Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

This was archived by MiszaBot III before Jimbo had responded. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you think administrator attrition is causing editor attrition or more the other way around, on balance? Are there any ways that the more quickly declining admin ranks could be caused by decreased editor retention? There are several reasons that fewer admins cause editor biting. Consider how fast WP:ANI is archived compared to about five years ago during the fastest growth period. Is there any reason to believe that admins make better decisions under one fifth the available amount of time? If it were entirely up to you, how would you prefer Foundation resources be allocated towards editor retention and admin retention, in terms of percentages of the entire budget? My opinion is 25% for admins and 1% for editors. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As neither admins or non-admin editors get any resources that I am aware of, dividing zero as you suggest should not be difficult. Personally, I think the barriers of entry are higher standards (thus, anyone cannot just edit it, at least for an article which is watched, without a significant risk of being reverted for good cause) and too much drama (the subsequent condescending note or block notice left on talk). I happen to agree that we are no longer just looking for bodies with fingers, and it is more important to concentrate on keeping experienced editors (who get bored or offended, and leave) and giving them resources to do their jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but in fact according to [1] the foundation has decided to devote considerable resources to editor retention, which seems foolish to me as it has leveled off to a slope sustainable for decades, while all the admins will be gone in less than seven years at the rate they've been leaving. I hope that Jimbo will be able to address the question. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor attrition is likely to be expected for a project involving documentation of knowledge. At the beginning all the easy stuff that just anyone can do is done. Ahem, Barbie, Easy bake oven, Kim Kardashian

Then it is followed by the harder work of citing and rewriting the more complex and technical articles for accuracy and completeness. That work is not as much "fun" so not as many people want to do it (or due to the costs of published scientific papers and industry standards, not many people CAN do it).. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

In the end I think it'll be either the obsessed or the asbergers/autistics (or the in-field scientists/engineers -- which may or may not be classified separately from those already mentioned, heh) that really flesh out the niggly ultra-technical stuff.

So the slowdown seems entirely expected. It will likely never drop off completely, though it is possible for some articles to be eventually be "locked for completeness" at some point, just to reduce the vandalism hassle. DMahalko (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is broadly correct. By about 2007 Wikipedia already had articles on most things that most people care about. What is left is cleanup and QC, along with fleshing out more technical or esoteric topics. Those activities don't attract the masses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and believe that supports the assertion that the Foundation should be focusing on administrator retention instead of general editor retention. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the story here. Why do you say 'ethical blindness'? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the whole point of it is that there is no editorial, or ethical view, on contributions. Crowdsourcing should ensure, and indeed has ensured, that the truth will out. Surely ethics does not enter into it? 31.52.4.223 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical considerations enter into every human activity. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So should Stormfront sympathisers not be allowed to edit the article about Stormfront? There have been discussions about this before on Wikipedia, and it was concluded (I think) that someone should not be prevented from editing Wikipedia simply because of the views they hold. But there are several questions tangled up here. Even if you hold that ethics does come into it, who is to decide, on an encyclopedia, which is the right ethical position? To do that you would have to set up an ethics committee, and decide which editors were ethical and which weren't. But that is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. Note what Michael Irwin says here [2] in an early Wikipedia discussion about editorial control - " I am leary of any "editorial boards" or "validated" material coming back from Nupedia to Wikipedia automatically. " The whole point about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and any attempt to impose a central editorial or even 'ethical' standards board is wholly opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. The systems and controls of Wikipedia - namely of hundreds or thousands of faceless editors monitoring content - are all that is required. 109.151.137.189 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is and should be an inherently ethical enterprise. Bell Pottinger lied, mislead, and behaved in manners not consistent with our values. The idea that Wikipedia should be aggressively amoral and hope like hell that somehow "crowdsourcing" (a misleading term) will lead to truth is just wrong. I expect people to behave in a thoughtful, kind, responsible and ethical manner when editing Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they actually lie? That's important. There was an accusation of vote-stacking. Where was that? 31.53.50.138 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that acting in a way that might damage the reputation of one's client is also an ethical issue for a PR firm.--Boson (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see this ugly banner ad at the top of Wikipedia. I thought ads had no business being here? Your close ties to the center shouldn't override our endeavor to be a neutral and adfree website. ThemFromSpace 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if there is not a strong community response, it won't be the last one, and there will be a decreasing amount of affiliation with WMF. However, I doubt that this is the most effective forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not an ad per se, I was wondering about that banner as well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better for the project would be to maintain a page in the Wikipedia namespace (or maybe on Meta or the Foundation wiki) that lists studies such as this that are looking for Wikipedian volunteers (that the Foundation is happy are genuine and appropriate). This page could be prominently featured in the usual centralised advertising for internal pages. To offset some of the reduction in visibility, it could be part of a series of "Have you seen?" banners pointing to internal things and shown to users no more than once per day. Other things in the sequence would be things like Commons' picture of the year contests, Arbitration Committee elections, GLAM projects, etc. It's probably worth me pointing out that I clicked the banner and took part in the study (I like taking part in things like that) and my participation earned a small donation to the Foundation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I'm happy to see that banner. Because it's just that, a banner. "Ad" is from Advertisement and Advertisement != Research. Also ads try to sell stuff and could make a conflict of interest with the article of the product they want to sell or brand itself. Research doesn't have that problem. A banner from a research project is not less or more annoying that a fundraising banner, and if it helps to raise money to the Wikimedia Foundation then I'm happy. I just finished the experiment and if they indeed transfer the money (I'm skeptical by nature) I'll donate half of it to Wikipedia.--Neo139 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you feel as happy when the ads are for Wikipedia's "marketing partners".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This response is absolutely uncalled for and offensive. Your argument is incoherent and false and insulting to good people. The idea that the Wikimedia Foundation legitimately wants to support research relevant to Wikipedia by assisting researchers in recruiting participants implies that we are about to take paid advertisement is just mind-boggling and the exact opposite of AGF. Let me be clear about this: there are no plans to take advertising in Wikipedia, and no relationship between announcing on behalf of research projects and taking advertising. I strongly support such banners and think people should be ashamed of themselves for behaving in a silly manner about them. Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face serves exactly what purpose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was fair comment and I stand by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I support the general idea of this initiative in principle, but I am also slightly concerned that there is an issue about transparency. I would like to know the background to the research and details of why/how the researchers and WP are partnered. This is just so that I can feel informed. When you talk about "Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face" you may well be making a valid point, but I have no idea because I don't know where to look for information about what problems the research is looking into. If it's very obvious that the research is likely to be of benefit to WP, then I am sure that would put a lot of editors' minds at rest. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm unaware of the Foundation being secretive about anything, so it seems like an easy enough thing to ask them. But I'd like to challenge the assumption here that everyone needs or has a right to be informed about every detail of everything affecting the website at all times. That's just not generally a good use of the Foundation's time and resources, and it also reinforces what I think is a very unhealthy conservativism in the community about change. We need to break out of the idea that every software feature (for example) needs get "consensus" support (defined as high as 70% in some people's minds!) for even some very major software changes. We need to break the idea that the Foundation needs to get permission to run banners in support of research projects. We really need to break the idea, which is preposterous nonsense, that if we don't scream bloody murder and get out the pitchforks, that the Foundation is going to start running paid advertising soon. Not every slope is slippery, and most things are better handled by getting informed before protesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: we have an outside organization, unaffiliated with Wikipedia, paying a bunch of money (much of which will be funneled to the foundation) so that they can put a banner with their logos for everyone to see. If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of money? Where did you find that out? --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming Berkman actually come through, it's like $25 average for 2000 survey-takers, which works out to $50,000. I'm not sure how much of that's going to get donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's probably not insignificant. Buddy431 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well maybe that wasn't a great idea. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that that effectively makes it a paid advert. It's sort of vaguely like a duck, but it isn't one. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be realistic though from the foundations POV it's close to chump change. Personally I suspect the amount coming to the foundation is likely to be under $10k (for starters I actual suspect the average for survey per participant is likely to be closer to $20 if not under) but this is true even if it's $50k. The revenue in 2010 was $21.5 million [3] so even $50k would be only ~0.23% of that. And the worth of a real banner ad is surely far higher. In other words, the financial incentive for the foundation is minimal at best and frankly if they 'sold out' for a slight possibility of $50k whoever did that was an idiot. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that WMF should have sought my permission for the banners and I don't want them taking down. But I would have liked for there to have been (for example) a convenient link to basic information about why the banner was there (e.g. "WMF is collaborating with Harvard and Sciences Po on a research project that we hope will..." etc etc). If there had been more information, then there would have been less protesting, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me again when that happens. For the moment, I prefer a non-profit organization to be self-sustainable with a 5-hour banner about a research by a university, displayed to users only, rather than a 6 week aggressive fundraising campaign. I don't get mad at Mozilla Foundation because Firefox uses Google as default search engine. That way they can hire more employees and make a better browser while keeping it free software. You can change it to Yahoo if you want, or remove it. The same principle could be applied here. I use Wikipedia not because its banner-free (which I find amazing) but because it's contents are free and good. With more money, they could hire more employees and make a better encyclopedia. And if something can make Wikipedia better while remaining free without annoying the users (or with little impact like this banner) then +1 to that. (BTW, I agree we should discuss this somewhere else) --Neo139 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What ad is this? Can I get a link? I've long since suppressed the damned banners, since my contributions consist of my work as an editor and admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Harvard/Science Po Adverts. Note, though, that they seem to have been disabled for the moment as per Brion at Meta. They were supposed to appear to a small sample of editors, and instead may have been showing up for everybody. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noted this discussion... Jimbo; I see the point you are making (although having looked at the survey I am not convinced it will be of any material use to us due to various flaws in the design). However I think this has sort of brought to a head the dire lack of communication with the community. In this case, no communication :) I realise that the community is conservative and resists change (in a sense this can be an important defence mechanism) but that isn't necessarily solved by simply imposing change without discussion. That way puts the community and foundation on a collision course - not helpful. In this case a banner targeted specifically at English Wikipedia editors is something I think is reasonable for us to have given input on (without having to subscribe to every mailing list and keep a close eye on all the meta pages...). One element of feedback I have picked up from the "other side" (i.e. RCOM) has been that they have no policy or benchmark to pick up from English Wikipedia as to what form of Central Notices the community thinks should appear. Rather than leave it to a case-by-case basis I have opened an RFC to form some degree of guidance for committees such as RCOM wishing to post banners onto en.wiki :) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices Hopefully this will help iron out future situations! I know every time this happens I moan about lack of communication, sorry about that, but we are terribly communicators and I will continue to constructively moan till it improves :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add further, on this specific incident. A number of very reasonable concerns were raised by editors - many of these were later addressed by RCOM and the people conducting the survey. But this, I think, proves my point - simple communication and answering those concerns *before* the launch would have caused a lot less issues... and at least given the community time to react more calmlydifferently :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mebbe. Or the ad might not have run because of community opposition. Perhaps rather than invent something new, why not put it in the Signpost?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Errant, I would not suggest saying, even with smiley, that people on one side of an argument are something other than "calm". What that implies is emotion-based reasoning, rather than argument based on reason. Editorial boards and Rush Limbaugh use that technique all the time. It has no place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ye gods, come on... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were on IRC earlier and asking for information in relation to BP. If you refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boris_Berezovsky -- I am advising you of this due to Wikipedia:Bell_Pottinger_COI_Investigations clearly stating that this article was edited by BP editors, yet issues in relation to the admitted COI editor still stand, and that is unacceptable as per my comments at the ANI (and on the investigation talk page). Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason why adding material such as this should not be, imo, at all "controversial". Not only is it important in its own right, it's also the last bulwark against articles which are spun. Some of these articles are caught, such as this one, but I suspect many more are not. If we truly want to inform readers.... 75.59.206.69 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that Russavia is taking "the correct POV" to mean "her personal POV, all others will be removed". Whitewashing and blackwashing are both non-Wikipedian, which is why an assortment of reliable, international- recognized sources are useful in External links and Further reading. I still don't understand why this concept is being fought against, other than the obvious desire to spin an article in one direction or another. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I think this appeared today in the Evening Standard's lifestyle magazine. The Wikipedia manipulations are also mentioned there. After you challenged the first response that the company didn't break the law by pointing out that it said nothing about ethics, he now managed to address your concern by saying something that is literally true and superficially adresses your concern:

