This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Once the formalities are out of the way, of course? — WFC— 07:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth here, US politics not being in my sphere of interest. I've started a background section, with a link to the SOPA article. This section needs to cover the proposed acts (SOPA, PIPA), the background to the protest, and how the decision was reached and implemented. Before anyone argues that Wikipedia is not a source, that applies to using other Wikipedia articles as a source. The debates etc are not articles, and thus are useable by applying WP:IAR (IMHO). Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This sentence does not source properly: "A common criticism of the bill addresses broad language like what entails "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" for a website; sites that support user-generated content, such as YouTube would likely have to be shuttered to comply with the law as written."
This is cited with the CNN/Money article ( http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/) where Google public policy director Bob Boorstin is quoted as saying "YouTube would just go dark immediately. It couldn't function." But this quote is taken out of context. The CNN/Money article sources this quote to this article ( http://sociable.co/web/youtube-would-just-go-dark-immediately-if-sopa-passed/) where the context shows that he wasn't actually talking about SOPA.
The article says:
Bob Boorstin warned of dire consequences if sites were required to monitor content users upload prior to publishing. Boorstin painted a dramatic picture of the web in the event that such a law were to be passed, “YouTube would just go dark immediately. It couldn’t function,” he said.
Also, the text should clarify that the sponsors of the legislation have stated that they are dropping the DNS blocking provisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.188.2 ( talk) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Statistics on this are phenomenal and it's current. Can we prioritize a DYK on it while people will have exceptional interest? FT2 ( Talk | email) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Reaction > Pre-blackout sub-section : French newspaper Le Figaro (one of the most read in France) reported the story here : (retrieved 01/18) http://www.lefigaro.fr/hightech/2012/01/17/01007-20120117ARTFIG00609-la-version-anglaise-de-wikipedia-fermee-mercredi.php 81.80.104.101 ( talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
meta:English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout/Quotes might be useful for citations. Kaldari ( talk) 10:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The word shutdown should not be used when, at no point, was wikipedia shutdown. All articles could still be accessed very easily.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Are any other language Wikipedias covering this? Mjroots ( talk) 09:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It was so easy to unblock Wikipedia. I only needed a script for adblock and the message was gone. you could just have disabled the javascript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.61.242 ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, it was temporary frustrating, but the block was so easy to undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik1100 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the primary purpose was to raise awareness, with people clicking the link provided on the blackout page. It wasn't supposed to be a complete block.
Shīrudou ōru ( talk) 06:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Also I think the method to blackout the site was altered midway through the blackout. I would imagine a few of you with slower internet connections decided to hit the stop button to prevent the blackout page from loading up, that did not work during the latter part of the blackout as the message appeared before the page started loading. It wasn't my cache as my browser doesn't save webpage elements. YuMa NuMa Contrib 07:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the purpose was to raise awareness, not to 100% block access. Also, the mobile site operated normally the whole day. – Jopo ( talk) 08:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You could get around the block by simply hitting the stop button while the page was loading.
talk:ksekuterski|talk]]) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (EST) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ksekuterski (
talk •
contribs)
You could also avoid the block by using the http://simple.wikipedia.org URL to access the site without any special browser changes. 74.103.134.50 ( talk) 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
While it's true that removing the block was trivial, following the #Wikipedia hash tag yesterday in Twitter made it abundantly obvious that thousands of users didn't have a clue how to access any of the articles. Rklawton ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Various methods to bypass the blackout were shared on the "whitelisted" Technical FAQ page. One of them was to simply type "?banner=none" after the URL in the URL box, and the blackout page would go away. 74.109.212.251 ( talk) 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In contrast to MOS:TIME the lead of this article mentions "( 12 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) on January 18.". Unfortunately time specifications like "12 a.m." and "12 p.m." are ambiguous and should not be used because of their ambiguity. "midnight" and "noon" are not ambiguous and may specify a time of day more accurately. 