Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Archive

Legion

Merge power instead of working as individual forces. -We, Anonymous (the people) recommend connecting with other protesting groups, organizations, an alliance of all and a select day to execute a final attempt to stop SOPA with our support. Show the people what will happen if sopa passes, sadly these days people learn from experience, not wisdom, so we must use this method to teach them. More about this will be posted later in the form of a pastebin and more detailed plan or edited in. Also..dont bother to msg the ip, you wont get a reply.

Severity of restrictions

How far do we need to go to get our message through and/or force sufficient economic or political damage that the bill poses no harm to the encyclopaedic process?

Area of effect

Significant readership of en.wikipedia (brown) in arabic countries, often even majorities

In Europe too: look at all the brown shares (english)

Should this be worldwide or US based?

The english Wikipedia is read worldwide and - even wikipedians are often not aware just how important the english version is, globally. Therefor some maps as a reminder. For other countries look at the data source (Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report - Wikipedia Page Views Per Country This analysis is based on a 1:1000 sampled server log (squids). Period 04/2010 - 03/2011). --Atlasowa (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion regarding the proposed strike. Instead of a sitewide strike, how about limiting the blackout to the politicians and companies who are pro-SOPA? For those in favor of the bill, this would give first-hand experience of how damaging censorship can be. With big elections coming up, how many politicians would risk losing one of their major social media outlets? --Pikewood (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Pikewood. I support it alone or with the statewide strike and afterward until the message is received and think it will attract alot of attention! Mugginsx (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I must strike my statement above. It seems, by what I am reading, our status as a charitable entity might be endangered, so the idea must be abandoned, much as I like it. Need expert advice here before anyone proceeds. Mugginsx (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE User Jimbo Wales himself has commented on this point so I will, of course, defer to his judgment on the matter. Mugginsx (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The key here is the "substantial part" test. It's complicated and I'm not an expert, but as an example, a typical test is to look at spending on lobbying, and the general rule here is that it must be less than 5% of total revenues. We have good advisers, and the Foundation isn't going to do anything that jeopardizes its tax status. Fear about that ought not to restrict community action in this area!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article

Make it a FA and feature it on the main page. Also have related DYK's, censorship items for "On this day".

Perhaps make First Amendment to the United States Constitution a FA. I'd support running it on the main page if you did it. I'd even be willing to give it a peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've thought of this myself, and have actually been doing the research on developing an article on Ethan Zuckerman's "cute cat theory of Internet activism" that would fit right in for such a themed DYK (I've even found a great lolcat image at Commons that we could use). I could also see, as the FP, just using a black rectangle to make the point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would support making it a FA. However I would oppose, in the absolutely most strongest terms anything more. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not the place to right great wrongs; if Wikipedia itself soapboxes, it cuts out the heart of WP:NOT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the end SOPA could potentially end Wikipedia as we know it. Staying out of issues is one thing when they irrelevant to the site, but since this bill could have a huge impact on Wikipedia (and the internet as we know it) I think they need to act as strongly as possible. With a blackout.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is a fight for survival, not a mere intellectual discourse. I agree in absolute neutrality when Wikipedia itself is not a direct party to a particular issue. We are discussing a protest against a new law as a political statement to protect Wikipedia's fundamental nature as enjoyed under current law, a change in which could undermine Wikipedia's very existence. This is one of the very few times that neutrality would be eminently short-sighted, if not downright foolish.  Jim Reed (Talk)  21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure readers would even register that this were a protest. I myself rarely notice what the featured article is when I go on the main page of Wikipedia; I just go straight to the search bar and type in whatever it is I'm looking for. If we want to make a point, it would have to be something that more obviously sticks out or interferes with the "normal" Wikipedia-browsing experience. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Also we have a pretty strong general COI in relation to the topic - so I suspect actually writing a balanced article would be quite hard. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Exactly, if we want to make a statement we need to do a blackout. No one will notice a featured article--I myself don't even notice those. And, if we're going to act, we need to do it soon. Now that we know the hearing is scheduled to begin again Wednesday, we need to start the protests now. We can't wait until after this thing has passed, we need to stop this before it gets through.
• I don't see this having a tremendous impact. Some people would notice, but likely those who notice what all that means would largely be those who are already familiar with the issue and have already called Congress, lodged protests in some other way, etc. If our goal is a public outcry (which I think it is), that's not going to do it. For the general public, the route to a Wikipedia article generally leads through a Google search, not visiting the main page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, come on. This is one of the weakest and useless "protests" I have ever heard about, except from parodies in sitcoms. Who will even notice that there's a "protest", unless being aware from the start about the protest? Even a dozen of people with demonstration banners will be more effective than this. Not to say that it isn't a good idea to increase the quality of articles related to freedom of speech in general, but that's just an accessory action, it can't be "the" protest. Cambalachero (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sure, make it a FA. Easier said than done. This does not need a community support, neither would DYKing a buch of related items. But I'd oppose giving it a false FA status on a given day.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as a sole action, since to most people are likely to overlook it. Many readers may not pay any attention at all to the main page, in particular if they arrive at their article of interest via some search engine or some other website, then they don't come across the main page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as only action for reasons stated by others; in addition, the implementation of this bill would not be limited in its effect to a "featured article".  Jim Reed (Talk)  21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Boycott SOPA's supporters, and possibly compile their IPs for action