"on the basis of what has been reported so far, I can see no example of people behaving improperly, though perhaps behaving indiscreetly."

Yes, this appears to be a problem. So far the press have just mentioned in general terms that Bell Pottinger were behaving improperly w.r.t. Wikipedia, but it appears that so far no specific example edits have been discussed in detail. I think you should ask him which of his clients you should pick for a detailed analysis. Hans Adler 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I really think he should fire whoever is in charge of his PR for allowing him to give interviews in this situation. Hans Adler 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see the people who brought us the secret video have already taken care of this. Bell Pottinger targeted environmental campaigner on Wikipedia Hans Adler 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I note in the BBC's coverage of the Bell Pottinger affair that they quote "David Gerard, a UK-based spokesperson and volunteer for Wikipedia". This seems odd, considering the recent statement made on this very talkpage by a WMF employee which states that David Gerard is not a WMF employee and appears to state that Gerard does not speak for the WMF. It might be helpful if you clarified who the WMF's spokespersons actually are. If Gerard is not a spokesperson, why does he continue to be credited as such? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did the press let facts get them in the way of a news story? If DG is listed in someone's rolodex under that heading, that's all the "fact checking" they need. — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most organizations would take steps to correct any such misconception. They would contact the reporter to set them straight and ask for a correction. They would ask the person involved to stop speaking to the press unless they make it clear that they have no official capacity with the organization. It not clear to me who the spokepersons for the WMF actually are, or if Gerard is the de facto spokesperson, which is why I asked here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, David Gerard is still a UK press contact. We have many press contacts, volunteers, in many countries around the world. David's been doing that for years. Now that the UK chapter exists, has funding, and has started hiring people, I expect that role will eventually transition into the chapter, but for now, there's nothing at all unusual or wrong about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much the case. I started doing the volunteer press thing in 2005 because we needed someone to do it, and kept on doing it. As Wikipedia became ridiculously popular I cut back severely, as dealing with press storms and working a day job started to conflict badly, so WMUK do it and I'm backup. And my phone number is public so I still get calls, and stop by the OTRS queue every now and then, and so forth.

To answer what I suspect is Delicious' real concern, I try quite hard not to give my own personal views (you can get those on the mailing lists) but my estimate of community consensus and ideals. I also stress I don't work for the WMF and am speaking as a volunteer. So far I've yet to be lynched by the Wikipedians or hideously embarrass the Foundation - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning your ability or your impartiality, David, merely your status. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry for being so touchy - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, you have a woefully uninformed (though unfortunately common) perspective on the press, and clearly didn't read the comment already there on the page when you commented on my talk page. I'd have hoped you'd have paid more attention to detail were the matter as important as you consider it. I must apologise, that's uncalled-for snappiness on my part and you really didn't deserve it. I'm sorry.

To quote myself: "Press quotes may resemble words actually said by the person they're attributed to, in some circumstances. (This is then called "reliable", while the person's own words are called "COI".) That was a 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence."

FWIW, I gave my title (as I always do) as "volunteer media contact". The journalist then wrote something, the subeditors then edited it some way, and what ended up on the page bore a familial resemblance to anything I said. This is par for the course. The process is one of throwing out as robust soundbites as one can come up with on the fly and seeing just what the press can do with them that time - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely noted the apparent disconnect between the BBC article and the statement by a WMF employee, and asked who the spokespersons for the WMF are. I did not read the discussions on your talk page when I left you that message. I take it from Jimbo's answer that you are one of several "press contacts". Is there a list of these anywhere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David is listed here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the UK list - the Foundation one is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Regional_contacts - I'm there in "other regional contacts", and my phone number is in lots of lists and will probably be so for years (Alison Wheeler's no longer on that list but still gets calls) - David Gerard (talk)

David's also listed on the UK list, under Wikimedia community volunteers. (David, I'm not sure we checked with you before adding you there - hope that was OK?) In general, all of David's comments here get a +1 from me - it's fantastic that he's doing this media communication. I think those that view media spokespeople as having to be from WMF or a chapter, rather than from the community, need to change their viewpoint - the community can (and should, for a number of reasons) always have its own spokespeople too. Mike Peel (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you have raised an interesting point. Anyone who edits Wikipedia should be free to give their opinions and impressions of what the community wants. A "community spokesperson" is by definition someone who speaks for the community. Surely that person should be chosen by the community? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is a useful illustration that Wikipedia does press the way it writes an encyclopedia: ad hoc, volunteer, and somehow more or less works with rough edges - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Par for the course, like I said.

I'm going to sing my one note song again and wonder aloud "When the hell are we going to stop pointing at news media as examples of reliable sources?" – they are barely adequate sources at the best of times. I know we're never going to wean the community away from those rags as sources, but can we at least stop pretending they are somehow venerable or exemplary? — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist I almost take offence to that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying news media don't have their place, BWilkins, or that they are unreputable. But as encyclopedic sources, they suck. — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia, as opposed to something like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, was that "current events" could be covered in-depth and be kept more-or-less instantly up-to-date. That, generally, means news sources. If and when the facts change, we change our minds (articles). So what's your alternative to using the news media? 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jimmy, will you see my talk page about problematic editors? i don't know why my previous comment was erased from your talk page. i thought wikipedia took potential and definite pedophilia issues seriously.

