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 |
Because the blackout was only announced to the community (via prominent banners) once a decision was ALREADY MADE. This article makes it seem like this was the decision of the community instead of a few administrators. -- 35.16.55.80 ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. As far as I know, there's no framework (e.i. policy) at all for how to go about recommending, discussing, approving, and implementing a blackout. If there was one, then we should link to it to help our readers understand when and how Wikipedia will and or will not implement a blackout. Rklawton ( talk) 20:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If you'd been reading Daily Kos you would have had the opportunity to be aware of what was cooking. The day right after Daily Kos announced its " activism plan" on Dec 11 Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative was launched and it was just two days after that that Wikimedia general counsel Geoff Brigham directed the Wikipedia community back to the Daily Kos’ “activism plan” as part of his “Call to action”. That same day that Wikipedia’s SOPA initiative page linked to the Daily Kos, the Daily Kos called Kossacks' attention to the fact a possible action was being discussed on Wikipedia and linked to the poll Jimmy Wales had kicked off.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a small plane pulling a "Stop SOPA" banner flying over Lambeau Field before the Giants@Packers game on Sunday 15 January. I have not yet found a reliable published source, but I saw it while tailgating. Expect there were similar banners flying over other large gatherings. Jrgilb ( talk) 06:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/
from
http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update
Check this out. — Cirt ( talk) 20:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created the article censor bars since that appears to be the most common term for those black boxes ("redaction swath" being my own initial coinage). I was struck by how none of the sites I've viewed used pixelization whatsoever in their on-line protests, so the element of graphic design may well deserve at least some coverage in this article. The same goes for the faux redactions. kencf0618 ( talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is small beer in the larger scheme of things, but there must have been perforce a final edit and a final new article before the blackout began, and correspondingly a first edit and first article once it ended. Trivia, yes, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed anywhere that I can find, and the blackout must've been so bracketed! I've been digging through the logs to no avail... kencf0618 ( talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I get the impression it's "common knowledge" or perceived that Wikipedia's blackout was the highest profile shutdown on 18 January, partly due to size and ubiquity, partly as it totally shut down. In terms of impressions it looks like Wikipedia's action in a way catalyzed the difference between "annoying protest" and avalanche, though that's mere impression from a bystander not cited fact. But do we actually have any sources where the 18th was analyzed which conclude or disagree with that perception? (that of the online protests, Wikipedia's was the highest profile or most noticed/significant/impactful)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Should the 'See also' section have links to SOPA/PIPA and other significant websites that blacked out? I say yes. 74.33.74.96 ( talk) 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence that other websites and physical protests were in response to Wikipedia's blackouts? If not, then these subsections do not belong under the "Responses" section. Rklawton ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
More than 'in response to Wikipedia', it seems to me that there was pre-blackout planning, led by Wikipedia Sue Gardner and others. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Development of the Article continues.
I don't have time right now, but the intro needs to at least mention that some described this as political games, pawns of the tech industry, old v. new media, etc, plus cites. (and, probably, mention that these were refuted). FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section on more thoughtful secondary source analyses - what does it all mean, what's changed, views on the matter etc. Some of this already exists, others will develop over time.
I've created a section as these exist enough now to start writing it. But it's late here - leaving it empty, please feel free to add. FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The words on the Wikipedia blackout graphic make a good motto for the protest. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Congratulations to WP leaders.
A number of notable screenshots illustrating the 18 January SOPA blackout online are uncategorized or do not have licenses documented, both on this wiki and Commons.
Depending on the site, screenshots may be freely licensed (or can be requested to be freely licensed upon email to site owners - they probably won't object!), or non-free. Some will need to be transferred commons -> en.wp where permissions are not held showing free licensing, or transferred en.wp -> commons where confirmed free.
We need to be sure which are which and start to sort this mess out before it lags, a mass purge is proposed, and it's all a 3 day panic.