69.115.42.244 ( talk) 12:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article is giving undue weight to the opposition of the blackout. The undue-inline was previously removed by WFCforLife [1] arguing, "I think it is important to make clear that support for the blackout was widespread but far from universal" which sounds reasonable enough to me, but simultaneously there were thousands of Wikipedia users who commented on the subject through the course of the discussion and the only one we're quoting in the article is from the small minority of that position. The result is that we're just repeating the bias of a biased source, which isn't good. In particular, I'm concerned that the isolated quote makes it sound like the quoted position was considered true but the Wikipedians decided to go ahead in spite of it, when in reality that argument was significantly refuted (including by many long time contributors) and the effort probably wouldn't have gone ahead if the Wikipedia users believed it to be true. Is there a way this could be better contextualized? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 13:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree we need to be wary of undo weight. However, without the paragraph in question, readers would have no clue that the decision wasn't unanimous, nor would they get a feeling for the sorts of internal arguments (regardless of merit) put forward against the blackout. Perhaps as compromise, we could move this paragraph down to the pre-blackout response section? Here's why: the AP was quoting me from an interview and not from my "Oppose" vote, and the interview and its publication pre-dated the blackout and was obviously conducted in anticipation of the blackout. Thus I think it would be fair to classify the article/quote as a pre-blackout response. But back to the "undo" argument - I also told the reporter that I didn't think going forward with the blackout was a big deal, in spite of my opinion, and that the blackout wouldn't affect my participation one way or the other. By leaving this view out of the article, the reporter made the quote appear more weighty. So yes, we don't want to give undo weight to a quote that was given undo weight. Rklawton ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively we could have a section or sub-section dedicated to the arguments for and against the blackout. We wouldn't give the oppositional side undue attention by putting it in contrast with the, in my opinion, stronger arguments for it. DukeTwicep ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is one of those special cases in which the sourcing of the situation requires for us to go beyond the traditional media. Although there was some coverage in my opinion the black out was portrayed as second nature. One good example is Anderson Cooper 360, if you analyze his record of coverage of news, Cooper has been extremely keen to cover any kind of abuse or attack against freedom of speech or the internet in countries like Egypt, Libya or Syria, this kind of topics are paramount in his nightly show. Cooper is known to go to great lengths to cover such issues in foreign lands by interviewing your average protester in many cases protesters that put their lives on the line just to talk to him, interestingly, there was little to no coverage of the Wikipedia blackout in his show. I mention this because I want to bring attention to the rest of editors how in this particular case major media outlets downplayed the blackout making it a background news story basically making us relying in foreign media and non traditional media sources to source the importance and impact of the situation. In addition to "not much of our problem" kind of attitude is the fact that CNN (not sure other channels) have been playing a pro-SOPA commercial, without doubt a serious conflict of interest that I ask editors to pay attention in order to improve this article. -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is a good example of how longstanding Wikipedia policies are going to be harder to maintain as a consequence of this blackout. Once the editing community has been politicized, all sorts of things can be rationalized.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It says the blackout occurred January 18-19, but that's an error considering it started at 12:00:00.00 AM January 18th, and ended at 11:59:59.99 on January 18th, meaning as soon as it became January 19th, at 12:00:00.00, Wikipedia was not blacked out....so just take out the January 19th part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macintoshkid ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This article should also link to the Foundation's policy on Blackouts as it's highly relevant to the subject of this article and will better help readers understand how this all came about. Does anyone know the link? Rklawton ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia could well be shut down. I would greet it. It has partially become a political instrument.-- 88.70.26.64 ( talk) 17:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The Greek Wikipedia is missing.. Βικιπαίδεια:Διαμαρτυρία κατά της SOPA και PIPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.76.60 ( talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it still missing? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|
The result of the proposal was moved to Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Jujutacular talk 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
2012 Wikipedia blackout → 2012 SOPA and PIPA blackout – In line with what I put on my comment in this page's AfD page, I feel this page really should become a page about the 2012 website blackout in general, not just the Wikipedia blackout. I don't feel it's particularly notable if it just covers the Wikipedia blackout, after all, an article on every prominent website to blackout would be silly. I do, however, feel that an article on the blackouts in general would be notable (and more interesting to read). I don't necessarily feel my proposed title is the best one, it's a little clunky, so other suggestions would be good, but I do feel the page title does need to be changed to one covering the blackouts in general. Xmoogle ( talk) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A merge into an article about the global blackout makes sense. If a separate Wikipedia-specific article remains, it should be clarified as 'English Wikipedia', to match the article on the Italian Wikipedia protest. 66.31.200.47 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Google's just announced they'll be modifying their page tomorrow to coordinate with the other sites. I strongly suggest renaming this now since it's no longer just going to be WP in the spotlight. (we can still have a big WP section). -- MASEM ( t) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