However, "outing" editors who you believe are pedophiles will get it removed. If you want to email WP:OTRS feel free to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to email WP:ARBCOM, not OTRS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we take the issue seriously but the right way to handle it is not a public witch hunt. Email is better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Please help me publicize this widely.)

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 December 2011‎

(note: I added the request for comment tag and signature for the bot Crazynas ^t 09:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.

Poll

• Oppose. Stay out of politics. Advocacy by WMF on issues that matter to wikipedia is fine; using wikipedia to do it isn't. If Congress feels like passing this law on behalf of the American people, that's its prerogative. Politicising wikipedia damages its reputation. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This would not be advocacy by the WMF. In the Italian case, the WMF was not even aware of it until very shortly before it began. It was implemented by the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for precisely that reason, it's a bad idea. I don't have a problem with you going to the White House and giving Mr O a piece of your mind. But we have to draw a line between the organisational advocacy of the WMF and inappropriate advocacy by the "community" which would impair the encylopaedia. What about members of the community who happen to agree with the bill? --Mkativerata (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - and note that, aside from corporate fatcats who have never heard of the concept of revolution, the American people don't want anything Congress is cranking out (they are approaching an approval rating of 0%). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Duh WP:NOTADVOCACY. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, though not sure exactly what it is we'd be planning to do. But this bill has the possibility to have a significantly damaging effect not just on Wikipedia but on the free and open Internet as a whole. I normally would never be in favor of Wikipedia taking a position as political issues go, but I've got to agree with the Italians here—this one's a special case because it's a direct threat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused - what are we supposed to be polling over? The acceptance of the bill, or the striking of WP because of the bill? If it's the acceptance then Strongly Oppose, and if it's the striking of WP, then again Strongly Oppose as per WP:SOAP but also Support for the following reason: Think of it like this: The internet is a medium, as is a book. If an encyclopaedia can be written in a book, then why can't it be written on the internet? The law is not clear cut on these things at all. Just my 2 cents. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The issue has not been well stated, the community has not been well informed, and if I am going to pick up pitchfork and torch, I'm going to pick the issue to do it on. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iff it eliminates the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, or sufficiently compromises it to jeopardize the Wikimedia mission of collecting and disseminating free information. This isn't about advocacy, but about us being free to act as the largest repository of written information ever assembled. I feel that SOAP is fine for individual articles or policies, but when we're advocating for our right to exist, well we all want to be able continuing to improve the encyclopedia don't we? Crazynas ^t 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Uneasy support if it drastically impacts the core mission or distrupt majorly wiki*dia operations then sure, some form of action might be reasonable. However I believe it's very important to use this only as a last resort, only if it's really needed. It's a powerful weapon, not to be wasted if it can be avoided. Also, it's a very polarizing issue, as we've seen with the itwiki, while the Italian community had a wide consensus, I've seen many others especially from this wikipedia be fiercely against it. I think thinks kind of action should be discussed on some kind of specific page on meta, to allow for input from all the diverse wikimedia projects. Obviously an enwiki strike would have to be discussed and decided on this project, but if the interest is in global actions or actions like this in general, it would be interesting to have input from other projects as well. An enwiki strike is very different, in my opinion, from an itwiki or any other project (except maybe for a commons strike that would disable image loading to the rest of the wikis), by its very nature, Enwiki is the showcase for the entire family, and is used in all countries, unlike a country specific issue, so if it would be an issue only affecting US, EU, Italian or Chinese editors, I would probably object to a strike here. However, if it would drastically affect the project itself, then some kind of action might be justified. However it's really important that it be a community driven initiative, not a wmf-driven one. I really think if the initiative would come from the wmf it might split the community, I fear. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And it would need to have very, very broad consensus. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; however SOPA has holds in the Senate, so why not strike for public campaign finance instead? That would remove the opposition to (1) reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act, (2) fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidy reform, (3) return to the marginal tax rates of e.g. the 1950s when we paid down the debt from WWII (four times as large as a proportion of GDP than today's) without surpluses because the greater income equality caused the economy to grow much faster, (4) universal health care, (5) sentencing reform, against the prison guards' unions, (6) patent and copyright duration reform, and many other beneficial reforms currently stalled by special interest campaign donations. Overturning Citizens United as several recently introduced constitutional amendments would do is not enough. We must not simply enable public campaign finance, we must institute it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with all those other causes is that they are US only and not immediately related to Wikipedia. Take me for example. As a German living in Austria and with much stronger ties to the UK than the US, I think all the other causes you mention are worthy, but it's not appropriate for a world-wide, community driven project to take a stand on them excep twhere they touch the core of the project's purpose. This is the case only for SOPA. Hans Adler 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is hosted and the Foundation is located in the US. All project editors are directly affected by the length of US copyright terms which have been repeatedly lengthened by special interest lobbying money in the US, and you might have noticed over the past three years that your economy is somewhat dependent on the US economy, too. But Jimbo already mentioned that this might likely be geo-specific if it happens. I just hope we make the most of it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some form of dramatic protest, maybe something like the itwiki one, against SOPA and Protect IP. These bills make it possible for anyone who merely alleges copyright infringement to get a site shut down, pulled from search listings, DNS blacklisted, and its sources of funding cut off. Wikipedia has many enemies who would seek to exploit such a mechanism - besides the fact that the copyright infringement need not be proven, it is trivial to plant an infringement on Wikipedia that we cannot possibly detect (Alice writes article content in Word, sends it to Bob; Bob edits and adds it in). Moreover, Wikipedia may be required to remove links to accused sites, even if the sites did nothing wrong and such links are important for educational purposes. I would really appreciate Jimbo clarifying the actions under consideration however. Dcoetzee 10:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I was talking with some other users who suggested that we get a professional like Geoff Brigham to write a brief on the legal dangers SOPA/Protect IP pose to the project. His informed opinion would carry far more weight than armchair lawyers like myself. Dcoetzee 10:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I guess the practical implementation could be roughly as follows: (1) Gain a strong community-wide consensus that this is what we want to do, regardless of what the Foundation may say. (2) Create a template that explains the situation, to replace articles. (3) Make sure that no active anti-vandalism bot will revert edits that replace a page by this template. (4) On the correct date, run bots that replace articles with the template. (5) Based on the consensus, the community will handle premature restorations of articles in the same way that it usually deals with vandalism. Hans Adler 10:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:ADVOCACY is not relevant - except to reaffirm our dedication to the goals of the project. Goals which SOPA seems to threaten to put at risk. un☯mi 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NOTADVOCACY isn't relevant here - we're not proposing to change our article content to advocate a point of view, it's entirely sensible to use Wikipedia to try to influence something of such huge importance to Wikipedia, and our normal article content policies aren't written with something like this in mind. Hut 8.5 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It will add to our costs, and make us vulnerable to summary sanctions. All bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I think there would need to be a proposal and discussion regarding the exact mechanics. --FormerIP (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only as last resort. Such kind of action works best only if exceptional, and thus should be implemented only in exceptional circumstances, that is, when the proposed law would greatly hamper the operations of Wikimedia projects (e.g. a US law removing the safe harbor status of hosting providers, and thus making the Foundation legally liable for any problem in Wikipedia content). David.Monniaux (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support legal action. On the plus side, America has a constitution to stop things like this - on the minus, our politicians never back down from a dumb idea because of protests. If (when) this thing is passed there will be a lawsuit - WMF, please join it as a plaintiff. I don't support a site-wide blackout, but a teach-in may be useful. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A protest like this would be huge (many, many magnitudes larger than the it.wiki protest) and would surely get people to talk about the law, which I consider a good thing. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; this law is destructive, and the general population isn't aware of how damaging it will be (the fact that it has been wilfully misnamed, and that public discussion of it is covered in lies and mischaracterisations does not help). Anything we can do to raise awareness of that law is a good thing, and even a brief "blackout" of the English Wikipedia is going to not only be directly noticeable, but is going to bring much-needed press attention to the issue. — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but ideally keep it a US-based block. No need to block the rest of the world. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck knows How are people around the world expected to know the details of a parochial piece of US legislation? That said, there are relatively few resources on Wikipedia dedicated to fixing copyvios and those who are involved are relatively unsupported. [4] shows a POV-pusher being able to run a long-term programme of harassment against the COPYVIO project. Then User:Cptnono is able to engage in part of his own harassment programme against the blocking admin who soon after hands in the broom. So, Jimmy, let's see you get your act together and engage in a proper effort to support those engaged in fixing copyvios and managing persistent violators before you complain about how unfair the law is.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Oppose. Although I oppose the legislation, this is the start of a slippery slope. If we allow Wikipedia to be used openly as a tool for promoting a specific political agenda, we're basically saying goodbye for WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY for good. Let's be clear what it would mean if we did this: any user who wants to use Wikipedia for their own political advocacy would be entitled to do so as long as they could get a local consensus to support them. What would be able to say to stop them doing so? Yes, the law is dangerous and a bad idea; but please Jimbo, don't destroy Wikipedia for the sake of a single act of protest. Robofish (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why you would think that. Both NPOV and NOTADVOCACY deal with article contents - what we are talking about here is completely separate from article content. un☯mi 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While it's not clear how this 'strike' would be effected, it would presumably involve either blanking Wikipedia articles temporarily and replacing them with, or adding to them, a large notice informing users of the strike. That is, by definition, changing Wikipedia's content. Now, technically speaking the strike might not take place in the article namespace, but how many of our users can make that distinction? What they will find is that every Wikipedia article contains or has been replaced by a piece of political advocacy.

