Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Special report

← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

• Public Service agencies shouldn't go on strike. Doctors and nurses would be ostracized for doing so. Although I agree with your position on the topic at hand, you are quite wrong to shut down in protest. Would it be okay for a fireman to protest while homes burn down? I don't think so. Is it okay for you to protest while I miss deadlines, unable to complete my research? I hope it makes you feel better, but for me, it only hurts. Just out of curiosity, what are you going to do for the next protest? Burn books? Delete content? Enkelisiipi (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there are people insane enough to compare Wikipedia to a "Public Service Agency," doctors, and nurses. You need to look in the mirror.50.83.121.229 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BEANS. You never know... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 08:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If that might help, beside your local library ;), there are multiple copies of Wikipedia Content spread througout the web. You can find some URLs at WP:MIRROR. -- Luk ^talk 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You'll survive just fine without Wikipedia for 24 hours. Think long term: your research would really suffer if five years down the road Wikipedia's quality is diminished by a suffocating web of legal requirements. Dcoetzee 09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Friend, if you are desperate for information about something, there are these places called public libraries, staffed by trained professionals & stocked with things called books. These institutions are dedicated to helping people find information, & educate themselves. Rumor has it some Wikipedians even use them to find content for articles. Some even say that they're more useful than Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• This is PRECISELY why there should be a UK-specific wikipaedia. As if navigating the poor spelling and grammar and the Americocentric articles wasn't bad enough, UK users are now faced with a denial of service as a result of a protest against proposed country-specific legislation in another international state.Jatrius (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Take it as a great opportunity to learn foreign languages and read/contribute to any non-English Wikipedia :). --Elekhh (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Guess what, Jatrius, Brits are just as guilty of poor spelling and grammar--and of writing articles relevant only to their own country or as if other countries didn't exist or were irrelevant--as Americans are. Angr (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a Canadian, I am fully in support of a global blackout. Attempts to censor the internet are a global problem, not just an American one. The MPAA/RIAA and it's Canadian counterparts are heavily involved in lobbying efforts to do the same here, and I believe your Digital Economy Act has some fairly dangerous provisions in it. While this protest is aimed at US lawmakers specifically, hopefully it will cause people in other countries to take an interest in what their governments may be doing. Resolute 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• To control the internet, the 112th United States Congress prepares to prosecute anyone associated with piracy, which will be accomplished through the passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act to destroy, regulate, or censor on the sea of the net. Condemned protestors sing "Hoist the Colours" to compel the nine pirate lords comprising the Brethren Court to convene at Shipwreck Cove, in an effort to stop in the impending information apocalypse... I guess its up to us to write the rest of this story. I pray it will have a happy ending, otherwise what shall we die for? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move the servers outside the US. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Jimbo Wales once said "Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral" (Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005)".. Looks like that's gone out of the Window. Wikipedia will be disrupted to make a political POINT.--Scott Mac 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • While I understand your position, my position was, and remains, that working with the people in Congress (or any legislative body - including in the EU) does a great deal more than making noise in this manner. Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does the work (Twain). I know it is fun to "make noise" - but even at football games it is not the "noise" which wins games - it is the normal routine of playing the game which wins. If Wikipedia wishes to be involved in the political process, it would accomplish a great deal more by "playing the game" than it will ever gain by "making noise" (fun though it might be). Collect (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with this. What exactly are people intending to do with this massive toys and prams moment? The people who understand SOPA will carry on campaigning using constructive methods (whatever they are), the masses of people who just come on here to look up information will think "SOPA? WTF? Bloody geeks." If this act is as bad as people say it is, they need to educate people using plain and simple English on what to do - not throw a massive hissy fit because they're not getting their own way. Perhaps, heaven forbid, there may be people who casually edit WP who support the act? Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Does anyone know if mobile site will be blacked out? If not, then they should be blacked out as well. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Considering that these laws are direct threats to Wikipedia's existence, how can we remain "neutral" on them? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Words fail in describing how dumb this blackout is. It is like a desperate cry for attention.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's a desperate cry for attention. But others rule the Congress. And hyperlinks, interwikies, and thumbs linked to images with high resolution make Wikipedia so useful. Censorship kills Wikipedia, sorry. It's vital, it's a loss of life cry ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• This is a uniquely important issue that directly affects the existence of Wikipedia as we know it. It is not taking sides in a partisan dispute, as both conservatives and liberals can be found opposing this legislation. It is not a uniquely American issue, as censorship is on the rise globally. The form of the protest is orderly, will cause no lasting damage, and will not threaten anyone's health or safety. This is the right action to take, for everybody. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Go and have a look what Frank Zappa did about censorship. He went into the courts and fought it first hand. Do you honestly think anyone actually proposing these laws is going to care in the slightest about some website being offline for a day? --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe not directly, but I do think that the blackout will significantly raise awareness of Internet censorship among the public, leading people to contact their government representatives about the issue (as I did today, and encourage all to do the same, regardless of your nationality). That is something that lawmakers care about. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Of course no politician cares that Wikipedia is offline for a day. However they DO care about their attitude of their voters, and the fact that this action has resulted in front page coverage in every newspaper in the English-speaking world will certainly get their attention. Wikipedia is (for the first time) testing its ability to influence public opinion. Should it do so? Absolutely - it is absurd to claim we should be neutral about an issue that directly affects our viability. Our content is NPOV, not our stances. We've never been neutral on the collective right to free information, we've never been neutral on the preservation of copyright and now we're not neutral on SOPA. Manning (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's tempting to add {{historical}} to WP:POINT. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  One has to wonder if this whole stunt is a specialised case of WP:SPIDERMAN :-/ And why only the English WP? Are Quebec somehow immune from censorship compared to the rest of Canada? --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• This will make people think that the Wikipedia is purely American, which will damage its credibility with Australian readers more than the proposed legislation. They will be confronted with a protest about something they have never heard of. If there is a problem, WMF should move the servers outside the US. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You can't just keep upping and moving your servers to countries that don't have draconian laws... you need to make a stand on such issues while there is still time to make a difference. To remain "neutral" is effectively to take a political stance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• blackout right after we donate to support?190.4.72.249 (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support the action. Even though PIPA and SOPA are mainly American, Wikipedia will be affected directly, not just in the U.S., but everywhere. The U.S. Government will try to control this site. I don't want to live in a society where the government tells what we may and may not put on the web. These techniques are already used in dictatorships such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and so on. If we are a democracy, then democracy means freedom of the web. Also, other countries may be affected, as this can cause a negative "domino effect". AKA, other countries will try to pass similar legislation as in the U.S., so this is definitely a global issue.--GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• In response to the Australian comment above (I'm also Australian), this issue is highly relevant to us, as we have our own political nonsense going on. The "Internet Blacklist" initiative of our government may have failed, but don't pretend that similar things aren't lurking in the background. And as a nation of people who spend a lot of time complaining about how ignorant and close-minded Americans are, we don't need to start mimicking this lack of global awareness by claiming we're not affected by the ramifications of SOPA. Manning (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout done