re blackout, Seems like it'd be more appropriate for this article to be about the protest in general rather than Wikipedia's specific contribution to the protest. That way we could get a list of other major pages (Reddit, Google, Facebook) who will be participating in the blackout and include press responses to that. 173.166.109.49 ( talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll wait for now and after the blackout ends, I'll summarize the basic options and create a structure for building a Support/Oppose consensus. I don't expect this to be as controversial as the decision to blackout itself but I'm sure that we're not the only ones with constructive input. Jim Reed (Talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Automatic Translation: The English Wikipedia outage is significant enough to have its own article. strike since Wikipedia is more relevant to people than any other strike that can do other internet sites. Greetings. -- 186.63.10.223 ( talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What time is the blackout meant to be? It is already 18th in Australia, and I can see all of wikipedia clear as day 140.168.79.1 ( talk) 03:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
And now that we're back...I think it's very clear this article needs to be moved off being Wikipedia specific and instead focus on the overall blackout, since it was the combined efforts of all sites involved that led to 6 Congresspersons flipping their stances, plus countless media coverage. We *still* need a Wikipedia-specific section, since there was definitely some commentary on WP's specific blackout, but it should be as part of the larger coverage. -- MASEM ( t) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I say "this alternate name or some other similar name" because I might change the name "blackout" to "online protest" or similar, given that there were a number of protest efforts -- Google's, most notably -- that weren't actually blackouts. But that's splitting hairs, and I suspect that the word "blackout" is going to be the most commonly-accepted name for the event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want an outsider's perspective, seeing "Wikipedia takes part in a 24 hour protest" as an article on the front page, really sounds like Wikipedia is tooting its own horn. I know that it's actually unbiased (seeing the huge media frenzy over Wikipedia specifically) but it comes across as being extremely biased.
As for the article itself, just because the media focused more on Wikipedia doesn't mean that Wikipedia's blackout was the SOPA protest. It wasn't. The event was the SOPA/PIPA blackout, and Wikipedia is just one of the many sites that took part in it. Whether Wikipedia's own blackout is notable enough to have its own article is up to debate, but imo this article definitely shouldn't exist if there isn't a larger article on the Jan. 18 SOPA blackout in general.
One last point: Wikipedia is probably getting substantially higher page views right now, partly due to the fact that lots of people desperately want to read their Wikipedia articles, and partly because of the publicity generated by the blackout. Seeing "The English Wikipedia, along with many other websites, takes part in a 24-hour shutdown in protest against SOPA and PIPA", as an article, spot centre on the front page, does not leave a good impression. It might sound fair and unbiased to Wikipedians, but I can guarantee you that there are a lot of people who will view that as extremely biased. It also doesn't help your case that you want to prevent the Wikipedia blackout from looking like a publicity stunt.
Anyways, my two cents. -- 99.236.18.156 ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In my judgement, the body of the article is drawing closer to the point at which a broader title would be suitable. However, one of the largest remaining hurdles is the lead. I would therefore like to propose that the existing lead be replaced with something along the lines of the following, immediately before or after the move:
Please treat the above as wiki content – feel free to edit it, or to propose changes below. The text as I initially proposed it can be seen here. — WFC— 07:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - desired result was achieved with rename. —
C M B J
08:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
It has been proposed by CMBJ ( talk · contribs) that this article is split.
|
I note that normally MOS says to follow first-author choice which appears to be the European approach (Day Month). However, given this is about US laws, even though the response was worldwide, I really believe this gives the topic a strong national tie and that we should be using US date (Month Day) format for this article. Is there consensus to make this change? -- MASEM ( t) 13:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to put ways people accessed Wikipedia during the blackout, in the Response; During the blackout section. Since it is a response of what people did in reaction to the blackout. Though it is not a political response; it is what happened. I know it wasn't meant to be a complete blackout; and by telling people the methods they could have accessed Wikipedia, and by stating it wasn't meant to be a complete blackout we can inform them. Here is the part I want to put in :
During the blackout
The Wikimedia Foundation reported that...
During the day of January 18...
Many people who needed access to Wikipedia, was able to access its contents by disabling Javascript on their brower, trying to hit the Escape key before Javascript loads. There were other methods such as accessing a moblie version Wikipedia, using Google cache, or going to a mirror such as The Free Dictionary Encyclopedia.