Wikipedia's greatest strength, along with the anyone-can-edit ethos, is its neutrality. This proposal would directly and completely undermine that. If it happens, I hope no one who supports it will complain when I tag WP:Neutral point of view with {{historical}}. Robofish (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV applies to articles, not this. There are many valid arguments to be made against community action on SOPA; I see no need to push a false claim that this is covered by NPOV. --JaGa^talk 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point actually being made is not article POV, but public perception that as we support certain political causes (as some would have us do), we are biased on those issues, and possibly others. I am not an antique expert, but I now and then like to wander around antique fairs. If at a dealer's booth I spot one item of repro, I immediately stop shopping there. If he is selling one reproduced item, I really can't trust anything else he's selling.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but a "strongest possible oppose" beginning with a "slippery slope" argument is not very convincing. Furthermore, as I note below, this confuses neutrality and NPOV. The very idea of Wikipedia is inherently political and not at all neutral. NPOV is a rather radical point of view, grounded in the principle that it is better to be informed and aware of all significant views on a topic than to suppress or ignore views which are not compatible with our own or some prevailing dogma. Where else but on Wikipedia is "writing for the enemy" encouraged?

Wikipedia has a political agenda, and one that needs to be promoted and defended. That is completely different from using Wikipedia as a political platform to support other political agendas, and is not a slippery slope at all. NPOV is biassed towards no other viewpoint than NPOV itself. Geometry guy 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Wikipedia is not Switzerland, I don't see any point in staying neutral if it is going to materially affect Wikipedia. -Kai445 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (only as last resort) It will be a good chance to let the US people aware of SOPA and also to make everyone remember why they need us. It should very clear that this is community driven rather than WMF decision. But this powerful tool, should only be used once, only if Wikipedia is in danger. This maybe too much, too soon. I think something like changing the Wikipedia logo for something else with a link to a statement is more appropriate.--Neo139 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This bill would likely be the death of Wikipedia, as well as much of the rest of the Internet that is actually useful. I also agree with Seraphimblade's comment below that it would be even better if this could be coordinated with other major websites that would be affected by this. Anomie⚔ 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If SOPA passes, our ability to write an online encyclopedia could be greatly damaged, both short-term and long-term. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm far from convinced the bill is going to have any significant effect on wikipedia even if it passes, despite the servers being located in the US as we already go to lengths to avoid contributory infrigement. While technically the bill could be intepreted as requiring us to avoid linking to sites like piratebay etc at all, I find it hard to believe that will survive on first amendment grounds. Therefore given that this isn't something that's we have any real reason to believe is going to affect all people visiting wikipedia, I would oppose if it's not effectively geotargeted. I'm Neutral if it is. Since as I'm not an American, I don't consider it my business what they do in cases like this. (I'm opposed to the bill BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Copyright violation is not what we do. I don't see how this would affect us in any substantial way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are aware that if the safe harbor provision is eliminated from the DMCA it would open WMF to possibly frivolous, but still finically crippling litigation? Crazynas ^t 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if we make it clear when blanking why and when it'll be over.∞陣内Jinnai 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it's like spitting into the wind, but this does seem likely to be a potentially nasty swipe at crowd-sourced work. So much so that it's possible Wikipedia would be unable to continue in its current form. There are copyright problems here, and yes, they do get fixed (generally quite quickly) but the law might force us into pending revisions or something similar just so we are taking every step possible to avoid copyright violations. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this should be US-only. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The proposed law is yet another step down the slippery slope towards political censorship. If the WP community wants to make a statement, they should use whatever tools they have available. A strike is a good tool. --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Tentative Support 1. If it could be clearly demonstrated how the law would affect Wikipedia, and 2. if that were to be stated on the blanked pages. Then it could be an effective protest, and appropriate. First Light (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While I'd never condone copyright infringement, or piracy .. A government that tries to take power away from the people, and give it to themselves is a very frightening thing. There are already mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. — Ched :  ?  21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support. Promoting and defending the neutral point of view, and our goal to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available, is central to what we do here — as I have noted below. However, the case needs to made more clearly that SOPA threatens Wikipedia and our ability to do this before we consider taking action and/or what action to take. Geometry guy 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Full Support - I was right behind it.wp when they held their strike, and I fully support en.wp doing precisely the same. It's a matter of principal to me, that governments should not interfere with peoples interests in a democracy - taking the power away from the people, and giving themselves more. It's nothing short of crazy. Go Wikipedia.  BarkingFish  21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To convey what I think, I'm afraid that I need to say this in a nuanced way, rather than saying support or oppose, because I'm actually somewhere in between. I very much support working to prevent the passage of any legislation that would hurt Wikipedia's mission. Therefore, I strongly support Jimbo speaking, with the backing of our community, against the legislation at the White House. Indeed, I think that a statement that a strike might occur will get attention in much the way (qualitatively, not quantitatively, in terms of the number of people reached) as would a strike itself. I would even support a press release from Jimbo and/or the WMF saying that a strike might occur. And I would strongly support WMF engaging as a legal party in litigation. But, on the other hand, I would oppose actually having such a strike. Our mission is to provide this encyclopedia, not to provide it only when we choose to. I agree with some of the editors above that this action could set a precedent in which editors might strike for reasons that become more partisan, and degrade Wikipedia's prestige. I would like our focus to be on fixing the legislation before it passes, rather than on reacting to it after. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict × 2) Strong support If this is what we need to do to convince the public of the possibly drastic effects of SOPA, then so be it. I am all for this. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support developing options for en. domains. The anglosphere forms a cohesive political-economic unit, and regularly trial policies in one area for export to another cf the New Zealand experiment. About the only power which it is legitimate for the en wikipedia to use collectively, is to strike against attacks on the encyclopaedic process by outside forces. I'm not in favour of symbolic striking—the point is to disrupt the circulation of capital in a domain—if we strike, it has to be either for a set period (rolling set periods?) or indefinitely. One slightly more strategic plan would be to blank all US categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Factual information should be free to access and learn from. Anything which eradicates access to knowledge is an abomination. SOPA goes well beyond its target of combating internet piracy; when it turns to shutting down or criminalizing what is currently free, legal access to knowledge, as is present on Wikipedia, it goes much too far. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support right now corporate complaints about wikipedia content do not have the capacity to strongly influence the site as a whole. We earned this independence through years of steadfast commitment to our principles and refusal to accept advertisements. All of that can (and will) be swept away by SOPA. The intent of the law may cover filesharing and other activities unrelated to wikipedia's focus but the letter will undoubtedly be used to demand the removal of critical material or documents (even where those documents are in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed). Imagine the Rorschach Cheat Sheet scandal where SOPA was in place. The APA or the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods could have easily filed a SOPA request (even a trivially false request) and attacked our fundraising sources and DNS routing. We see fraudulent DMCA takedown requests on youtube all the time so the paper penalties for lying on a SOPA request are likely to have the same deterrent effect (read: 0). We need to commit to the open web and explain to our readers that the english wikipedia is in danger should congress pass this bill. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A few days without the sum of all human knowledge is worth it to send a message to keep the Internet safe. ZamorakO o (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, really bad idea. Blanking the site for a political purpose, even one that helps Wiki, is using power over content for advocacy. It's in the same class as deleting an article that might help a candidate or cause some subset of us don't like. Yes, not as egrigious...but in the same class. (And there will be some subset of Wikipedians that support SOPA. Heck, I hear they even let Republicans edit this site, occasionally.)

For that matter, I don't know the details of the law and many here don't (I expect, sure some do, but I'm not the only one, I bet). I'm not sure that the benefits from Wiki keeping it's legal fiction outweigh the benefits of stopping privacy. (And let's be real...it is big time fiction. This is an encyclopedia, not an ISP, not even a chat site.)

