our readers this isn't a status quo regular page. Indeed, we may not even STORE the custom content at "Main"-- it might be stored somewhere else entirely.

So we keep all our options available. In the event the proposal does get support, who is to say how much weight the supporters will give to the suggestion that we not use a re-run in the Feb 11 content?

Either way, this thing has NOTBUREAUCRACY all over it. I understand people who are objecting on the grounds of NOTADVOCATE, but I don't get the objection about "normal mainpage rules don't allow re-runs" or "normal mainpage rules don't allow lists on tuesday". Normal mainpages don't coincide with online protests-- this isn't a normal mainpage!

We may do it, we may not-- but I can't fathom reruns or "no lists on tuesday" being decisive in the minds of too many people. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

concern about role of non-proposers

 * Bencherlite expressed opposition to the proposal and advised you to focus on ideas that actually stand a chance of being implemented instead of wasting time and effort on those that don't. You responded with the following:
 * Does that sound familiar to you? It sure does to me, right down to the Green Eggs and Ham reference.  After apologizing to me for disregarding my input, you've once again stated (this time even more explicitly) that you don't value the opinion of someone who doesn't support the proposal.  I find this quite disheartening.  —David Levy 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that sound familiar to you? It sure does to me, right down to the Green Eggs and Ham reference.  After apologizing to me for disregarding my input, you've once again stated (this time even more explicitly) that you don't value the opinion of someone who doesn't support the proposal.  I find this quite disheartening.  —David Levy 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sincerely sorry whenever I unintentionally upset someone. But I do not think it is controversial to give preference to the proposers of a proposal when writing a proposal.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see Groupthink.
 * You're dismissing helpful advice from experienced Wikipedians, whom you perceive as outsiders because we've challenged your beliefs and assumptions. —David Levy 03:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Now you've added the subheading "concern about role of non-proposers". That you've sorted the discussion's participants into two camps ("proposers" and "non-proposers", i.e. "with you" and "against you") is a major part of the problem.  —David Levy 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * David, you aren't "against me"-- you're raising a very valid concern-- WP:NOTADVOCATE.  You imagine I have some agenda, but I really don't.   I think the community should be asked about the idea of doing something special for Feb 11, and I don't know what the "right" answer is beyond that.    I didn't come up with this idea, I just wanted to help with it.   The one thing I do know is that this proposal is a departure from mainpage status quo policy.   So the objection that this proposal deviates from "business as usual" holds no weight-- the whole proposal is predicated on the idea that Feb 11 will be "special".   We either generate a consensus to change things on Feb 11 or we don't-- but we don't slip it into the traditional main page processes as if it's business as usual. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be conflating separate issues. Yes, I have WP:NOTADVOCATE-related concerns, but I'm not referring to them above.  This isn't about what we're arguing; it's about your out-of-hand dismissal.
 * Some of us, despite opposing the proposal, sincerely seek to assist in the effort to assemble a proposal and present it to the community at large. We do have a preferred outcome, but it doesn't negate the importance of gauging consensus.
 * You might respect our opposition (which you acknowledge stems from valid concerns), but because we're "non-proposers", you "don't value [our] opinions[s]" on how to shape the proposal (which you've summarily disregarded).
 * When someone tries to explain that an idea is unrealistic or ill-advised, you interpret this as a claim that it's impossible to implement. You continually defend your approach by pointing out that a "special" main page can contain any content under the sun (leaving nothing off-limits from being thrown into the mix), thereby ignoring advice on why it would be more constructive to focus on changes that the proposal's advocates might have some non-negligible chance of bringing about before the clock ticks down.  "You're a non-proposer, so stand back and let us work" (scare quotes) is not a helpful attitude.  We're all Wikipedians here.  —David Levy 10:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we're really getting somewhere. I hear you.
 * I've been very concerned about people LIMITING options that will be presented to the community. But what I'm hearing from you is that we need to cultivate options that will be more palatable to the broader community as a whole.
 * I would sincerely, not in a flippant way, but deeply sincerely, encourage you to start your own proposal for a way to deal with Feb 11.  I say sincerely, it's very possible you would do a better job than me on putting all this together.
 * Make a fork and show me how it's done. And again-- I firmly believe you really can show me how it's done! :).
