[...] the blackout, Wikipedia is also abandoning one of its core principles. As Paul Carr [...]

[...] Carr at PandoDaily asserts that Wikipedia’s SOPA blackout is a terrible idea.  # Carr bases his argument, as [...]

[...] published over at Galavant: Paul Carr at PandoDaily asserts that Wikipedia’s SOPA blackout is a terrible [...]

[...] with congress, we still get SOPA. If we close down our businesses in protest, it may help. But it definitely hurts companies and consumers. If we turn the power of social media on congress, we get the end of [...]

[...] feel that a blackout it a good way to tackle the unpopular legislation. As PandoDaily’s Paul Carr writes, Arguing that a one-day closure reminds everyone of the importance of net freedom is like burning [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

[...] the blackouts to be “foolish,” as Twitter’s chief executive Dick Costolo wrote. Although Paul Carr on Pandodaily’s site agreed with Costolo’s statement, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madigral pointed out that the actions [...]

This post misses the point entirely. First wikipedia did not shut down globally, only its English site. But, more importantly, wikipedia itself is threatened by sopa/pipa--this is activism for self preservation. Neutrality in such a case would be stupid.

I agree that single-issue politics is a scourge, but I don't agree that this is the primary reason not to shut down Twitter. In the ways that people have come to rely upon it, shutting down Twitter for a day could be downright dangerous, so I wouldn't suspect Costello to engage in such a protest. Loss of Wikipedia for a day could be characterized at most as an inconvenience. I also do not agree that this is a "foolish" response to an American law. The reprecussions of SOPA would, just as the internet does, extend far beyond U.S. shores. Your opinion on this sounds incredibly short-sighted. The fact that this is being debated in the halls of Congress does not make this it political for Wikipedia. The funding issue is irrelevant. It's like saying if I buy stock in a company, it should never close plants or lay off workers. A company does what will ensure its survival. For Wikipedia, this is a survival issue, and for it to NOT weigh in would be irresponsible.

To paraphrase a line from David Foster Wallace, this article's central argument is so foolish it practically drools. "The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance. Human rights abuses in Libya? Not as important as SOPA. Roe v Wade? Not as important as SOPA. Everything else that’s happened in the world until now, and everything that will ever happen from this day forward? Not as important as SOPA." The argument that Wikipedia taking a stance on open internet/net neutrality/copyright (however you want to look at the issue) means that it is taking a stance on every other issue is a logical fallacy (the slippery slope). It's a ludicrous argument to make that by opposing SOPA, Wikipedia must now support or oppose (insert issue here). To use a much less important example: I donate money to Radiolab. This does not mean I wish for Car Talk to go off the air (I'm a sucker for the end when they do the name thing). But by your logic, I am saying not only is Car Talk not important, but everything in the world (past, present, and future) that I haven't given money to is not as important as Radiolab. That's a lot of conclusions to draw off one action. And your burning down a church example doesn't hold much water either: "Arguing that a one-day closure reminds everyone of the importance of net freedom is like burning down one church to underscore the importance of the First Amendment for all of the others." Wikipedia is not "burning down" their website, i.e. destroying it. They are turning off the lights for a day. A better analogy would have been that the church closed its doors for 24 hours. Of course that doesn't sound quite as forceful in terms of bolstering your weak argument. And it's a bit of a straw man as nobody is arguing that we should destroy a church to protect the First Amendment.

First: Wikipedia isn't a business. Wikimedia Foundation is a registered non-profit. Second: You mistake wikipedia.org for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is available today on hundreds of different sites -- answers.com is probably the most usable. wikipedia.org is unavailable, but it will be back.

are you kidding? SOPA and PIPA are exactly against what wikipedia stands for and they threaten it directly! you should not stay neutral on something that affects you in such a terrible way!

eediot

"Whatever your stance on SOPA, closing down a global business to protest an American law is foolish. " How can you make an argument of the internet based on insularity, overlooking their global repercussions? Unless off course, you live in China. It affects us all one way or another.

[...] mouth about some of the protests, to the point of agreeing with Paul Carr when he says that it’s silly of Wikipedia to go dark to protest about local US legislation. The reason is simple: SOPA is far from the first legislation implementing DNS-blocking globally [...]

Decrying this protest as a loss of neutrality and invoking a slippery slope argument sounds like a hard-nosed, enlightened view at first, but it doesn't hold up on further scrutiny. "[T]o shutter Wikipedia — a crowd-funded international encyclopedia — in protest of a single national issue is even worse." Referring to SOPA/PIPA as merely a "national" issue is glib or ill-informed. A disproportionate amount of Internet infrastructure is located in the United States and thus our laws have disproportionate impact on the Internet. It is not just websites in the United States that would be affected and, even if it were, this protest is limited to English Wikipedia and (I believe) only visitors from the United States. "The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance. Human rights abuses in Libya? Not as important as SOPA. Roe v Wade? Not as important as SOPA. Everything else that’s happened in the world until now, and everything that will ever happen from this day forward? Not as important as SOPA." Apples and oranges. This is not arbitrary issue advocacy; it is a protest against an existential threat to Wikipedia itself.

[...] when he said blacking out a global business to protest a U.S. law is “foolish,” and that Wikipedia was making a grave mistake by taking such a position, especially since the site just spent months trying to raise money from users to pay its bills: [...]

you can STILL access wikipedia by simply disabling javascript and searching as usual. The SOPA protest page is loaded by JS.