Lastly, I don't like being polled on this without more work and presentation by the RFC submitter and the argument by Jimbo with first person not giving him the answer he wanted seemed both weak in sophistication and annoying in the manner of hassling an RFA opposer. It's also really bad form to be posting this on your user talk page, which has some tendancy to be populated by sycophants. It would show more respect to the group to have posted this on Village Pump or some central notice board. TCO (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. That was the moral argument against (and I mean it). That said, if you just want to win a political battle, by all means use every weapon at your command (underhanded or not). And this is probably an excellent weapon in efficacy. I just hope you let me get my content off the site before downing it. (But in terms of efficacy, the shock tactic would be better.) Might even be good for keeping me away from this place (good for you and me). -TCO

Comment. Since we created the content, why should we not use our power over it for advocacy or any other purpose if we decide to? --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of that little message below the editing window, the part about " you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". It is not ours anymore. We deny access only to the site (or rather, we make the site effectively a single page advocacy message). The information's out there on mirror sites. Which do you think more likely, Google will support us on a matter of principle, or they will anticipate customer needs by substituting into the first page of search results a mirror site?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google's so far up our arse we can see them in our bathroom mirror. They are not suddenly going to start preferring mirror sites because we take a position they undoubtedly agree with. Plus, that doesn't address my point. It's our content, we are free to do as we choose with it. We are also free to make a really bad choice in terms of search engine visibility, if we want to. --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. We produced the content and donated it to a site that had 5 Principles, one of which was NPOV. Now we would be blowing that. Furthermore, it would become consensus on when we "strike", so that is one step to legitimizing consensus for which candidate we support or how we want to slant articles to win political battles. (I might be being dense and this was entirely your point?)TCO (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, I ran a google search for the subject of one of the articles I've helped out on, Murray Chotiner. We were the first site linked too, unsurprisingly. Then I ran the search [Murray Chotiner -wikipedia] which exluded pages with the word "Wikipedia" on it. A mirror site with our content was #8. So we can't deny access to the information.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so? I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a strike. --FormerIP (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Educate me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's to bring to people's attention why you should be valued and what they will be missing. If they still have mirror sites, then they still have mirror sites. But I doubt many people will think: "Who cares? We've still got mirror sites". If an airline goes on strike, then of course there are other airlines. But that doesn't mean there is no point to the airline staff striking. --FormerIP (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moral support Since politicians aren't likely to listen to us, I'm not sure what this will do other than raise general awareness of an issue. But it is an issue that directly affects us in a negative way, and one that (IMO) needs greater public awareness. This being said, I'm a tad hesitant to get Wikipedia directly involved with any political issue, which may lead to accusations of bias. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A "what the fuck?!?" Oppose. We're an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Did somebody forget this? The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to collect knowledge, not some kind of a means towards political advocacy. We are not a Political action committee and honestly, this whole proposal just illustrates how out of touch with the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia - to build an encyclopedia - a lot of editors here are, including apparently Jimbo himself. Of course anyone is free to support whatever kind of measures they wish on an individual level. So go strike yourself. Put up some infoboxes on your user pages. Stop editing for a month or two. But this whole proposal is just so fundamentally at odds of what this project is about that it's actually mind blowing that this is being proposed with a straight face. Wikipedia is NOT facebook. It is NOT a blog. It is NOT a crusading newspaper. It is NOT a lobbying organization. It is an encyclopedia. How about we go and at least try to get the "encyclopedia: a collection of knowledge" part right first (which, given the low quality of a lot of our content has some ways to go) and then maybe after we manage to get that part right we can give ourselves the latitude to go off on off-topic crusades. Stop trying to be cute, write or improve some articles first. That's what we're here for.

And oh yeah. Why this particular cause and not some other? Volunteer Marek  01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is said that it threatens wikipedia's existence. That's why "this cause". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had to be said: ^{[citation needed]}--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thus my wording "it is said"; go ahead and accuse me of missing inline-citations, since the links are in the discussion below ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd fail at FAC, those links are hardly a comprehensive survey of the field. Might not even get to B class.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, that's the most clearheaded thing I've read all afternoon. I've been sitting here watching arbs and people for whom my respect is slightly shaken support this thing and I was wondering if I've been ported into an alternate universe or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I just read TCO's first post. It's a tie.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And more: seeing as we actually have an article on Stop_Online_Piracy_Act, engaging in this kind of action would very obviously violate our core policies such as NPOV, not to mention guidelines like WP:COI (maybe someone could argue that it's okay to violate NPOV with regards to this subject in a "meta" kind of way while hypocritically making a pretense of observing "neutrality" on the actual article itself - but that shouldn't fly). We still have these "fundamental pillars" and this is still one of them, right? If so, why is this proposal even being taken seriously? Go away people. Find something better to do and stop trying to kiss Jimbo's (and at the end of the day he's just another editor just like me and he can make wrong headed proposals just as anyone else - but they're still wrong headed proposals) ass. And call me crazy but I happen to think that our core pillars take precedence over the "cause du jour", even if it is being pushed by the man himself.

And in response to some of the more reasonable editors whom I respect who - in my opinion - jumped on this bandwagon for the wrong reasons: look, I think it's a stupid law myself. But it's not our job to fight it. Next time around, it's gonna be some different piece of political phenomenon, and one in which your personal opinion might agree with it. If this precedent - of Wikipedia getting into politics with both feet - gets set, then next time around you might find yourself at the loosing end of community/Jimbo's proposals for political advocacy. Take a long term view and don't try to win a battle when you might loose a war. Volunteer Marek  01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After hours of thinking: Support something, pending specifics about the form the protest will take. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To be perfectly honest I'm having trouble discerning the sarcastic from the fanatic comments at this point. Which actually says something about the proposal itself and the level of consideration. So I'll just leave that there. Volunteer Marek  01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If necessary at a critical moment when it may actually help prevent legislation that would threaten this encyclopedia's future. Our policy against advocacy is not a suicide pact, and one legitimate exception, in my opinion, is to advocate for our continued existence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wikipedia or the Commons actually being shut down by the government for alleged corporate copyright violations would bring down a hellstorm of public protest, far beyond what any local staged protest might do. We'd be back in a day or less, the feds would be backpedaling, and the corporation calling for the shutdown would be covering their asses at the speed of light. Such an event might very well lead to eventual repeal of the stupid law, and a career-ending calling out of every politician who voted for it.