I have source from extremetech. Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There are several claims being made by editors to the article that the ability to circumvent the ban was "deliberate". Yet I don't see any references to this anywhere. The ability to hit ESC, disable java, etc., does not mean there was a deliberate intent for this to happen. Was that aspect ever discussed in the "war room", and is there a record or transcript of those discussions? Is anyone from Wikimedia on record as saying they wanted users to be able to circumvent the ban? If not, I don't think editors should be altering the article to suggest that the ban's porous nature was somehow "deliberate" if in fact no one really knows that to be the case. It could just be a case of it being poorly instituted. 139.48.25.60 ( talk) 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to add that many sites were using black, or being "Painted Black" after the Rolling Stones song Paint it Black. Couldn't find any sources to back that up, I heard people talk about it as such, but only in blogs and such... Oaktree b ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that this article covers the wider scope, what should be done with Web Blackout? Clearly there needs be either a deletion or a merge of that page and/or this one, I'm just not sure which way to go (and hesitant to make the precise decision, given that I started this page). — WFC— 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia has now crossed the IRS's line by engaging in direct and grassroots lobbying outside the organization, their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status is now in jeopardy. It specifically crossed those lines by attempting to sway public opinion and directing people to contact their legislators on behalf of one side of a proposed bill. The rules regarding this are defined at the following links: http://www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/index.html | http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html Whether or not the SOPA protest was right or wrong is not the issue to be discussed, but rather an objectionable look at whether the activities of January 18th will result in loss of tax-exempt status. 192.91.173.42 ( talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It's WP:OR when we look at a law and say "oh, it's been broken!" Even if "we" are expert tax lawyers. By our own rules, we must have a reliable source. Rklawton ( talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We're getting off track here. Regardless of how some editors might think Wikipedia's tax status is in jeopardy, we can't add it unless an outside source mentions it. Throughout this entire discussion there hasn't been a single mention of a source that talks about this. Citing the IRS' definition of a 501(c)3, and then making the argument that their tax status is in jeopardy, is a form of original research, which is not allowed. Unless a source can be found that talks about it, this discussion is over. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Once the formalities are out of the way, of course? — WFC— 07:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth here, US politics not being in my sphere of interest. I've started a background section, with a link to the SOPA article. This section needs to cover the proposed acts (SOPA, PIPA), the background to the protest, and how the decision was reached and implemented. Before anyone argues that Wikipedia is not a source, that applies to using other Wikipedia articles as a source. The debates etc are not articles, and thus are useable by applying WP:IAR (IMHO). Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This sentence does not source properly: "A common criticism of the bill addresses broad language like what entails "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" for a website; sites that support user-generated content, such as YouTube would likely have to be shuttered to comply with the law as written."
This is cited with the CNN/Money article ( http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/) where Google public policy director Bob Boorstin is quoted as saying "YouTube would just go dark immediately. It couldn't function." But this quote is taken out of context. The CNN/Money article sources this quote to this article ( http://sociable.co/web/youtube-would-just-go-dark-immediately-if-sopa-passed/) where the context shows that he wasn't actually talking about SOPA.
The article says:
Bob Boorstin warned of dire consequences if sites were required to monitor content users upload prior to publishing. Boorstin painted a dramatic picture of the web in the event that such a law were to be passed, “YouTube would just go dark immediately. It couldn’t function,” he said.
Also, the text should clarify that the sponsors of the legislation have stated that they are dropping the DNS blocking provisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.188.2 ( talk) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Statistics on this are phenomenal and it's current. Can we prioritize a DYK on it while people will have exceptional interest? FT2 ( Talk | email) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Reaction > Pre-blackout sub-section : French newspaper Le Figaro (one of the most read in France) reported the story here : (retrieved 01/18) http://www.lefigaro.fr/hightech/2012/01/17/01007-20120117ARTFIG00609-la-version-anglaise-de-wikipedia-fermee-mercredi.php 81.80.104.101 ( talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
meta:English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout/Quotes might be useful for citations. Kaldari ( talk) 10:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The word shutdown should not be used when, at no point, was wikipedia shutdown. All articles could still be accessed very easily.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Are any other language Wikipedias covering this? Mjroots ( talk) 09:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It was so easy to unblock Wikipedia. I only needed a script for adblock and the message was gone. you could just have disabled the javascript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.61.242 ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, it was temporary frustrating, but the block was so easy to undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik1100 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the primary purpose was to raise awareness, with people clicking the link provided on the blackout page. It wasn't supposed to be a complete block.