A search in File namespace for "SOPA" will probably find all or most images on either wiki - category pages shouldn't be relied on though they are a good starting point. If anyone who takes this up could also check Commons for transfers inwards to en.wp, and perhaps prepare a list of any images where a request for free licensing might be needed, that would help too.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:I've added this 4-image row taking a random sample of how things were done. That said, I note the flickr image is really a case I'd love to show but I note its up for deletion at commons , though there's a chance of saving it.If we can't that would replace the FSF one, since we then have "blacked screen", "redacted", "black banner" and "unique" examples of how the blackout worked; there's possibly room for a fifth example, but it has to be unique, and as a free image, which I doubt will be easy to get. I'm going to go ahead and remove the gallery below (though it of course will still be linked into the article). -- MASEM ( t) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a screenshot during the blackout and uploaded it. I am sure the copyright belongs to the wikimedia foundation, until someone has a better picture or is able to get approval from wikimedia; is it alright if I uploaded it? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section about how many people question the appropriateness of a purportedly "neutral" encyclopedia participating in a protest - a decidedly non-neutral (and downright hostile, in my opinion, to those users outside the USA) act. SOPA supporter ( talk) 03:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be more content within the article discussing opposition to the blackout. And there was opposition. Don't know about calls received, emails, etc, But I know what was said on the "street". I have seen news accounts about the opposition. Almost all were "for" the reason, but disagreed with the way Wikipedia went about it. Very few had/have any support for SOPA/PIPA.
I will be more than happy to research and author a section covering this. I would like to know, so I can include it, how many calls, emails, messages, etc. against the blackout Wikipedia (at large) received. I would also like to include any information on staff, employees, etc that were against the blackout.
Therefore, 1. Is there a mutual agreement that a section needs to be placed? And if so, 2. Can someone provide me with the above statistics and information?
I will await your overall opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry still learning how to sign! Thank you for your patience. -- Mt6617 ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. As mentioned twice elsewhere, if you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Belorn. Please do not modify it. |
Only a neutral source can provide a neutral opinion, In taking a political stand Wikipedia has abandoned it's neutrality and can not be viewed as a balanced and neutral source of political articles. Washuchan ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is beginning to garner similar, if not essentially identical protests as SOPA and PIPA, and mainstream media is just now starting to clump all three together into one topic. So folks. New title warranted? New section? Might as well get a head start on this. Sloggerbum ( talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We need a separate article for Protests against ACTA. -- Aleksd ( talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here, as stated at the top of the page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Elektrik Shoos. Please do not modify it. |
This is the discussion page, so I hope this does not get deleted. Note I did not make any edits or changes to the article, nor will I. I think the blackout was sad. The photo of the "Wikipedia team" celebrating as they took a source away that many of depend on, and through donations have paid for, was frankly, disgusting. Is the proposed SOPA and PIPA wrong? You bet it is, and I am the first to tell anyone. I have written my representatives, long before this became "big news" However, is it also wrong for large internet sources such as Wikipedia and Google to suddenly block or interfere with our use of the internet? Absolutely. What you did that night is just as shameful as what SOPA and PIPA is 'trying" to do. To me and many others it was seen as a childish act. Upset about the "game" so taking your bases and going home. For me I have decided to invest and purchase a reliable source for an Encyclopedia. The money that I have donated to Wikipedia will go toward something that is more dependable, and can't be taken away at a whim. Yes it is your home, and you can do with it as you like. However it is a "home" that you have invited others to help maintain. Just weeks previous to the blackout you begged for donations. I suggest that you not solicit donations in the future if you plan on more blackouts. You see the problem is, you have a project here that you can do as you like. Legally you have every right to do a blackout, or completely shut down. There is nothing stopping you. But is that right? Is it fair? When you ask for other to contribute, either financially or through their time, you become obligated to them. Perhaps not legally, but in other ways. And finally your actions have even caused some to re-think government control over the internet. And not for the good. Some (in the real world) are questioning if perhaps there does need to be regulation, to prevent someone from doing just what you did and have done. Allow the common person to become dependent on a source that can easily be taken away by a few in control. Imagine what would happen if the power grid suddenly shut down at the direction of a few? Of