  Also the whole thing is a very good reason for the world needing a "backup root DNS" that is not based in the USA, and which therefore is not under direct political control by the US government. DMahalko (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid. — Joseph Fox 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SOPA isn't the only act (of war) being taken against open and free dissemination of information online, though. It'd be good to attack the issues in other countries also. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If Wikipedia sleeps on this and it passes, it will irrepairably destroy what we are doing here and we'll not have a chance to have a voice then. In this case, sticking to WP:NOTADVOCACY is damaging to the 'pedia. This would be the only case I would support this sort of advocacy though.--v/r - TP 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Strikes are what you do when all else has failed and there are no other options. Even if (hypothetically) a strike was a good choice it wouldn't be a good first choice. Cloveapple (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I oppose the legislation, but that's a political view. I don't ever want Wikipedia to take a political view, no matter how much I agree with it. Ntsimp (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brad (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is one of those cases where it's for Wikipedia's own survival. There is no slippery slope to boycotting for gay marriage or other things. Those things don't stop WikiMedia from hosting pictures of Eric Cartman with gray sideburns at a blackboard in the Dances with Smurfs article. SOPA jeopardizes all of our photographic and audio database because a few things are considered copyright by some company while we consider we have WP:Fairuse. Those things don't open up Wikipedia to blackmail by industries who have their employees non-stop post copyright material here and then threaten Wikimedia Foundation with a shut down if Wikimedia doesn't open up it's top banner to advertising. You believe that some business won't play underhanded? Just wait... SOPA will be the law that at best opens up the top banner to advertising to get concessions from the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it's doors open from non-stop litigation. Alatari (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lobbyists and their politicians always overreach and try to do too much, and it falls upon those that would be affected to clearly draw attention to the problems in advance. Editing some article does not cut it, while blanking Wikipedia would focus the minds of a large proportion of those who use the Internet. The outcomes of a bill like this are hard to predict, but the bill is intended to put the onus on websites to react to every kite-flying exercise and is not compatible with Wikipedia as it exists. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: SOPA would cripple Wikipedia's ability to function. --Carnildo (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I thing that SOPA is really horrible, but I do not believe that it would be that disastrous for Wikipedia; the worst thing would be to filter our external links for copyright-infringing websites (aren't they already against out policies?). If you do this, please at least make it much softer, maybe do just a warning instead of total boycott like it.wp did. vvv^t 08:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious. If Wikipedia is really going to be this frightened by lawmakers' legitimate concerns about intellectual property rights, Wikipedia may as well put a big sign on the front door announcing it knows it will never be able to effectively police copyright, and it doesn't care. Townlake (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this has nothing to do with Wikipedia - the US government is not going to shut down this project regardless of legislation - and to remain neutral we must avoid taking political stances. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Jimbo, can you clarify this? I'm not sure that I'd be supporting or opposing; it needs some clear statement. I'm "interested", sure; I think it's an important issue. But how can I express that? I can't support/oppose because you haven't said what I'd be supporting.  Chzz  ►  07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Supporting the bill? Supporting "some action"?  Chzz  ►  08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, great, let's go with it. Then after we run that, can we have a "Support gay marriage in Australia" type shutdown, to put pressure on politicians down here to finally do the right thing? Then let's not forget about people who have a problem with prostitution being illegal. Perhaps we can do something for them too. And then there is pot, let's not forget the potheads. Where will it end. Read WP:NOTADVOCACY. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Irrelevant comparisons. SOPA directly affects all languages of Wikipedia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that my right to marry whoever I please is irrelevant? Thanks for your support. lol Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that in this case, your comparison is invalid. Gay marriage bills in Australia do not affect the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. SOPA does. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was community consensus to strike for gay marriage in Australia, then why not? It might be a difficult consensus to achieve, but... --FormerIP (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY, and neither does this, because we have policies in place that prevent unlicenced, copyrighted materials to be used on Wikipedia. Nothing has been shown that demonstrates how WP would be affected. So let's drop silly ideas such as this. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That we say we have policies is one thing, but are we helpful enough when someone asks for information to help them track down an individual who they purport to have infringed on them? Also - why do you keep repeating WP:ADVOCACY / WP:NOTADVOCACY? - they aren't relevant. un☯mi 10:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would WMF treat such requests differently from how they treat requests for information at present? I do not know what that policy is, but I imagine that they would reassess it if there is a change in law. Are you suggesting that WMF help will cause UN troops and black helicopters to show up at editor doors?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note Jimmy, if you want this publicised widely, why not hire Bell Pottinger to run a successful PR campaign in relation to it. You could organise this when you do the chat to them. Of course, this is a total cynical comment, but is intended to draw the parallel of us looking idiotic for using WP at a tool for advocacy, only a matter of days after busting the balls of a firm for doing exactly the same thing. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Crazynas: Could you take a second look at your post? The "don't we" phrasing comes across as patronizing, though no doubt that was not your intent. And Snowolf is correct, and I do not believe any such consensus will be forthcoming. Wikipedia editors tend to be individualists, and I think you'd see a sizable minority try to edit more on a day of action. Unless Jimbo proposes to shut down the site, in which case I guess we are all along for the ride, like it or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is consensus either, from what I gathered at the time of itwiki actions, mainly from what I've seen on IRC, a significant if not majoritary part of the English-speaking community feels very strongly against this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that better? Yes, if the proposal (that this proposal is attempting to determine is necessary) passed (not commenting either way on that) the database would be locked as in... no edits, and every page would redirect to a single page about the issue (at least that's how the Italians did it) Crazynas ^t 10:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If we take a position on an issue like that, we will raise doubts in people's minds as to whether we are in fact neutral. Shall we become Conservapedia-light? People would be entitled to worry not only about our coverage of that issue, but of every issue. As for the Italian job, I am not certain the Italians are a guide to us in anything except football. I think doing that would be ill-advised, forcing people to "join" the protest whether they like it or not. Maybe we could all block K Street while we are at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By the same kind of argument, nobody can ever go on strike for their own pay. Most people are quite good at distinguishing between political agitation for the sake of it and exceptional action when the core of an organisation is under extreme pressure. SOPA would open WMF up to censorship by the US government. Relocating the WMF and its servers to a more appropriate place such as Iceland is extremely expensive and could not cure the danger that our content becomes inaccessible to Americans. Once you have laws in place such as SOPA, which make it possible to shut down practically all media (I am using this word in a loose sense that includes Wikipedia) depending on the discretion of government institutions, the media are at the mercy of the government and will comply with any hints about what will or will not lead to them being closed. That's a huge step beyond the very effective economics-based self-censorship regime that is already in place in the US media and makes many Americans go to the government broadcaster BBC for more objective news. Hans Adler 10:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We could just IP block-exempt every American editor and let them in through TOR...</sarcasm> For the uninformed (and that is not meant as a slight) some light reading. Crazynas ^t 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The BBC is not a 'government broadcaster'. It's a national broadcaster. For many this might be a subtle distinction but in Britain it is highly significant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise for using the wrong word. I am of course aware of this distinction. Germany adopted the same system after the war. Hans Adler 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• People who feel that we don't have enough "truth" in our articles already feel like that - be they supporters of Israels occupation, Intelligent Design or other groups that we unfairly discriminate against. What we are talking about here is activities outside of article-space, no one is arguing that our articles on SOPA must have a particular slant or flavor. We would stand little chance to convince people who are unable to appreciate the difference of our neutrality by rational argument in any case. un☯mi 10:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are intentionally arguing the individual case rather than the general. Involving ourselves with politics will lead people not to trust us. As for the middle east case, with organized fight clubs on both sides, I do not look for serious article content from that sphere. Good luck getting Arafat or Ben-Gurion to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat is already FA :P--Neo139 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, if we don't involve ourselves in ensuring that we have an environment in which wikipedia can thrive, then there will be nothing to trust. wikimedia supports American censorship day. un☯mi 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• Will this really and definitely affect wikipedia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently. un☯mi 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I've read all this and more over the past month. What I'm getting is a could and I am skeptical that these scenarios are a definite will or must happen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Seb. That blog reads like a Washington post editorial. Does anyone have a link to a less frantic analysis of the proposed legislation? Has it even passed a committee, or a house of Congress?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the contents and progress of the bill at govtrack.us, thoughts on the wider impact at Harvard Business Review. There are few facets of our lives that give us the luxury of absolutes, most of the time the rational actor must work in terms of risk mitigation. un☯mi 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most sensible approach here (given that this is just one small part of the US goverment move to stricter internet control) is to transplant the entire movement to one of the Internet "safe harbour" countries. This could be an interesting catalyst to help us do so. We have some small benefits being "based" in the US - but there are places with even greater benefits. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as ... (both countries and benefits)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Nordic countries have particularly liberal approaches to internet freedom etc. And excellent internet connectivity. Iceland is a very liberal Haven. Finland is excellent, with some of the highest standards of freedom of speech in the world. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that could boost the economy through the sale of winter gear to the St. Petersburg crowd. God knows the economies in both countries could use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. According to Variety, he said: 'When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.' -- http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080 " -- http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/dodd/ 67.6.163.68 (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Emotional argument much? Anyway, the protest would hurt us and have little effect, the public would go to the mirror sites.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would it hurt us? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would hurt our reputation, esp. when the doomsday-scenarios turn out to be false. That's why I need to know whether this is really such a grave issue before I have any firm opinion on some protest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What worries me is that I am starting to realize that this may be mentioned and characterized on Monday, then mentioned in the media at a further remove from reality "Wikipedia editors vote to strike", say after "Well, I asked our editors and an overwhelming ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not if those doomsday predictions aren't wrong. Given evidence of past how things go like this, it will be abused.∞陣内Jinnai 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this reason, it makes sense to support a trigger but not an immediate protest. I agree it would be premature to have a flashy protest at this stage, given the number of hurdles that are keeping this bill from getting voted on in both houses. By setting up a trigger, we can decide now if we want to strike once we are at that critical juncture. By planning well in advance, we can act most effectively. hare j 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to parse that, Harej. How can we decide now what we will want then?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, how can we possibly strike? When we are (inevitably) questioned more closely, it will be revealed that we are studying our own filters. People won't fall for it. We'll need to close that chapter in our history first, before we can act with clean hands. (This is even more strongly the case in india, of course, but still applies to .us) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC) On the up side, I'm glad to see that Jimmy is back on the light side :-)[reply]

A collective will to act can be as effective in negotiations as any particular threat of action. I am also glad to see Jimbo standing up for the goals of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IF we do (as a ... community? how much of a community are we really once we start imposing blanket "strikes" in response to controversial political issues) go with the "let's use Wikipedia to exert political pressure" thing (and honestly, my opinion is that this is nothing but an exercise in meta-narcissism) then supporting gay marriage in Australia is a helluva more worthy cause then this SOPA thing. So. Ok. I'm willing to strike on SOPA as long as we strike on gay marriage in Australia first and we actually manage to make that Australian government change it's policy. Otherwise I'd request that any article that I have spent oodles and oodles of time contributing to or created be exempt from these people's silly idea of a strike. IF we're gonna play this game, I wanna play a different game and who are you to have decided this? Volunteer Marek  01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is clearly an element that does not want this. The proposed plan does not admit of dissent. We are forced off the encyclopedia for 24 hours—blocked for a day, effectively—and we have done nothing wrong. For what? I have yet to hear any proponent articulate what they think would happen after the strike, both on wiki and off.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly while I'm in favour of political strikes, I don't see how 404ing en.wikipedia will force the Australian state and federal governments to reconsider various acts concerning marriage—there isn't a cogent link between marriage and wikipedia's "industry." In contrast SOPA directly attacks the encyclopaedic process, and so striking against this makes sense. Secondly: a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are. A strike would have to be indefinite or for an extended set period with the threat of future extended periods to have any effectiveness. And Wehwalt is correct, we would be removing our own pleasure in editing by striking, unless we restricted access to registered accounts with etcetcetc. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are - You're right, we got to be serious here. We should shut the site down permanently until they give in! Volunteer Marek  08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: Could we coordinate this?

