Wiki on strike

[tacoben]

I find this a bit arrogant on behalf of wikipaedia. There success has always been by the millions of people around the world who contribute and to use the website as a political tool is just as bad as politicians trying to censor.

Each year they ask and get millions in donations so they are essentially a business.

Plus though I use and find the information relatively accurate the controls set on some pages make it more or less impossible for an individual to change without having to play ping pong edits with the person in charge.

It's a useful tool but so is a hammer

[dj_gerbil]

Do you actually know why they're on strike? Its because the Americans are trying to push a bill through that would allow them to investigate a site, then if any hint of copyright infringement is found, close them down. I can't see these Blackouts making any difference, but good luk to them I say.

[TVC_Colwal]

I agree with tacoben as he [Wales] estimated that 100 million English-speaking Wikipedia users will be affected by the blackout and warned students to “do your homework early”.'
Like most claims on Wiki, there is no certain way to prove the provenance or veracity of these figures.
Of course, the knock-on effect of this 24-hour closure of the site means that - heaven forfend - people will have to go to proven and reliable websites (or even books! remember them?) where accredited and published experts' work can be found.
Also with Murdoch complaining on Twitter that President Obama “has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters”.
I think this disgraced family should lay low, very low and shut his mouth. I clearly remember them squirming during the hearing into the NoW and now he is trying to play the morel card - give me a break, as he is only concerned about his own backside and no others.
Perhaps the US should also realize it is no longer the boss of the world.

[TVC_H4U]

I find this a bit arrogant on behalf of wikipaedia. There success has always been by the millions of people around the world who contributeThe decision was not that of Jimmy Wales. It was put to vote and wikipedia contributors voted on it.

I checked the vote and their was many options. Such as just a Banner, a Intro Page, a US Blackout or a English Speaking Blackout. The votes were outstanding for a Full Blackout.

I don't think its arrogant and is the 21st century form of "going on strike".

lol @ Colin trying to get the owner of Several News Outlets to stop commenting on current affairs, that's not going to happen.

[TVC_Colwal]

The decision was not that of Jimmy Wales. It was put to vote and wikipedia contributors voted on it.

Yeah but who instigated the vote idea?


lol @ Colin trying to get the owner of Several News Outlets to stop commenting on current affairs, that's not going to happen.

I know but it makes me feel better :)

[toti]

May I please disagree here? I comment wikipedia for striking in the UK because of internet censorship.

Are out entire lives meant to be policed? I mean forever being told where ego be and how to be there? We go for a walk at the moment in a quiet park with a beer and get told it public drinking... So we go private and rink, now it's public speculation gain despite the fact that people cannot see, regard nor experience that persons inebriation.

I say anonymity FTW

[Arkane]

Are out entire lives meant to be policed?

Yes, that is why the law enforcers are called the police.

[stuart08]

Although I would usually support anything against SOPA, I think this is a step too far by Wikipedia. Why shut the website down and disturb the habits of the people who made Wikipedia what it is?


Yes, that is why the law enforcers are called the police.
+1

[tacoben]

The point I was trying to make is that wikipaedia is just a website and to think of itself as anything more, especially to try and change government policies shows a level of big headedness that should not be encouraged.

Censorship is all around the internet and the control of censorship has more to do with commercial interest than any law in any country. If you want something you can find it and steal it. Plus wiki itself has a whole collection of editorial rules which make it one of the most censored websites on the internet.

A bunch of people sitting in a living room given a choice of shutting down a site or having a big banner will predominately choose the most severe option as they have nothing to loose and notoriety to gain. Real strike ballots on the other hand have people deciding to loose a days pay. Having said that the strike votes I had in the RMT were always for action because democratic voting is not really a fare way to judge opinion.

[TVC_H4U]

Although I would usually support anything against SOPA, I think this is a step too far by Wikipedia. Why shut the website down and disturb the habits of the people who made Wikipedia what it is?It is not WikiMEDIA that has closed down Wikipedia for 24 hours, it is the people who contribute to Wikipedia voted for it to happen. The consensus of the people who make wikipedia what it is wanted it.
I do find it strange though that Wikipedia is off-line in the UK when we can not do anything to influence US Govt.



The decision was not that of Jimmy Wales. It was put to vote and wikipedia contributors voted on it.
Yeah but who instigated the vote idea?
I see your point, but the vote was Instigated by the Wikipedia contributors, specificly a group from the social news website Reddit initiated the vote on Wikipedia. Reddit is also down for 12~ hours I think.

@tacoben
Wikipedia have a lot to loose specificly donations to the Wikimedia foundation as with no one entering the website they can not ask for Donations. They get a knock in their impartiality, now their meddling in politics ! - In addition some people are addicted to Wikipedia and use it for their jobs, they do have some crosses to bear.
Editorial Rules is not censorship imho.
As for big headedness its the greatest encyclopaedia known to man, it has some faults but should hold its head high as one of the most visited websites in the world. At the end of the day, the users voted to strike - no different to strikes "away from keyboard".

[happycabbage]

For what its worth I tend to agree with H4U in that, if nothing else, wikipedia's actions have brought a great deal of attention to something which could potentially have serious ramifications for many all around the world and they should be applauded for taking a stand.

Especially given that, if you actually read the message displayed by them, the site is still fully accessible by a number of methods or a simple workaround (which they detail for you) anyways. While taking a high profile stand against something a lot of people are fighting against, its really still business as usual for those that want to use the site. Hurting the end users? Not really. Politicising a supposedly neutral entity? Maybe, but in a field directly relevant to its own existence. Big headed as it may appear, they stood up to something important to many beyond themselves. Fair play in my book!

[Jonathan]

It is not just wikipedia that is protesting, there are other sites, although Wikipedia is the biggest and most shut down.

The decision to protest/shut-down/black-out just kind of came from the Internet. It doesn't matter who asked the vote, but that there was a vote and the majority vote was for English language shutdown, not just for people inside the US.That was not any one persons decision.

The point of all this is to raise awareness in ordinary people who don't visit forums and more techy sites.

Today a few politicians dropped support for the bills as a result of the protests. (annoyed voters = less chance of keeping power).

They are obvious ways around the Wiki blocking, that anyone who was desperate enough could use, such as using Google cache, hitting Esc before the blackout appeared.
And the mobile site was not blocked.

It was decided to black out rather than just post a banner, because the bill if passed would directly affect Wikipedia (and every other site that allows their users to post content without a moderator checking it and allowing it first, e.g. Youtube, Facebook, search engines, forums, etc) and nobody would pay attention to the banner.


The point of the outside the US shut down is because if the bill passes it will affect everyone not just the US, and it helps to increase international pressure (the bill makes the US hypocrites as it is on the same level as the great firewall of China, and censorship in Iran, effectively the US would have it's own Internet), and censorship laws are being passed in countries you wouldn't expect (quietly) like Spain.

It will affect people outside the US because free sites like Facebook rely on ads, their biggest audience is the US, if Facebook gets blocked (because one user posts a link to a pirate media) that's a lot of income gone, not to mention legal costs for the following battle, so either Facebook has to start charging in someway or shut down.

[Jonathan]

this video explains quite well:
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa

Specifically about how the laws are so wide open (about 5-6 minutes in)

[TVC_Colwal]

this video explains quite well:
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa

Specifically about how the laws are so wide open (about 5-6 minutes in)
Nice find Jon...

[Jonathan]

the blackouts (http://news.cnet.com/2300-1023_3-10011024.html?tag=txt;post.gallery) were/are a success as it got people talking/tweeting (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57361510-52) and protesting (http://www.cnet.com/2300-32333_1-10011032.html).

Also here is a "press release" by the pirate bay:
http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

Read it, and accepting the obvious bias (though less than normal from them) it's a good point.

[37408]

yeah, and a success for me finding a way round it to actually read a damn page !!!!
try blocking "http://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&* " script, leaving out the " obviously lol
they are so sly but so am I

[tacoben]

My issue is not with a dodgy law. My issue is how wiki considered there importance. As for the vote it is hardly a representative of the people who use the site. I am a member, I edit rarely but I did not know about the vote.

The countless miilions who use the site who also did not get a choice.

What happens in America is there own problem or are we in a world that now has to consider decisions made by foreign governments. Maybe if that is the case there are plenty of other more important issues to worry about.

As always this is about money and power more than anything else. If wiki and these people really wanted to make a change for the better they would assist in removing child porn, drugs, scams and all the other unfavourable parts of the internet. Even ebay has no real worry about people selling TVC

[Jonathan]

The number of voters on Wikipedia was about 1800, while drastically short of the. InBev if users, that's far more than have ever voted before.

These bills will indirectly, but nonetheless, affect Internet users in other countries. Blocked sites will loose b/millions. And the country which is so focused on freedom and being a better place to live than countries like Iran is trying to impose the same censorship as countries like Iran. Before you know it other countries follow the US and each country has its own Internet. The people supporting the bill mostly dot understand the internet. They are supporting it either because stopping online piracy sounds like a good thing and try don't want to fallout with Hollywood.

It's not just Americas problem, just like Iran having nuclear weapons (not saying they do, but if they did) is not just irans problem. The Internet is international, one bug change in a big country can damage it everywhere, similar to the global economy/financial system, one big enough event can affect the entire planet.

It is not the job of websites like Wikipedia to police the Internet, but it is their job to stay alive, if you didn't like the inconvenience of 24 hours what happens if it gets shut down.

Last week 5 senators opposed SOPA/PIPA, now (due to protests) 35 publicly oppose it, 6 short of the 41 needed to kill it. The actions yesterday successfully managed to make killing the bill a possiblity, but the supporters of the bill will keep making changes until the vote, to make it look much better than it was even though it's still a bad bill

[tacoben]

http://ohinternet.com/SOPA_PIPA_Internet_Blackout_January_18_2012

What strange friend's wikipaedia have: craigslist and 4chan have some very dubious content.

'If SOPA passes, you can get five years in jail for uploading a Michael Jackson song - one year more than the doctor who killed him.'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTJ2xVr0PA