Per a post at Daily Kos, the folks at Reddit have been collecting lists of organizations and corporations that support SOPA for possible boycotts (and I also find this useful for my suggestion above). Here's a long Google Doc they've been working on, and PDF from supporters with a list at the end. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What that article doesn't mention is the AFL-CIO, which as an organization of ordinary people really stands out for being on the wrong side. I'm not a member of this union, but I wish someone who is would give them the third degree. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unions often take the same side as the corporations their members work for, on non-labor issues. In this case the AFL-CIO is listening to its members in the unions like IATSE and all the Hollywood unions (WGA, DGA, ASC, SAG etc.) who feel their interests would be as adversely affected as their employers. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. While I would very much enjoy seeing everyone behind SOPA be eaten by a Grue, I think it would be a Very Bad Idea for Wikipedia to be associated with offensively targeting individuals or organizations outside government. Our opponents could cast it as malicious or something. It could backfire. Alsee (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be permanent, and it would work only if Facebook and Twitter did it as well. They can't use our services while passing legislation that would greatly harm the way those services work.

This is power that we have and use not. If we don't, then we deserve everything that would happen. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddit is collecting donation pledges to get Wikipedia to transfer their domain hosting away from GoDaddy.com, because GoDaddy supports SOPA. The pledges are adding up. There's money in doing the right thing. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/ Bubblesort (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jimbo has tweeted that we're moving away from GoDaddy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: GoDaddy has dropped its support for SOPA. See! We accomplished something! Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope Wikipedia is still moving the domains as was said in the first update above. Nobody on Reddit is taking GoDaddy's statement seriously. They see it as empty PR spin. I doubt that GoDaddy can do anything to salvage their reputation at this point because the damage has already been done. We got to this point with the legislation because companies like GoDaddy have supported it. If they can visibly do something to help kill the legislation then people might change their minds, but I'm not sure how they could do something like that. The move your domain day scheduled for Dec 29 is still on. Reddit is not backing down. Here is a relevant Reddit conversation on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/noids/godaddy_mass_migration_day_still_on_for_december/ Bubblesort (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as something we could do that makes a statement the right way. The New York Times has covered this here. According to it, Paul Graham has announced that any companies publicly supporting SOPA will no longer be welcome at Y Combinator's Demo Day. This is the sort of thing you do when you have power and you know you either use it or lose it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Markup today

Hi folks,
I received word a few minutes ago that the markup for SOPA will be done using a cool piece of software that allows public input during the markup phase. Beginning around 8:30 Eastern Time (13:30 UTC), you'll find the SOPA bill at http://keepthewebopen.com. I encourage you to participate in the markup process using this tool. It looks like an interesting way to make your voice heard. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... I thought the OPEN Act was an alternative to SOPA and that that site is all about the OPEN Act? -MsBatfish (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark-Up Update

Today, December 16, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee (the Committee) concluded its second day of marking up H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and will pick up once the House reconvenes on January 17, 2012. Over the past 36 hours the Committee has deliberated on the merits of SOPA and offered some 40 amendments, particularly the issue of imposing domain name blocking requirements by court order on various parties, including ISPs. Thus far, mostly minor technical amendments have passed with the exception of one amendment #36 offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of tools in foreign nations to block Internet access. A full list of amendments (passed and failed) with text is available here:http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html.

A small bipartisan minority opposing passage of SOPA consisting of Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has spearheaded the debate. The key supporters of SOPA are Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt (D-NC), as well as most other Members of the Committee. The minority opposition has raised some national security concerns regarding domain name blocking that may lead to a briefing and/or additional hearing on this legislation.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Markup date scheduled

It looks as though the markup may have been pushed forward to next Wednesday, according to the Hon. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think in light of this a decision should be made very soon. We should decide our course of action before Wednesday, and implement it on or a day or two before Wednesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DfizzleShizzle (talk • contribs)

Please see below: The hearing has now been postponed. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

New Update: Wednesday House SOPA Mark-up Postponed!

The House Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday has been canceled, POLITICO has confirmed.

And this just on the House Judiciary Website:

Date Type Title Committee
12/21/2011
* * * Postponed * * *
Markup Full Committee Markup of (continued): H.R. 3261, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" Full Committee
See:  http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/markups112.html