Wikipedia would be far from the only site threatened by this legislation. Many of the most popular sites on the Web today (Google, Ebay, Craigslist, Youtube, Facebook, etc.), would be threatened by this, as they are mainly user-driven. If we do plan a day of action on this, why not coordinate with some of those sites? Even if they weren't willing to shut down entirely for a day and say why (and some might be), they might be willing to put up a prominent sitewide statement telling their users: "This service will go away or be severely curtailed if this passes. Call Congress today, or encourage your US friends to do so if you don't live here". Can you imagine the outcry that could be generated if we could coordinate such a campaign, with a day's shutdown for some of the big ones and the site notice for most of them? Wikipedia is large enough, and they hate this enough, that we could at least likely get a sympathetic ear at many of those companies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very fair article, I felt, to both sides, from the San Jose Mercury News here. Google and the other groups contented themselves with signing a letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing we ask if they're "content" with that. If they feel that's enough, we've got an awfully big megaphone on our own—but if even a few of the other behemoths will jump in too, we could amplify that an awful lot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think drafting a letter and "signing" it would be a good idea as a starter measure. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't all have to block service (although google blocking its search engine would be a major boon). I think even if they publicly alterted their website for a day, all coordinated, it could still send a message if it was attached with a reason (and how to contact your congress person for those in the US).∞陣内Jinnai 20:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who supports this please explain to me...

What would be the difference between this proposed strike and rewriting the article Stop Online Piracy Act from an explicitly partisan, anti-SOPA position? Why is the former considered acceptable but not the latter? (If you say 'but the former would only be temporary', you're missing the point.) Robofish (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with temporary or permanent—doing so with the article (even temporarily) would be unacceptable. The difference is the same as having the banner at the top of the site encouraging people to donate to WMF (acceptable), as opposed to changing the Wikipedia article to say "WMF is an awesome foundation, go donate to them!" (unacceptable). One is clearly in an article that's part of the encyclopedia, while the other is clearly a message from those who operate the site behind the encyclopedia. And while it's unprecedented, this is quite literally an existential threat to Wikipedia, and to the free and open Internet as we know it, and it's currently flying well under the radar. I don't see a bit of a problem, given that, with Wikipedia shining a megawatt spotlight on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the fact that Floyd Abrams does not oppose SOPA and considers the opposition political, according to a piece in today's Washington post, that seems a bit overblown, Seraphimblade. Here is the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you expect a senior partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, representing the Directors Guild, the Motion Picture Association and various entertainment industry unions to oppose SOPA? un☯mi 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As always, "follow the money." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not always agree with Counselor Abrams, but I have never heard that he was dishonest or motivated principally by money. If I was motivated principally by money, I would not edit Wikipedia, travelling to gain information and images to improve the project has cost me $1.28, or possibly slightly more.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_prominent_cases_argued_by_Floyd_Abrams#Financial_Crisis Your mileage may vary. un☯mi 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he is dishonest. He is simply representing his clients' interests, which is his obligation as an attorney. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, he'd be dishonest if he didn't, or actively went against their interests while representing them. But that makes what he says suspect—not due to dishonesty or malice, but from the simple existence of conflict of interest. Given that the people pushing this are his client, he is not likely to oppose it, even if he privately thinks it's a horrible idea. What if he said that, and then had to argue for it in court someday on his clients' behalf? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is no lawyer who cannot take both sides. But, yes? What would happen then?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"So, Mr. Abrams, in your Washington Post editorial of 12-10-2011, you said, I quote, 'This whole thing is a rotten mess and blatantly unconstitutional?'" "Well, yes, but..." "And now you're telling us that it's a wonderful thing, and we should rule in favor of it?" "Well, yes, you see, uh...". It would be highly unethical for an attorney to publicly attack his clients' interests while representing them. (That's aside from the fact they'd likely fire him and his firm—wouldn't you? Take both sides, perhaps, but not take an opposing one to your client in public!) Regardless, I'd much rather get my information from the engineers that design the Internet's infrastructure, and every one I've seen who has spoken on this will do significant damage, and all but kill DNSSEC (which should be a top priority if we're really interested in protecting the public). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if he was called as a witness. Lawyers aren't as a rule. In fact, ethically you cannot be a lawyer and a witness in the same case, with very limited exceptions that don't apply here. You've been watching Inherit the Wind too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more relevant point is that while perhaps it would be problematic for him to publicly oppose a bill he may later have to defend for his clients, it doesn't mean he has to publicly defend it in a non legal forum. Personally I would consider it unethical for him to argue something which is against his personal beliefs in a manner which suggests it's his personal belief. To me the editorial is presented more as a case of his personal beliefs then an attempted to defend his clients interest (it has a disclaimer at the bottom but that's to be expected). Perhaps he doesn't hold to the same ideals but I don't think we should be accusing him of such without evidence. This doesn't mean he's right, he may simply not understand the issues. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe he might not understand the issues? His discussion seemed cogent and informed to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just amazed that so many people feel that this wouldn't compromise our neutrality, while discussions of allowing advertising on WP have continued to show a consensus opposed to it. I can't understand how anyone could think advertising would compromise our neutrality while somehow a prominent message openly advocating intervention against a specific political proposal would not. Robofish (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams said it, and you can believe it if you care to believe a man who accepts money for his work: it's become ideological. I am imminently expecting them to all announce for free silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two confusions taking place here. As noted already, there is a marked difference between what Wikipedia articles say, and what the Wikipedia community and/or the WMF say. However, there is another confusion clouding clear thinking: there is a marked difference between neutrality and the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a point of view: it is the viewpoint which seeks to represent all other significant viewpoints accurately, fairly, with due weight, and without bias, according to reliable sources. It sits alongside our goal to make the sum of human knowledge freely available.

That is far from being "neutral". To some people, in some societies, and some cultures, it is a radical and totally unacceptable viewpoint: information contrary to some prevailing dogma is often regarded as harmful, and suppressing it is considered desirable. Wikipedia actively promotes the idea that it is better to know and understand what those who disagree with you say and believe than it is to silence them or pretend they do not exist. "A more informed world is a better world." That isn't "neutral" — it is an extraordinary political statement.

Part of our role as a community is to defend and promote the neutral point of view. Political acts which might undermine our ability to do so can and should be challenged. Not in articles, where we should redouble our efforts to represent the views of those who disagree with our goals accurately, fairly, and without bias. That is the neutral point of view. Geometry guy 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was enjoying your post, though not completely agreeing, but you disappeared into passive-voice vagueness on the second sentence of the last paragraph. Can you clarify?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The main point of my post was to address confusions which cloud productive discussion about what course of action to take, if any. The sentence you refer to ("Political acts...") is not at all vague, and could easily be rephrased as "We can and sometimes should challenge political acts...". I am asserting the legitimacy of making political challenges to acts that interfere with our goals. In any particular situation, such as this one, the case still has to made that our goals are under threat, and that taking action is justified: just because we can act, does not mean we should take a particular course of action. This may not be so far from your own view. Geometry guy 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though I suspect I am a bit more hardened on the no point. As of yet, I have seen nothing beyond generalities as to the "threat" to Wikipedia. We have a bill. As I understand it, it has not passed either house of Congress, and the Senate has gone for a competing bill. There will, at some point, be a conference committee. Withdrawal of service, or even the threat thereof, is a weapon usable once. If it is used too early, it is ineffective and we sound shrill. Please keep in mind that it is not very much of a weapon, it is the classic toy gun with sign "BANG!" because the public will simply go to the next site to get the information. I recall in one of James Hogan's books, they kept shutting a computer that could learn on and off. Eventually it wired around the switch. So will our public. All it does is rather dramatically declare our position on something. Will our public sit and ponder the evils of the proposed legislation? Will they follow the links and learn? No. They will say, "Funk this schiss" or something similar, page back and go to #2 on the list. Or possibly look at the cached copy on Google, not sure how that works. In other words, no one will be inconvenienced. But people will have learned two things: That Wikipedia takes positions on contentious political issues, and that accessing the site is not necessary in order to gain the site's information. Switch off, switch on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We licensed our data to the world. They took it. We can't take it back. Now, what would be in my view an effective means of doing it is a symbolic strike for 24 hours, editors refrain from editing. Possibly we could even plan non-wiki activities, post photos, have get togethers, invite the media, that kind of thing. Not everyone would have to participate, but you can't hide the fact that you edited during those 24 hours, so social pressure would apply.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on many points: you make pragmatic arguments, and I am a pragmatist as well as an idealist! I don't agree with your last point, as people find their information through search engines, and these predominantly link to Wikipedia. However, according to the hattext of this RfC, no particular action is being proposed at this stage, so the RfC is, on the face of it, concerned primarily with principle, not practicalities. However, the pragmatist in me sees more than that: Jimbo is looking for collective will, as such an expression of will could be useful leverage. Our support or otherwise should be based on whether we believe it is appropriate to bring our collective will to bear in this case.

