SOPA and a strike, Jimbo requests comments Options

[HRIP7]

Jimbo has asked for comments on whether Wikipedia should reserve the right to go on strike to prevent the Stop Online Piracy Act from passing.

Views?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What do you suppose Jimbo's angle is here; that the bill is a threat to plagiarists?

[Kelly Martin]

What do you suppose Jimbo's angle is here; that the bill is a threat to plagiarists?

No, to copyright infringers, which Commons is chock full of. It's a virtual certainty that Commons would be shut down by a SOPA complaint within weeks of the bill becoming law, and Wikipedia itself not long after that. Wikipedia has long relied on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and copyright practice generally, and SOPA eradicates those almost entirely.

[lilburne]

Wikipedia has long relied on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and copyright practice generally, and SOPA eradicates those almost entirely.

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

“is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright infringement.
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/sopa-new-r...+%28Copyhype%29

[powercorrupts]

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually. He's having an easy time of it in the UK at the moment, but it surely won't last. It's a relatively quiet time for the press at the moment (in terms of being tough on individuals, and in taking risks) and he could be benefiting a little. His Wikipidiots, though loyal enough, are not clever enough to support him properly when things are less rosey.

If Wikipedia opens a crack (and it will do to some degree every time he opens his mouth - and he can't seem to shut it lately) it has to be worked at before it fully closes again.

[Fusion]

I'd be strongly in favor of a strike. It would show two things. Firstly, that people can survive without Wikipedia. Secondly, that if they're that frightened of SOPA, Wikipedia must be full of copyright infringement.

Would blanking the site do much good? In the short term, you could presumably use Google cache. Also, most articles show up on a mirror site (or several).

[SB_Johnny]

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.

[TungstenCarbide]

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...

No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.

[radek]

I'd be strongly in favor of a strike.

They shouldn't be wimpy about it though. Either they're serious or they're just playing. Make the strike a permanent one!

This post has been edited by radek:

[Ottava]

Anyone else think that if Jimbo really cared about people's opinions he would put it in an area that isn't his user talk page?

Echo chamber chamber chamber chamber chamber....




By the way, anyone else get the feeling that there is a reason why the people defending all the porn pictures at Commons happen to be the ones who are most vocal to get the WMF to oppose this law? I wonder what it could be.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Eppur si muove]

Anyone else think that if Jimbo really cared about people's opinions he would put it in an area that isn't his user talk page?

That is a rhetorical question isn't it? It was certainly the first thing I thought. At least he's established that the yes-men still say yes.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Has humanity forgotten how to write to their representatives in Congress? Have they forgotten about their right to create petitions? Jimbo is a speaker. Why doesn't Jimbo try talking to Congress?

[powercorrupts]

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...

No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.

Haven't you noticed his disregard for governments in general? In his manner, comments and language he shows an oddly-casual kind of contept that goes beyond any particular cause or policy, or his own need for popularity. It always strikes me because it doesn't seem to be based on the kind of real anger that most people who express similar feelings clearly have as a basis for it. It's mainly to do with his oddball nature and strange ego I think.

[TungstenCarbide]

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...

No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.

Haven't you noticed his disregard for governments in general? In his manner, comments and language he shows an oddly-casual kind of contept that goes beyond any particular cause or policy, or his own need for popularity. It always strikes me because it doesn't seem to be based on the kind of real anger that most people who express similar feelings clearly have as a basis for it. It's mainly to do with his oddball nature and strange ego I think.

No, I haven't noticed that, but I'm easily distracted so may have missed it. Mostly I notice the character flaws, like when he used to call people trolls for asking important questions.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'd be strongly in favor of a strike.

They shouldn't be wimpy about it though. Either they're serious or they're just playing. Make the strike a permanent one!

Bravo!

[thekohser]

He's showing his contempt for government again.

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

[EricBarbour]

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Ah, but that was soooo 3 years ago.

Why isn't anyone calling for a strike against Jimmy Wales??

[Zoloft]

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Ah, but that was soooo 3 years ago.

Why isn't anyone calling for a strike against Jimmy Wales??

Occupy Wikipedia?

I'm in.

[mydog]

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his talk page.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.

[radek]

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his talk page.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.

I must say, I quote enjoyed that - but yeah, it's a "beat head against a wall" kind of endeavor. The wall don't listen.

[The Joy]

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his talk page.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465086832

Jimbo is really stretching it by saying that the Italian Wikipedia's strike had any effect on the Italian law being struck down. I thought that pressure from journalists and free press groups was the main reason for its downfall?

Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

[TungstenCarbide]

Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[radek]

Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

To look at the silver lining, the "win" for others here is that this kind of thing really does separate the wheat from the ... idiots and brown nosers. So it makes for a handy list if any of these folks try to run for ArbCom or something. I'm quite disappointed in a couple (Hans Adler). And impressed with one or two. Wehwalt ran for arbcom before didn't he? I can't remember if he dropped out or didn't make it. Anyway, he's one of the few people making sense over there.

I made a list of the dummies, but here are the good comments:

User:Eraserhead1 - "If you feel really strongly about this go and protest in your own time."
User:Townlake - "The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious."
User talk:Fox - "What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid."
User:TCO - too god damn sensible for wikipedia
User:Wehwalt
User:Russavia - holy fucking christ, Russavia is very right and actually insightful about something

[Cla68]

I've always thought that the most likely event resulting in Wikipedia's complete shutdown would be a copyright infringement injunction or judgement.

Anyway, Jimbo mentions a meeting at the WHITE HOUSE. So, I think he is doing this straw poll so he can announce the results at the big meeting, making it look like he is in touch with the pulse of Wikipedia's regulars and can report that they are NOT HAPPY with the proposed bill.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[powercorrupts]

He's showing his contempt for government again.

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to sit in the spotlight in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was taking out the catamarans with Tony Blair down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Not sure if they show the opposite (the Blair one at least).

Blair was out of British government and an international playboy by then (hence the company) and had contempt for government himself anyway (he ignored it - or attempted to - all the way through his career). One of my favourite Blair stories is that when he became PM people were astounded how little he actually new about the job. A lawyer by trade, he'd barely bothered to brush up on the basics, despite a lifetime coveting the job with his one-time flatmate Gordon Brown.

I never said Jimbo deoesn't covet power, or wouldn't kiss any politician's arse if it got him his way. He'd also kick it when he's got what he wanted, and generally seems to see himself as above and beyond such inherently-censorious mortals.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[lilburne]

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.

How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.

[SB_Johnny]

Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

I also wonder if he isn't also revving up the drama for "domestic consumption" (nothing sells like drama on WP). He got far less wikiluv in that little exchange with Cla than he would have gotten a year or two ago, and he's already pissed off most of the non en.wp communities, so he can't let his god status decline on his last remaining front.

[SB_Johnny]

I've always thought that the most likely event resulting in Wikipedia's complete shutdown would be a copyright infringement injunction or judgement.

Anyway, Jimbo mentions a meeting at the WHITE HOUSE. So, I think he is doing this straw poll so he can announce the results at the big meeting, making it look like he is in touch with the pulse of Wikipedia's regulars and can report that they are NOT HAPPY with the proposed bill.

Perhaps some of the regulators (and senators) he tries to schmooze will look a little more closely at the WMF to see why they're concerned, which couldn't be a bad thing. I don't think he has enough $$$ in the bank to effectively schmooze a DC regulator or senator, but he might manage to piss one off if he forgets to leave the rod and scepter at home.

[SB_Johnny]

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.

How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.

It might come down to how the agencies involved define "governance" of a website. If they decide it's actually the "community", there's certainly a large and influential contingent who take a radical view of "knowledge wanting to be free".

[SB_Johnny]

This is my personal request for comment in order to guide my thinking and talking with politicians over the next few days. I am also speaking to the Foundation, Foundation attorneys, our paid lobbyists, fellow traveller organizations, etc. Because the Foundation has requested, reasonably due to negotiations under way and the impact that I might have on that by accidentally creating a public furore, I'm not able to say a lot at this time. Part of my job here is to represent the wishes of the community to all these parties, hence the straw poll. As I said before, nothing here is binding - if and when we would do something like this, there would be a much more formal proposal. Right now, what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators. Do not underestimate our power - in my opinion, they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that. Back room politics over cigars and promises, or a vigorous public debate? I know what I want, and I know what the other side wants, and they aren't the same thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

IOW:

I'm very important! I mean, uh, we're very important, but I really need to create the impression that I have the support of the serfs before I try to show those regulators how important I am. Uh, I mean how important we are. Yeah, that's it.

[Michaeldsuarez]

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

I'm confident that Jimbo could be interviewed without having a Wikipedia strike. Since Congress doesn't make money from Wikipedia, the only goal of the strike is to gain media attention. Unfortunately for Wales' desire to appear as a revolutionary leader of freedom, I don't believe that a strike would be necessary to gain that media attention. Why couldn't he just go speak to the media outlets about it?

[lilburne]

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.

How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.

It might come down to how the agencies involved define "governance" of a website. If they decide it's actually the "community", there's certainly a large and influential contingent who take a radical view of "knowledge wanting to be free".

