- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Today, Wikipedia has blocked out English-language pages from appearing.
Instead, you are redirected to a page protesting the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) legislation currently being considered.
This redirection is scheduled to remain in place until midnight tonight.
Although the content is now privately owned, and they are legally 100% within their rights to block access for whatever purpose they want, this action (IMO) contravenes the spirit in which the site was created and maintained by million of people.
Once again, JMO. Feel free to disagree.
I’m not sure why, but my Wiki works.
are you on a netbook? do you have scripts disabled?
Its wiki mobile version that works.
The wikipedia editors and community voted on it and decided to block the site today. That’s good enough.
go to google
the multicolored “Google” on top has a big black box blocking it.
if you click on it you are directed to a page to sign a petition to block the sopa legislation
these two efforts (google and wiki) are powerful
i wonder if they will be called into use again in the future re other issues or supporting or censuring candidates.
could completely change politics as we know it
I heard yutorah.org is going black-hat today to protest SOPA
You are not really beating the boycott, they tell you exactly how to get around it if you want.
ICOT – You can add to your list, wiki mobile.
or press [esc] while the page is loading like when it shows you the page, but before it goes to the blackout page
i thought it was a very powerful statement on the part of the global internet. i say global internet because SOPA would not just affect US citizens, it would affect every internet user in the world. and its not advocacy, or political activism on the part of these websites. theyre entitled to protest SOPA because SOPA stands a very good chance of closing some of these sites down.
ICOT-That vote was taken by a few hundred voters out of the million plus contributors to the site. Several voters disagreed quite strongly.
First of all it was 1,800 voters, more than the few hundred that you mention. Second, anybody who really cared about it could have joined in the vote. The overwhelming majority were either supporting or strongly supporting the vote. I’m sure that many people saw the vast amount of supporters and got too lazy (try scrolling down the page) to support something so obviously (in their mind) right. So what if a couple of people disagree. That’s what discussions are about. And as wikipedia notes, it had by far the largest participation of a community discussion ever. And about the money that people donate-they donate it so that wikipedia can democratically run itself as it has since the beginning. If they wanted to complain, they could have done so easily enough.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.”
Therefore, I think that if someone is legislatively trying to get rid of half the attractions AND double your expenses of maintaing the playground, I feel you would be making a big mistake for not trying to get as much exposure as possible of the negativity of the legislation.
All in all, I respect your second post. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.