I had expected that accessing Wikipedia would have required clever use of the Google cache, but all I had to do was hit Escape as the page was loading. Access to Wikipedia was easy enough; was that intended? ResMar 05:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as noted in the press release, there were numerous ways of dodging the splash-screen, and there was even a FAQ provided on how to do it. Communicating the message, not enforcing the obstruction was the objective. Manning (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think I preferred the Google approach; they managed to communicate the message without disrupting legitimate usage. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessments

It seems the blackout got good play in the mainstream press, leading on the NY Times website. All for the good. I was opposed to going black vs. a splash screen, but that was indeed the correct call. And it seems like some of the Congressional weasels are scurrying from SOPA. They'll rename it something else and be more specific next time. But, all in all, a successful action, I think. Other thoughts? Carrite (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We could save time simply by listing all the newspapers that didn't give this lead coverage. A quick scan mid-blackout found it leading the UK Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, Johannesburg's The Star, and the Times of India. Manning (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How strange - the leading story on BBC News yesterday was rising unemployment figures in the UK, which might just be a bit more important to most people. --Ritchie333 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional - New York Times : Wikipedia Absence Is Noted, but as a Brief Inconvenience Ritchie333 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that Wikipedia decided to partake in and sponsor the blackout...the blackout had no scale and little impact to the public. I defaulted to other sites which provided comparable information but made a mental note that Wikipedia let me down during the blackout and other more pragmatic sites didn't. I'm sure many others share my view. EW in Taiwan42.73.112.126 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• A succinct and compelling T.E.D. talk against SOPA and PIPA: Succinct argument and compelling! :

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html 98.145.147.147 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think that what we are seeing here is but yet another way to "shut the people up". The public have been seeking information over the years to secrets and conspiracies and with the power of the internet these 'secrets' are being uncovered. As everyone is aware from the Roswell crash there has been a coverup and it is without a doubt that ever since then technology has developed faster than ever before. The evidence unfolds itself through the internet. More action has been seen in the skies and on the internet that before and this action to STOP and CONTROL public awareness is just another way to coverup and defend that information101.98.152.177 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)