Shīrudou ōru ( talk) 06:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Also I think the method to blackout the site was altered midway through the blackout. I would imagine a few of you with slower internet connections decided to hit the stop button to prevent the blackout page from loading up, that did not work during the latter part of the blackout as the message appeared before the page started loading. It wasn't my cache as my browser doesn't save webpage elements. YuMa NuMa Contrib 07:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the purpose was to raise awareness, not to 100% block access. Also, the mobile site operated normally the whole day. – Jopo ( talk) 08:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You could get around the block by simply hitting the stop button while the page was loading.
talk:ksekuterski|talk]]) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (EST) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ksekuterski (
talk •
contribs)
You could also avoid the block by using the http://simple.wikipedia.org URL to access the site without any special browser changes. 74.103.134.50 ( talk) 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
While it's true that removing the block was trivial, following the #Wikipedia hash tag yesterday in Twitter made it abundantly obvious that thousands of users didn't have a clue how to access any of the articles. Rklawton ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Various methods to bypass the blackout were shared on the "whitelisted" Technical FAQ page. One of them was to simply type "?banner=none" after the URL in the URL box, and the blackout page would go away. 74.109.212.251 ( talk) 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In contrast to MOS:TIME the lead of this article mentions "( 12 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) on January 18.". Unfortunately time specifications like "12 a.m." and "12 p.m." are ambiguous and should not be used because of their ambiguity. "midnight" and "noon" are not ambiguous and may specify a time of day more accurately. 69.115.42.244 ( talk) 12:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article is giving undue weight to the opposition of the blackout. The undue-inline was previously removed by WFCforLife [1] arguing, "I think it is important to make clear that support for the blackout was widespread but far from universal" which sounds reasonable enough to me, but simultaneously there were thousands of Wikipedia users who commented on the subject through the course of the discussion and the only one we're quoting in the article is from the small minority of that position. The result is that we're just repeating the bias of a biased source, which isn't good. In particular, I'm concerned that the isolated quote makes it sound like the quoted position was considered true but the Wikipedians decided to go ahead in spite of it, when in reality that argument was significantly refuted (including by many long time contributors) and the effort probably wouldn't have gone ahead if the Wikipedia users believed it to be true. Is there a way this could be better contextualized? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 13:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree we need to be wary of undo weight. However, without the paragraph in question, readers would have no clue that the decision wasn't unanimous, nor would they get a feeling for the sorts of internal arguments (regardless of merit) put forward against the blackout. Perhaps as compromise, we could move this paragraph down to the pre-blackout response section? Here's why: the AP was quoting me from an interview and not from my "Oppose" vote, and the interview and its publication pre-dated the blackout and was obviously conducted in anticipation of the blackout. Thus I think it would be fair to classify the article/quote as a pre-blackout response. But back to the "undo" argument - I also told the reporter that I didn't think going forward with the blackout was a big deal, in spite of my opinion, and that the blackout wouldn't affect my participation one way or the other. By leaving this view out of the article, the reporter made the quote appear more weighty. So yes, we don't want to give undo weight to a quote that was given undo weight. Rklawton ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively we could have a section or sub-section dedicated to the arguments for and against the blackout. We wouldn't give the oppositional side undue attention by putting it in contrast with the, in my opinion, stronger arguments for it. DukeTwicep ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is one of those special cases in which the sourcing of the situation requires for us to go beyond the traditional media. Although there was some coverage in my opinion the black out was portrayed as second nature. One good example is Anderson Cooper 360, if you analyze his record of coverage of news, Cooper has been extremely keen to cover any kind of abuse or attack against freedom of speech or the internet in countries like Egypt, Libya or Syria, this kind of topics are paramount in his nightly show. Cooper is known to go to great lengths to cover such issues in foreign lands by interviewing your average protester in many cases protesters that put their lives on the line just to talk to him, interestingly, there was little to no coverage of the Wikipedia blackout in his show. I mention this because I want to bring attention to the rest of editors how in this particular case major media outlets downplayed the blackout making it a background news story basically making us relying in foreign media and non traditional media sources to source the importance and impact of the situation. In addition to "not much of our problem" kind of attitude is the fact that CNN (not sure other channels) have been playing a pro-SOPA commercial, without doubt a serious conflict of interest that I ask editors to pay attention in order to improve this article. -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is a good example of how longstanding Wikipedia policies are going to be harder to maintain as a consequence of this blackout. Once the editing community has been politicized, all sorts of things can be rationalized.