course we know that can't happen, and some say that is due to government regulation. I hope you seriously re-think any further actions. Thank you for your time. Best Regards I don't know how to sign. But will give my real name. Mark Tate, Orlando, FL. If someone can tell me how to "sign" I will be glad to do so.'''Bold text''Bold text''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.33.229 ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your reply and help with signing in. I now have an account. As to the subject, I fully agree that SOPA and PIPA needed/needs to be stopped. Although slowed, I think they are still very much alive, and will resurface after the election in November 2012. My issue was not your purpose, I applaud you for that! But the way you went about it. The blackout, I still say, was wrong. As I do not like people that complain and offer no solutions, I will propose some alternative solutions to a black out. Some I will even help with. 1. You did wonderful, thoughtful banners during your fundraising awareness. What's wrong with putting a banner on full time against SOPA and PIPA, and change it (roll) so folks will not get use to seeing the same image. 2. Wikipedia is accessed by millions. Great exposure... use that to organize peaceful, legal, protests all over the country... the world. THAT I can help with. 3. Have a SOPA/PIPA "Click Here" icon on full time. Clicking the icon would lead to a "diary" discussing updates. Having daily updates as to what is going on is helpful. If someone can set it up, I will be glad to keep it updated. I am sure I can come up with more. My point is to have Wikipedia be a shining example of the free internet. ABOVE the chaos, above games, and above and better than what SOPA and PIPA proposes. They can play ugly, you... we... need to be better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
As of now, the second paragraph has the statement: "In all, over 115,000 websites and unknown tens of millions of individuals joined the internet protest." The 115,000 claim is supported by the sources. The 'unknown tens of millions' claim is not. The citation [2] just leads to a footnote: "At least 10 million emails were received and 24 million tweets are documented; reliable sources do not estimate how many participated but it can be identified from sources as being at least "tens of millions"." I checked all citations for the first three paragraphs and none of them support this statement or the 'tens of millions' figure.
The '10 million emails' claim appears to come from citation [6], which actually says that 10 million voters contacted lawmakers. The same source that made the '115,000 websites' claim (citation [1]) says there were three million emails, not ten. I am not convinced it is NPOV just to pick the highest numbers from different sources where they contradict each other.
As for the '24 million tweets' claim, I can only guess that it is a misreading of citation [4] which refers to "2.4 million SOPA-related tweets", not 24 million tweets in support of the protest. Next paragraph there is a claim of "1⁄4 million tweets an hour concerning SOPA" for "several hours" but it's unsourced.
I think with a bit of tweaking, the numbers in paragraph 3 would actually speak for themselves, and we don't need the 'unknown tens of millions' claim in paragraph 2 or its footnote. ~ Kimelea ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"In January, Anonymous helped lead the online protests against SOPA and PIPA, the despised congressional antipiracy bills." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/ff_anonymous/5/ How can I cite this without getting censored by Wiki-Authorities? - ARKBG1 ( talk) 04:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the idea of a blackout protest taken from the internationally popular New Zealand internet blackout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:130:0:1000:224:81FF:FE5F:B1D2 ( talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section on websites that participated in protest, Twitter is mentioned to have participated in the blackout. However, I cannot find any mention that this is the case. In fact, I have found sources that state that Twitter did not participate [1]. Can anyone clarify this? -- 131.156.236.193 ( talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the civil conflict box really necessary to have on the page? This seems a lot more like self-congratulating than something that's actually needed. BoxofPresents ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it ought to be removed. 2600:1015:B11C:9C8:4C5:A674:D01B:AC68 ( talk) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Disclaimer: I authored those articles, and therefore per WP:COI I don't want to add them myself without a second opinion. I believe they are relevant as scholarly research on SOPA protests and would improve the external links: [7], [8]. Alternatively, they could be used to source a following sentences I'd propose for the Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community section: "Approximately 90% out of the 2097 editors who took part in the votes supported joining the blackout action. It is estimated that only less than half the voters were from the USA, which suggests that Wikipedia acted as a platform for international community to express its opinion. The most common rationale expressed by about a fifth of the editors was the sentiment that "SOPA was perceived as a worldwide threat"." and for the last paragraph about some editors resigning, "Majority of editors who opposed the participation were concerned with the perceived dissonance between Wikipedia's encyclopedic ethos, neutrality and active participation in a political issue (sentiment endorsed by about 4% of the vote participants); only 0.3% of participating editors suggested they support a tougher copyright regime.". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Protests against SOPA and PIPA. 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) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (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 |