If there is consensus for action, I hope you will take forward your ideas about how to act most effectively. Geometry guy 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. If the community decides generally to act, I will of course suggest what I deem the most effective ways to take action. I am a loyal member of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Geometry guy, this point has me add a support !vote in the sense of "something should be done". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robofish, it's the same as the difference between asking people to help write an encyclopedia and editing the Encyclopedia article to say that people should write encyclopedias. The former is not a WP:SOAP issue, but the latter would be, and a WP:NPOV violation (unless we also included non-fringe views from people saying that encyclopedias shouldn't be written.) 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better, it is the ultimate instance of WP:POINT.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimate" in what sense? Geometry guy 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a considerable disruption to make a considerable point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the alternative from inaction is the likelihood of greater disruption, then it is not disruptive on balance. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rather remote possibility! Surely the revolution would come after they took down Facebook, even if it didn't start with Youtube.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Please see below: #What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are advocacy sites. They are not expected to be neutral treatments, naturally they seek to advocate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are very much mistaken. Business Insider and Ars Technica have always been considered reliable independent secondary news sources on Wikipedia. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Considerable" as in "worthy of consideration" or as in "too much, a lot of"? Geometry guy 01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in, a significant amount.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a WikiProject

Wikipedia's greatest strength is in collecting and disseminating accurate information. Currently the EFF is largely supportive^[5] of an alternative bill, supported by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Represenative Darrell Issa (R-CA), known as the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act or OPEN Act.^[6] Note red links [now blue ;)]; in fact as of writing this no results come up here for the name. I would like to see this red link become a DYK and perhaps even a Featured Article. Thus there would seem to be a use for a WikiProject, dedicated not to advocacy but simply to ensuring that the facts as they exist are accurately reported, as the SOPA bill needs no herald to announce its stench. But is a new WikiProject definitely needed (rather than some recruits to WP:WikiProject Human rights, WP:WikiProject Telecommunications, or WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy, or simply a general agreement here to get cracking?)? If a new WikiProject is needed, what should its scope and name be? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've since gotten OPEN Act up to the point where I proposed it for DYK. Feedback welcome ;) Wnt (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll be by.Elinruby (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a public speaker and sort of a celebrity

Have you tried speaking to the politicians? Could you try contracting one of the people responsible for the Republican debates and have them bring the subject up? Could you create buzz within the mainstream media without doing a strike? Have we exhausted all other options? Out of curiosity, on whose side is the man with the veto on? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year

We're too late, but it's still a good idea to oppose SOPA to prevent this from becoming more widespread:

1. Rosoff, M. (December 9, 2011) "The Feds Shut Down A Music Blog For A Year For No Real Reason" Business Insider
2. Lee, T.B. (December 12, 2011) "ICE admits year-long seizure of music blog was a mistake" Ars Technica

67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actual scenario

DMahalko in the poll-section makes a damn good point — what would actually happen if US government shut down wikipedia along with youtube and so forth? The backlash would be enormous and as dramatic as it seems, the public demonstrations against it could maybe only be quelled by the imposition of martial law or something. So... (even though I !voted some tentative support), can the strong support-voters explain why we shouldn't just let this scenario take place and wait for the water cannons and pepper spray to appear on the news? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US Department of Justice is already seizing websites. Google Operation In our Sites and ask yourself why the Department of Homeland Security is worried about counterfeit handbags when SCADA control panels are open to the entire internet and some reset user passwords to an easily-googled default if their users follow best practices on password complexity.

This is not a Chicken Little scenario. Copyright law was used against a security researcher who disclosed the presence of a commercial rootkit on millions of cell phones. Last month. The SOPA article contains several examples of unintended consequences caused by governments messing with their TLDs. (If they have not been removed) It's important to understand that the US controls all .com, .net and .cc domains, so this is not a parochial US issue. I have not managed to get that piece of information to stay in the SOPA article though. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. Read it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see much coverage of Occupy Oakland or San Francisco on the news? It's all been filed under "dirty hippies were a health risk, and the police did what they were ordered to do." Do you see much coverage of Goldman Sach's fraudulent derivatives? Do not expect critical thinking from the evening news.

Wnt's explanation somewhere around here is essentially correct. The DoJ is not going to seize Wikipedia. It will instead require it to take active measures to make sure its users do not post anything that could be considered to violate copyright. At a minimum this is an unfunded mandate for a huge staff increase that would probably make Wikipedia's business model untenable (and YouTube's, and Twitter's...).The Chinese equivalent of Twitter employs hundreds of people to screen user posts. But since copyright law is *already* being abused to criminalize First Amendment material, the chilling effects will be far, far worse. SOPA also makes illegal tools for evading penalties for copyright violations. Goodbye to the open source projects that brought you the Arab Spring. These tools are very very broadly defined, in a manner that could cover widely used privacy tools such as SSL and VPN. Passage of SOPA would endanger the implementation of DNSSEC. That's not me saying that, it's Sandia Laboratories.

But nobody is going to arrest Mr Wales tomorrow...it will just gradually become harder and harder for him to keep this site in existence. Oh yeah and, speaking from the heart of Silicon Valley here, which currently leads the nation in job growth--the uncertainty about the effects of the law will very likely cause venture capital to dry up. That's not me saying that, that's venture capitalists.

That's why.Elinruby (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not going to happen that way. The bill doesn't appear to propose shutting down Wikipedia, but possibly restricting its freedom and the freedom of the sources on which it relies (if I understand things correctly). There would be no public demonstrations, no pepper spray, just an Internet that is less open. And, without wanting to breach Godwin's law, I believe some people died in the Holocaust having had a similar faith that if you sit tight and stick to your own business, bad things just don't happen because something else will always intervene. --FormerIP (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, FormerIP, obviously we don't agree, but isn't it a good idea to wait on the Nazi analogies until you've grasped, at least generally, the statute? Even with the ritual nod to the dear departed Mike Godwin.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and just work past the analogy. The point is that let's sit tight, because something always comes along if you do nothing is a poor policy to live by. If you think the bill is actually not so bad, then of course that makes it a different matter. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever recasting, I salute you. However, what you are actually doing is very solemnly assuring us there is, there is a wolf coming despite significant evidence to the contrary.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant, this could be cry wolf. And sometimes, it can be better to actually let the wolf appear so people can (often for the first time) see what a wolf actually does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is cry wolf, then by all means oppose it on that basis. But not on the basis that the idea of taking action to defend yourself somehow doesn't make sense. If there's really nothing to worry about, then I too support inaction. Seb: I feel I must add, though, that in the "cry wolf" scenario there is no wolf. Keeping quiet about a wolf so that it can maul the villagers is a different story that no-one has written yet. --FormerIP (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be a wolf here, either. Moreover, the villagers in the story know by experience what a wolf does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The effects would be more subtle but more pervasive than an all-or-nothing block. Once the U.S. government gets into the Great Firewall business, many decisions would end up being made more after the fashion of totalitarian nations. For example, there was a flap here a year ago about Wikipedia displaying the FBI seal on its page, which Mike Godwin concluded was legitimate. There was recrimination against his outspoken response because some people felt that whatever the law, antagonizing the government was not a safe thing. That sentiment would be much, much stronger if people felt like at any time the DOJ could act on a specious third party complaint to block all access to the site without trial. Such intimidation might start at decisions of which content to exclude on the basis of pseudo-legal theory, but it would quite readily extend to excluding mention of political views or facts that the government found inconvenient. For America to surrender to the Chinese model and abandon its mores against censorship would greatly demoralize the resistance to such tendencies. Wnt (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that some of the people here who understand that these laws endanger Wikipedia would come help patrol the articles on the subject as they are plagued by contentious editing and repeated removals of sourced material. I have not yet succeeded in getting the problems with DCMA to stay in the article, for instance. I just got a lecture on advocacy by an administrator I'd asked for help. Opinions of first amendment lawyers get moved to an opponents section, and their presence there is then used to say that quoting about the impact of the bill is not NPOV. Und so wieder. And by the way, I support a strike. Whatever it takes to get people to understand that much of what is special about the internet would wither and die. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...

There is a lovely elderly lady who sends me information on her family which goes back to and even before the Battle of Poitiers. Her information is all verifiable though I have to search reliable sources since her research would not be considered RS on Wiki.

She is the sweetest lady but I have to laugh because she calls us "WikiLeaks".

Thought this page could use a bit of humor. Mugginsx (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into that, people who think we are affiliated or the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should, but I don't have the heart to correct her. She really does not know what WikiLeaks is. She is a lovely lady. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of mine have been similarly confused. What is more annoying is when libraries or archives incorrectly make the association, or think it has something to do with google books' scans and they get all hostile.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]