 * I'm all about lots of options so the community can make the best possible choice.  I bet your option, accepted or not, would help the process greatly. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know from past experience that forking a proposal is one of the best ways to ensure that consensus isn't reached, especially when time is of the essence. Collaboration is the only viable approach.
 * And as we've discussed, I don't want us to run any special content on February 11, so if I were to outline my preferred course of action, it would amount to nothing more than the status quo. Obviously, that view is incompatible with the general concept (irrespective of the precise direction that the proposal takes), and I certainly don't suggest that it be reflected here.  I'm simply asking you to recognize the distinction between opposition and constructive criticism.  Those of us who oppose the idea are in no position to serve as advocates for its implementation, but that doesn't mean that our opinions have no value whatsoever.  —David Levy 11:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Please, don't even get out the tape measures, there's no need. We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one, nor is it in our best interest to do so.  If we somehow managed to talk them into it and hit them with a hodgepodge of marginally privacy/government related articles with a common POV theme tying together the Main Page (as in the mockup) all we're going to do is tick off a lot of people and damage Wikipedia's reputation.  However, if articles are written and available, it won't matter what day of the year it is, they'll always be out there educating people.  Never forget that Wikipedia itself is already a good cause. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of getting "Today's Featured Article", don't forget that you have somewhere else you can be featured from -- the site of "The Day We Fight Back". If you can line up some people to hack together a portal for the day, you can have your own Main Page and stock it however you like, get it linked to and from their site, and try to get it out to go viral on the social networks. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one" -- we certainly don't have a consensus, and indeed the consensus may well be for the status quo-- and that'd be fine. But we definitely have time to reach consensus.   If we get that far, sitewide discussion should take a week at most. It may all be a waste of time, but I've learned alot, so have some others.
 * I think people assume my work here is predicated on the presumption that proposal succeed. It isn't-- I'm perfectly happy to see it rejected if that's what should happen.    We're asking the community a question, all answers are okay from my point of view.    --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is very rare for them to even start to close an RFC in less than 30 days, and an opposed policy change would be put to one. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Above my pay grade-- I'm just here to offer the options. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 30 days is just convention for minimum length as most RfCs aren't time-critical—I think the blackout discussion and polling took place over 3 or 4 days. Still, I and others have recommended starting the discussion sooner rather than later. benmoore 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And let's keep in mind that the blackout essentially entailed flipping a switch. Presenting special content is much more complicated.  —David Levy 13:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is. Now, let's take DYK for instance. First we would need a centralized discussion on whether the main page content should be changed as part of a protest/awareness day. If so, we would need a discussion on whether some of the ordinary DYK rules should be changed (for instance the requirement that articles shall be new or recently five-fold expanded); then after these two discussions, we would need time to evaluate individual nominations for core policies; including neutrality issues and proper sourcing both for the articles and the suggested hooks. I think you pretty much need to start the centralized discussion right today, if you shall have any chances at all to get this done to February, 11.Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think we can get two panels of seven DYKs each by February 1 fair and square, going by every rule in the book, provided we have a dozen or more people willing to participate. And doing that - adding articles about 14 mass surveillance related topics to the encyclopedia - that is what really matters.  The 11th is going to come and go and things will be the same, but if we make those 14 articles for every person interested to read, that stays. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am willing to help write articles on a pretty full-time basis for the next few weeks. (Beginning an informal count.)  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also happy to contribute. I have been reading over this and all related "Awareness Day" pages looking for a place to start without much luck other than compiling data re: non-US surveillance. Most of the content in these pages so far seems to be reasons not to proceed with a proposal. While I understand the concerns, there ought to be a proposal in place before a rejection is provided. IMO debates about how the proposal would endanger Wikipedia policy strikes me as germane to an RfC rather than a talk page designed to create the proposal. If anyone involved with this needs help, please feel free to contact me via talk page I look forward to helping out. Jaydubya93 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)