I suspect that the law won't be looking into their souls, but at what they do, and how the WMF reacts to it.

[Ottava]

I can tell you this - a change.org petition wont influence anyone.

And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence.

[Peter Damian]

Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on.

Why is this here? What relevance does it have? Can I start a RfC on *my* user talk page over shutting down Wikipedia for a few days over some pet cause of mine and if there's a couple of "support" votes, we gonna shut down? This is not the venue for this kind of discussion and even less of a venue for what has turned into a voting poll (to put it charitably). So stop freakin' voting. I know you really want to show Jimbo how much you love him but this whole endeavor goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and no matter how many people write an empty "support" on it, there's not going to be a strike.

At the end of the day, we've been told over and over again that policies such as NPOV are fundamental - and this proposal goes right against that. Also, Jimbo has always made a pretense of being "just another editor" (and for the most part has stuck to that, until now). This means that Jimbo has no more right to start this kind of a "poll" on his user talk page than I do. Now, giving Jimbo a charitable interpretation of the events it looks like he posted a comment on his talk page, which he hoped would get taken to another venue (this is AGFing the fuck out of the "Please help me publicize this widely" comment). But a whole bunch of people who think that agreeing with Jimbo is a way to earn brownie points on Wikipedia turned this into a "Poll". That's not how Wikipedia works. You want a 'strike', propose it in an appropriate venue (village pump, ANI, separate RfC page etc.). Stop wasting time here. Go write an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 07:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It was posted on AN and RfC, and you're welcome to post about it anywhere else you think it should be publicized. As for me personally, I've disagreed (in some cases strenuously) with Jimbo on more than one occasion. I couldn't care less about earning "brownie points" with him. I agree with him in this case because I believe he is correct. I believe that is true of most, if not all, of those who have agreed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe but people are "voting" here. And yes, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the support votes are due to the simple fact that Jimbo is the one who proposed it. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. People who disagree with your particular position are out to earn brownie points with Jimbo? Argumentum ad Hominem much? Maybe you need to read WP:NPA. Ëœdanjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow yourself. What do you think is happening? Are you being daft or naive? There's absolutely no reason or justification in Wikipedia policies for this kind of proposal ... strike that, Wikipedia policies explicitly prohibit this kind of thing, if it was anyone else but Jimbo trying to pull this kind of a stunt they'd be banned for disruption. Assuming that these aren't naive <1000 edits newbies voting above... yeah, motives do come into question. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanna start an RfC on your talkpage? Go ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

At best this is a blatant grab for power, naively supported by folks who can't think beyond "Jimbo said it, it must be true" or "SOPA bad, so support" (SOPA might be bad, but two wrong don't make a right). At worst it's a perfect illustration of everything that can be wrong with Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much go away and ignore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you go away and ignore it. What kind of bullying bullshit is that? Obviously this is something that would have very widespread implications across Wikipedia, and affect lots of editors myself included. So, no, I don't think I'm going to ignore it. That's a very nasty thing to say to somebody. Typical though I guess. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Typical? You're the one attacking people and ranting when all this is is a poll because Jimbo wants to know what people think. You told him what you think and he'll read it. Other than that, it will not have implications. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Go away Seb, you're not welcome here and you're embarrassing yourself. More seriously, I just got to ask. If "it will not have implications" what is the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Obviously the reason people are voting here is because they believe - rightly or apparently wrongly - that it WILL have implications. Right? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No. At least I didn't. If they do believe that, they got it wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So apparently there's just an excessive amount of internet ether out there and you're just doing your part in preventing it from reaching some kind of critical mass and blowing up the internets as we know it by wasting bandwith with "comments that have no implications". Kudos. For me, as disagreeable as some of my comments might seem to some, I *do* post them with the hope that they do carry some implications. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[Eppur si muove]

I know that a bit of bellowing and chest-thumping appeals to Jimbo and his ilk more than actually addressing the problem that apparently makes Wikipedia vulnerable to this legislation but Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations has a backlog of cases stretching back nearly two and a half years. I can't help feeling that the Foundation's appeals on this matter would have a better chance of convincing legislators if they could demonstrate a bigger commitment to tackling this problem.

[SB_Johnny]

And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence.

Actually, Jimbo implies that they already have paid lobbyists, which I wasn't aware of. Is that a new development?

[TungstenCarbide]

And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence

Actually, Jimbo implies that they already have paid lobbyists, which I wasn't aware of. Is that a new development?

that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Ottava]

that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.

Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Emperor]

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

It's better it happens now though, before people give up entirely on creating original content and forget how to do it.

[Peter Damian]

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

It's better it happens now though, before people give up entirely on creating original content and forget how to do it.

Love that.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: