A fact from Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 December 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Never heard of it. Leaving as it looks ok on a superficial scan, and for all I know it's famous in Ohio or something. But we should replace this soon with a more authoritative source and a deeper dive into the detail. Elinruby ( talk) 15:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
a) doesn't follow capitalization format b) language is a bit simplistic. "protects artists?" None of them to real well at that afaik. c) have you looked at licensing/copyright? d) it's coming from a site that may be officially run by the authors of the bill, but it's still a site that advocates for its passage.
Leaving it alone temporarily while I go see what else is out there. I take it they *just* released the language? Elinruby ( talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I gotta go play taxi again. I'll be back later. Take a look at TechDirt meanwhile, if you want. He usually gets dismissed as a blog but his sources are great. Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty un-encyclopedic table IMO. I would suggest rewording it and making it into a few paragraphs on differences and similarities. As it stands, it reads quite un-NPOV. – Ilyanep (Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I almost added a sentence about the two sides: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics both sides have spent approximately $90 million on lobbying efforts.Julia Boorstin (2011-12-08). "Media Money:Anti-Piracy Bill Battle: Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley". CNBC.". However, on searching, it sounds like the RIAA (not the movie industry) spent $90 million over 10 years, $17 million last year [1] and Google spent $5.2 million last year [2]. I'd almost add it anyway in a straight V-not-T exercise, except the source doesn't say whether $90 million is spent on SOPA, piracy in general, etc., nor does it say per year, decade, etc. Does anyone recognize the actual citation from the CRP so I can get to the bottom of this? Wnt ( talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
well, the link takes you to a reproducible page, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect federal records to show what the lobbying is *for*. But ya, the question has been asked. Apparently they do review blog posts, but we know this because somebody emailed them rathe than from an About US page. Not sure how policy handles that. Maybe see if you can gather a consensus on the RS board? let me see what I can find meanwhile. Since you're actively working this too I may just toss links in a section here as I find them, rather than trying to write at the same time. And that way you can use them too, or tell me if you think we shouldn't. Elinruby ( talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
These look pretty good:
Elinruby ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
They aren't really obscure -- just primarily a product review site. They are in this, I think, because the law may affect some Mp3 and dvd players. So it's not that they are some guy in his pajamas, more that they don't usually cover policy very much. But they do know their tech. Elinruby ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As the largest advertisers on the web, Google and Facebook have motivation to protect their patch: by lobbying for additional legal demands on advertisers. They are in a good place to deal with the consequences, with smaller advertisers (and new smaller companies) losing out as they have to expend the huge resources needed to act as internet police.
I believe this will have consequences for the neutrality of this article, as it develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.180.248 ( talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
A fact from Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 December 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Never heard of it. Leaving as it looks ok on a superficial scan, and for all I know it's famous in Ohio or something. But we should replace this soon with a more authoritative source and a deeper dive into the detail. Elinruby ( talk) 15:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
a) doesn't follow capitalization format b) language is a bit simplistic. "protects artists?" None of them to real well at that afaik. c) have you looked at licensing/copyright? d) it's coming from a site that may be officially run by the authors of the bill, but it's still a site that advocates for its passage.
Leaving it alone temporarily while I go see what else is out there. I take it they *just* released the language? Elinruby ( talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I gotta go play taxi again. I'll be back later. Take a look at TechDirt meanwhile, if you want. He usually gets dismissed as a blog but his sources are great. Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty un-encyclopedic table IMO. I would suggest rewording it and making it into a few paragraphs on differences and similarities. As it stands, it reads quite un-NPOV. – Ilyanep (Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I almost added a sentence about the two sides: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics both sides have spent approximately $90 million on lobbying efforts.Julia Boorstin (2011-12-08). "Media Money:Anti-Piracy Bill Battle: Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley". CNBC.". However, on searching, it sounds like the RIAA (not the movie industry) spent $90 million over 10 years, $17 million last year [1] and Google spent $5.2 million last year [2]. I'd almost add it anyway in a straight V-not-T exercise, except the source doesn't say whether $90 million is spent on SOPA, piracy in general, etc., nor does it say per year, decade, etc. Does anyone recognize the actual citation from the CRP so I can get to the bottom of this? Wnt ( talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
well, the link takes you to a reproducible page, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect federal records to show what the lobbying is *for*. But ya, the question has been asked. Apparently they do review blog posts, but we know this because somebody emailed them rathe than from an About US page. Not sure how policy handles that. Maybe see if you can gather a consensus on the RS board? let me see what I can find meanwhile. Since you're actively working this too I may just toss links in a section here as I find them, rather than trying to write at the same time. And that way you can use them too, or tell me if you think we shouldn't. Elinruby ( talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
These look pretty good:
Elinruby ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
They aren't really obscure -- just primarily a product review site. They are in this, I think, because the law may affect some Mp3 and dvd players. So it's not that they are some guy in his pajamas, more that they don't usually cover policy very much. But they do know their tech. Elinruby ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As the largest advertisers on the web, Google and Facebook have motivation to protect their patch: by lobbying for additional legal demands on advertisers. They are in a good place to deal with the consequences, with smaller advertisers (and new smaller companies) losing out as they have to expend the huge resources needed to act as internet police.
I believe this will have consequences for the neutrality of this article, as it develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.180.248 ( talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)