Because the blackout was only announced to the community (via prominent banners) once a decision was ALREADY MADE. This article makes it seem like this was the decision of the community instead of a few administrators. -- 35.16.55.80 ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. As far as I know, there's no framework (e.i. policy) at all for how to go about recommending, discussing, approving, and implementing a blackout. If there was one, then we should link to it to help our readers understand when and how Wikipedia will and or will not implement a blackout. Rklawton ( talk) 20:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If you'd been reading Daily Kos you would have had the opportunity to be aware of what was cooking. The day right after Daily Kos announced its " activism plan" on Dec 11 Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative was launched and it was just two days after that that Wikimedia general counsel Geoff Brigham directed the Wikipedia community back to the Daily Kos’ “activism plan” as part of his “Call to action”. That same day that Wikipedia’s SOPA initiative page linked to the Daily Kos, the Daily Kos called Kossacks' attention to the fact a possible action was being discussed on Wikipedia and linked to the poll Jimmy Wales had kicked off.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a small plane pulling a "Stop SOPA" banner flying over Lambeau Field before the Giants@Packers game on Sunday 15 January. I have not yet found a reliable published source, but I saw it while tailgating. Expect there were similar banners flying over other large gatherings. Jrgilb ( talk) 06:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/
from
http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update
Check this out. — Cirt ( talk) 20:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created the article censor bars since that appears to be the most common term for those black boxes ("redaction swath" being my own initial coinage). I was struck by how none of the sites I've viewed used pixelization whatsoever in their on-line protests, so the element of graphic design may well deserve at least some coverage in this article. The same goes for the faux redactions. kencf0618 ( talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is small beer in the larger scheme of things, but there must have been perforce a final edit and a final new article before the blackout began, and correspondingly a first edit and first article once it ended. Trivia, yes, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed anywhere that I can find, and the blackout must've been so bracketed! I've been digging through the logs to no avail... kencf0618 ( talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I get the impression it's "common knowledge" or perceived that Wikipedia's blackout was the highest profile shutdown on 18 January, partly due to size and ubiquity, partly as it totally shut down. In terms of impressions it looks like Wikipedia's action in a way catalyzed the difference between "annoying protest" and avalanche, though that's mere impression from a bystander not cited fact. But do we actually have any sources where the 18th was analyzed which conclude or disagree with that perception? (that of the online protests, Wikipedia's was the highest profile or most noticed/significant/impactful)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Should the 'See also' section have links to SOPA/PIPA and other significant websites that blacked out? I say yes. 74.33.74.96 ( talk) 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence that other websites and physical protests were in response to Wikipedia's blackouts? If not, then these subsections do not belong under the "Responses" section. Rklawton ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
More than 'in response to Wikipedia', it seems to me that there was pre-blackout planning, led by Wikipedia Sue Gardner and others. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Development of the Article continues.
I don't have time right now, but the intro needs to at least mention that some described this as political games, pawns of the tech industry, old v. new media, etc, plus cites. (and, probably, mention that these were refuted). FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section on more thoughtful secondary source analyses - what does it all mean, what's changed, views on the matter etc. Some of this already exists, others will develop over time.
I've created a section as these exist enough now to start writing it. But it's late here - leaving it empty, please feel free to add. FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The words on the Wikipedia blackout graphic make a good motto for the protest. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Congratulations to WP leaders.
A number of notable screenshots illustrating the 18 January SOPA blackout online are uncategorized or do not have licenses documented, both on this wiki and Commons.
Depending on the site, screenshots may be freely licensed (or can be requested to be freely licensed upon email to site owners - they probably won't object!), or non-free. Some will need to be transferred commons -> en.wp where permissions are not held showing free licensing, or transferred en.wp -> commons where confirmed free.
We need to be sure which are which and start to sort this mess out before it lags, a mass purge is proposed, and it's all a 3 day panic.