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It says the blackout occurred January 18-19, but that's an error considering it started at 12:00:00.00 AM January 18th, and ended at 11:59:59.99 on January 18th, meaning as soon as it became January 19th, at 12:00:00.00, Wikipedia was not blacked out....so just take out the January 19th part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macintoshkid ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This article should also link to the Foundation's policy on Blackouts as it's highly relevant to the subject of this article and will better help readers understand how this all came about. Does anyone know the link? Rklawton ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia could well be shut down. I would greet it. It has partially become a political instrument.-- 88.70.26.64 ( talk) 17:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The Greek Wikipedia is missing.. Βικιπαίδεια:Διαμαρτυρία κατά της SOPA και PIPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.76.60 ( talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it still missing? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|
The result of the proposal was moved to Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Jujutacular talk 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
2012 Wikipedia blackout → 2012 SOPA and PIPA blackout – In line with what I put on my comment in this page's AfD page, I feel this page really should become a page about the 2012 website blackout in general, not just the Wikipedia blackout. I don't feel it's particularly notable if it just covers the Wikipedia blackout, after all, an article on every prominent website to blackout would be silly. I do, however, feel that an article on the blackouts in general would be notable (and more interesting to read). I don't necessarily feel my proposed title is the best one, it's a little clunky, so other suggestions would be good, but I do feel the page title does need to be changed to one covering the blackouts in general. Xmoogle ( talk) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A merge into an article about the global blackout makes sense. If a separate Wikipedia-specific article remains, it should be clarified as 'English Wikipedia', to match the article on the Italian Wikipedia protest. 66.31.200.47 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Google's just announced they'll be modifying their page tomorrow to coordinate with the other sites. I strongly suggest renaming this now since it's no longer just going to be WP in the spotlight. (we can still have a big WP section). -- MASEM ( t) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
re blackout, Seems like it'd be more appropriate for this article to be about the protest in general rather than Wikipedia's specific contribution to the protest. That way we could get a list of other major pages (Reddit, Google, Facebook) who will be participating in the blackout and include press responses to that. 173.166.109.49 ( talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll wait for now and after the blackout ends, I'll summarize the basic options and create a structure for building a Support/Oppose consensus. I don't expect this to be as controversial as the decision to blackout itself but I'm sure that we're not the only ones with constructive input. Jim Reed (Talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Automatic Translation: The English Wikipedia outage is significant enough to have its own article. strike since Wikipedia is more relevant to people than any other strike that can do other internet sites. Greetings. -- 186.63.10.223 ( talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What time is the blackout meant to be? It is already 18th in Australia, and I can see all of wikipedia clear as day 140.168.79.1 ( talk) 03:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
And now that we're back...I think it's very clear this article needs to be moved off being Wikipedia specific and instead focus on the overall blackout, since it was the combined efforts of all sites involved that led to 6 Congresspersons flipping their stances, plus countless media coverage. We *still* need a Wikipedia-specific section, since there was definitely some commentary on WP's specific blackout, but it should be as part of the larger coverage. -- MASEM ( t) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I say "this alternate name or some other similar name" because I might change the name "blackout" to "online protest" or similar, given that there were a number of protest efforts -- Google's, most notably -- that weren't actually blackouts. But that's splitting hairs, and I suspect that the word "blackout" is going to be the most commonly-accepted name for the event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want an outsider's perspective, seeing "Wikipedia takes part in a 24 hour protest" as an article on the front page, really sounds like Wikipedia is tooting its own horn. I know that it's actually unbiased (seeing the huge media frenzy over Wikipedia specifically) but it comes across as being extremely biased.
As for the article itself, just because the media focused more on Wikipedia doesn't mean that Wikipedia's blackout was the SOPA protest. It wasn't. The event was the SOPA/PIPA blackout, and Wikipedia is just one of the many sites that took part in it. Whether Wikipedia's own blackout is notable enough to have its own article is up to debate, but imo this article definitely shouldn't exist if there isn't a larger article on the Jan. 18 SOPA blackout in general.
One last point: Wikipedia is probably getting substantially higher page views right now, partly due to the fact that lots of people desperately want to read their Wikipedia articles, and partly because of the publicity generated by the blackout. Seeing "The English Wikipedia, along with many other websites, takes part in a 24-hour shutdown in protest against SOPA and PIPA", as an article, spot centre on the front page, does not leave a good impression. It might sound fair and unbiased to Wikipedians, but I can guarantee you that there are a lot of people who will view that as extremely biased. It also doesn't help your case that you want to prevent the Wikipedia blackout from looking like a publicity stunt.
Anyways, my two cents. -- 99.236.18.156 ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In my judgement, the body of the article is drawing closer to the point at which a broader title would be suitable. However, one of the largest remaining hurdles is the lead. I would therefore like to propose that the existing lead be replaced with something along the lines of the following, immediately before or after the move:
Please treat the above as wiki content – feel free to edit it, or to propose changes below. The text as I initially proposed it can be seen here. — WFC— 07:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - desired result was achieved with rename. —
C M B J
08:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
It has been proposed by CMBJ ( talk · contribs) that this article is split.
|
I note that normally MOS says to follow first-author choice which appears to be the European approach (Day Month). However, given this is about US laws, even though the response was worldwide, I really believe this gives the topic a strong national tie and that we should be using US date (Month Day) format for this article. Is there consensus to make this change? -- MASEM ( t) 13:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to put ways people accessed Wikipedia during the blackout, in the Response; During the blackout section. Since it is a response of what people did in reaction to the blackout. Though it is not a political response; it is what happened. I know it wasn't meant to be a complete blackout; and by telling people the methods they could have accessed Wikipedia, and by stating it wasn't meant to be a complete blackout we can inform them. Here is the part I want to put in :
During the blackout
The Wikimedia Foundation reported that...
During the day of January 18...
Many people who needed access to Wikipedia, was able to access its contents by disabling Javascript on their brower, trying to hit the Escape key before Javascript loads. There were other methods such as accessing a moblie version Wikipedia, using Google cache, or going to a mirror such as The Free Dictionary Encyclopedia.
I have source from extremetech. Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There are several claims being made by editors to the article that the ability to circumvent the ban was "deliberate". Yet I don't see any references to this anywhere. The ability to hit ESC, disable java, etc., does not mean there was a deliberate intent for this to happen. Was that aspect ever discussed in the "war room", and is there a record or transcript of those discussions? Is anyone from Wikimedia on record as saying they wanted users to be able to circumvent the ban? If not, I don't think editors should be altering the article to suggest that the ban's porous nature was somehow "deliberate" if in fact no one really knows that to be the case. It could just be a case of it being poorly instituted. 139.48.25.60 ( talk) 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to add that many sites were using black, or being "Painted Black" after the Rolling Stones song Paint it Black. Couldn't find any sources to back that up, I heard people talk about it as such, but only in blogs and such... Oaktree b ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that this article covers the wider scope, what should be done with Web Blackout? Clearly there needs be either a deletion or a merge of that page and/or this one, I'm just not sure which way to go (and hesitant to make the precise decision, given that I started this page). — WFC— 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia has now crossed the IRS's line by engaging in direct and grassroots lobbying outside the organization, their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status is now in jeopardy. It specifically crossed those lines by attempting to sway public opinion and directing people to contact their legislators on behalf of one side of a proposed bill. The rules regarding this are defined at the following links: http://www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/index.html | http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html Whether or not the SOPA protest was right or wrong is not the issue to be discussed, but rather an objectionable look at whether the activities of January 18th will result in loss of tax-exempt status. 192.91.173.42 ( talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It's WP:OR when we look at a law and say "oh, it's been broken!" Even if "we" are expert tax lawyers. By our own rules, we must have a reliable source. Rklawton ( talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We're getting off track here. Regardless of how some editors might think Wikipedia's tax status is in jeopardy, we can't add it unless an outside source mentions it. Throughout this entire discussion there hasn't been a single mention of a source that talks about this. Citing the IRS' definition of a 501(c)3, and then making the argument that their tax status is in jeopardy, is a form of original research, which is not allowed. Unless a source can be found that talks about it, this discussion is over. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)