A search in File namespace for "SOPA" will probably find all or most images on either wiki - category pages shouldn't be relied on though they are a good starting point. If anyone who takes this up could also check Commons for transfers inwards to en.wp, and perhaps prepare a list of any images where a request for free licensing might be needed, that would help too.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:I've added this 4-image row taking a random sample of how things were done. That said, I note the flickr image is really a case I'd love to show but I note its up for deletion at commons , though there's a chance of saving it.If we can't that would replace the FSF one, since we then have "blacked screen", "redacted", "black banner" and "unique" examples of how the blackout worked; there's possibly room for a fifth example, but it has to be unique, and as a free image, which I doubt will be easy to get. I'm going to go ahead and remove the gallery below (though it of course will still be linked into the article). -- MASEM ( t) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a screenshot during the blackout and uploaded it. I am sure the copyright belongs to the wikimedia foundation, until someone has a better picture or is able to get approval from wikimedia; is it alright if I uploaded it? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section about how many people question the appropriateness of a purportedly "neutral" encyclopedia participating in a protest - a decidedly non-neutral (and downright hostile, in my opinion, to those users outside the USA) act. SOPA supporter ( talk) 03:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be more content within the article discussing opposition to the blackout. And there was opposition. Don't know about calls received, emails, etc, But I know what was said on the "street". I have seen news accounts about the opposition. Almost all were "for" the reason, but disagreed with the way Wikipedia went about it. Very few had/have any support for SOPA/PIPA.
I will be more than happy to research and author a section covering this. I would like to know, so I can include it, how many calls, emails, messages, etc. against the blackout Wikipedia (at large) received. I would also like to include any information on staff, employees, etc that were against the blackout.
Therefore, 1. Is there a mutual agreement that a section needs to be placed? And if so, 2. Can someone provide me with the above statistics and information?
I will await your overall opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry still learning how to sign! Thank you for your patience. -- Mt6617 ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. As mentioned twice elsewhere, if you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Belorn. Please do not modify it. |
Only a neutral source can provide a neutral opinion, In taking a political stand Wikipedia has abandoned it's neutrality and can not be viewed as a balanced and neutral source of political articles. Washuchan ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is beginning to garner similar, if not essentially identical protests as SOPA and PIPA, and mainstream media is just now starting to clump all three together into one topic. So folks. New title warranted? New section? Might as well get a head start on this. Sloggerbum ( talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We need a separate article for Protests against ACTA. -- Aleksd ( talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have comments regarding Wikipedia's participation in the blackout, comment at Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action, not here, as stated at the top of the page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Elektrik Shoos. Please do not modify it. |
This is the discussion page, so I hope this does not get deleted. Note I did not make any edits or changes to the article, nor will I. I think the blackout was sad. The photo of the "Wikipedia team" celebrating as they took a source away that many of depend on, and through donations have paid for, was frankly, disgusting. Is the proposed SOPA and PIPA wrong? You bet it is, and I am the first to tell anyone. I have written my representatives, long before this became "big news" However, is it also wrong for large internet sources such as Wikipedia and Google to suddenly block or interfere with our use of the internet? Absolutely. What you did that night is just as shameful as what SOPA and PIPA is 'trying" to do. To me and many others it was seen as a childish act. Upset about the "game" so taking your bases and going home. For me I have decided to invest and purchase a reliable source for an Encyclopedia. The money that I have donated to Wikipedia will go toward something that is more dependable, and can't be taken away at a whim. Yes it is your home, and you can do with it as you like. However it is a "home" that you have invited others to help maintain. Just weeks previous to the blackout you begged for donations. I suggest that you not solicit donations in the future if you plan on more blackouts. You see the problem is, you have a project here that you can do as you like. Legally you have every right to do a blackout, or completely shut down. There is nothing stopping you. But is that right? Is it fair? When you ask for other to contribute, either financially or through their time, you become obligated to them. Perhaps not legally, but in other ways. And finally your actions have even caused some to re-think government control over the internet. And not for the good. Some (in the real world) are questioning if perhaps there does need to be regulation, to prevent someone from doing just what you did and have done. Allow the common person to become dependent on a source that can easily be taken away by a few in control. Imagine what would happen if the power grid suddenly shut down at the direction of a few? Of course we know that can't happen, and some say that is due to government regulation. I hope you seriously re-think any further actions. Thank you for your time. Best Regards I don't know how to sign. But will give my real name. Mark Tate, Orlando, FL. If someone can tell me how to "sign" I will be glad to do so.'''Bold text''Bold text''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.33.229 ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your reply and help with signing in. I now have an account. As to the subject, I fully agree that SOPA and PIPA needed/needs to be stopped. Although slowed, I think they are still very much alive, and will resurface after the election in November 2012. My issue was not your purpose, I applaud you for that! But the way you went about it. The blackout, I still say, was wrong. As I do not like people that complain and offer no solutions, I will propose some alternative solutions to a black out. Some I will even help with. 1. You did wonderful, thoughtful banners during your fundraising awareness. What's wrong with putting a banner on full time against SOPA and PIPA, and change it (roll) so folks will not get use to seeing the same image. 2. Wikipedia is accessed by millions. Great exposure... use that to organize peaceful, legal, protests all over the country... the world. THAT I can help with. 3. Have a SOPA/PIPA "Click Here" icon on full time. Clicking the icon would lead to a "diary" discussing updates. Having daily updates as to what is going on is helpful. If someone can set it up, I will be glad to keep it updated. I am sure I can come up with more. My point is to have Wikipedia be a shining example of the free internet. ABOVE the chaos, above games, and above and better than what SOPA and PIPA proposes. They can play ugly, you... we... need to be better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
As of now, the second paragraph has the statement: "In all, over 115,000 websites and unknown tens of millions of individuals joined the internet protest." The 115,000 claim is supported by the sources. The 'unknown tens of millions' claim is not. The citation [2] just leads to a footnote: "At least 10 million emails were received and 24 million tweets are documented; reliable sources do not estimate how many participated but it can be identified from sources as being at least "tens of millions"." I checked all citations for the first three paragraphs and none of them support this statement or the 'tens of millions' figure.
The '10 million emails' claim appears to come from citation [6], which actually says that 10 million voters contacted lawmakers. The same source that made the '115,000 websites' claim (citation [1]) says there were three million emails, not ten. I am not convinced it is NPOV just to pick the highest numbers from different sources where they contradict each other.
As for the '24 million tweets' claim, I can only guess that it is a misreading of citation [4] which refers to "2.4 million SOPA-related tweets", not 24 million tweets in support of the protest. Next paragraph there is a claim of "1⁄4 million tweets an hour concerning SOPA" for "several hours" but it's unsourced.
I think with a bit of tweaking, the numbers in paragraph 3 would actually speak for themselves, and we don't need the 'unknown tens of millions' claim in paragraph 2 or its footnote. ~ Kimelea ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"In January, Anonymous helped lead the online protests against SOPA and PIPA, the despised congressional antipiracy bills." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/ff_anonymous/5/ How can I cite this without getting censored by Wiki-Authorities? - ARKBG1 ( talk) 04:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the idea of a blackout protest taken from the internationally popular New Zealand internet blackout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:130:0:1000:224:81FF:FE5F:B1D2 ( talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section on websites that participated in protest, Twitter is mentioned to have participated in the blackout. However, I cannot find any mention that this is the case. In fact, I have found sources that state that Twitter did not participate [1]. Can anyone clarify this? -- 131.156.236.193 ( talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the civil conflict box really necessary to have on the page? This seems a lot more like self-congratulating than something that's actually needed. BoxofPresents ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it ought to be removed. 2600:1015:B11C:9C8:4C5:A674:D01B:AC68 ( talk) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Disclaimer: I authored those articles, and therefore per WP:COI I don't want to add them myself without a second opinion. I believe they are relevant as scholarly research on SOPA protests and would improve the external links: [7], [8]. Alternatively, they could be used to source a following sentences I'd propose for the Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community section: "Approximately 90% out of the 2097 editors who took part in the votes supported joining the blackout action. It is estimated that only less than half the voters were from the USA, which suggests that Wikipedia acted as a platform for international community to express its opinion. The most common rationale expressed by about a fifth of the editors was the sentiment that "SOPA was perceived as a worldwide threat"." and for the last paragraph about some editors resigning, "Majority of editors who opposed the participation were concerned with the perceived dissonance between Wikipedia's encyclopedic ethos, neutrality and active participation in a political issue (sentiment endorsed by about 4% of the vote participants); only 0.3% of participating editors suggested they support a tougher copyright regime.". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Protests against SOPA and PIPA. 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) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)