[...] the great Wikipedia blackout has begun. The front page of the English language edition of the encyclopedia now displays a notice [...]

[...] Some have said the protest is a terrible idea, dragging up the neutrality argument as evidence. I don’t. Anything that stifles our ability to openly express opinion or which, more insidiously, seeks to bury important facts, is an abomination. Whether Wikipedia is taking the right action is open to debate but at least give them kudos for drawing attention to this important topic. [...]

I haven't thoroughly investigated the topic, but my shallow understanding of it brings me to this main concern: If any government can have that sort of power (to essentially disable any site without due process), then we're in big trouble. If/when the people protest and the government attempts to silence them by turning off communication through some channel (twiitter, wikipedia, general internet accesss), we're all appalled at that, right (Mubarak on 01/27/2011)? Considering Wikipedia is all about communication and collaboration of knowledge, they should absolutely be obligated to protest it and let the entire world know what is potentially coming. There has been far too much legislation across the world lately which signals that Governments everywhere are terrified of the power the internet gives to the people. Couple of quick points to follow up on the above: 1. I hope no one is serious when they say this is just an issue in the US. 2. If you can't live without Wikipedia for a day to ensure you will be able to use it in the future and to help ensure you have the right to communicate freely even if your government doesn't want you to, then I severely over-estimate people. 3. The "political stance" argument is very week. They have always had a political stance on the topic of the open web and freedom of speech - that is why they remain "neutral". SOPA would do is force them into not being neutral anymore. 4. The ability for people across the world to communicate at the speeds they can today may be the number one thing to uphold in this world. Yes, we should be better about helping each other with the far worse things in this world. But if we can't share knowledge and communicate freely (no matter what the current government thinks), then we might as well forget about making any progress in this world. 5. The point of a blackout is to raise awareness for the "non-techs" out there who don't know or don't [yet] care. I've probably not said it very eloquently, but my main point is this: no one anywhere should be willing to hand a government this sort of unchecked power and I'm glad that someone is bringing it to the front of everyone's minds.

I disagree with you Paul, I wonder how will he react when this "Global Business" of his is shut down, because the bill had passed and some randome Tweet was considered as piracy.

[...] According to Paul Carr of Pandodaily (the new blog setup by some TechCrunch refugees), Wikipedia sho... His main reasons ares that: [...]

SOPA has international ramifications, do plainly call it a national issue is naive at best and down right irresponsible at its worst, and Dick C probably would not be running twitter if this law was in place before twitter launched....Its Dick C's right to choose what he wants to do with twitter but calling out the manner in which some companies are choosing to show support for SOPA is not doing anyone a favor. And many folks who use these services like wikipedia and twitter have no idea what SOPA and PIPA are, what better way to send a message to washington, when millions of constituents want to know why their favorite sites are down.

"The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance." Is Twitter's calling Wikipedia "silly" taking a "political stance"?

Nice slippery slope argument, Paul; yes, if we protest SOPA (something that directly threatens the Internet), then we are hypocritical fools for not protesting other atrocities that do not threaten the Internet. And I really love the normative force you "added" to your view by suggesting that it is "selfish" for a private company to determine how to best protest (what it takes to be) ineffective, anti-democratic legislation. Lovely.

It never occurred to me that wikipedia was a business. What exactly is their business model?

Wrong wrong wrong. This legislation would affect Wikipedia directly. No organization can be indifferent ("neutral") to its own survival. So, it makes no sense to compare this to Roe v. Wade or any other random piece of legislation, because those issues don't directly affect the organization. You say Wikipedia owes it to the world to stay live, well, that's exactly what they're trying to do, by promoting a free and open internet they prevent the government or any other media organization from shutting them down. It also makes no sense to compare this to burning down a church. Protests and boycotts have been effective tools in the history of our country and the world. Read a history book. A boycott is not the destruction of something, but rather the withholding of something - there is a difference. Besides, Wales didn't decide this, the Wikipedia community did. Everyone was given the chance to vote and comment on the blackout decision, so it makes no sense to demonize the WMF, when it was the people's decision.

Richard, turn off Fox and take your head out of your mom's bosom for a moment. Go read a little bit on this topic, sit out on your back porch and contemplate the impact a piece of legislation like this would have. douchebag.

Is this what you call "real journalism"? Spreading one false idea from one site to another? If you would've bothered to do any research, Dick Costolo was only referring to Twitter itself doing that, NOT to Wikipedia. Here's the proof: http://i.imgur.com/TwUC5.png

"The trouble with taking a political stance on one issue is that your silence on every issue becomes a stance" More pressingly, not taking a stance on an issue important to your organisation becomes a stance.

Bullshit. This is a global issue and needs immediate attention. Once the act is passed, even before we have a say, half the internet wiped by the US. From the SOPA Act - "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction" so it's not just all about the US. Moreover it holds mediums like Wikipedia responsible for the content by the users. A 24 hr blackout will drive some immediate attention to the topic which is the need of the hour. Bam.

Besides anyone nuts enough to come out in public like this deserves to be called a joke.. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01018/wiki_1018009b.jpg

Oh and calling Wikipedia a 'global business' is a joke. Business assumes the creation (or not ) of wealth. You know like Twitter... oh wait.

The blackout is just a waste of time. No one really is going to notice. So I go to Wikipedia to look up something on Wednesday, the site is down. Big deal, ill just look it up somewhere else. And maybe come back to Wikipedia tomorrow. It's not as if my wind pipe has been blocked or anything. It's not that important. This is like that group of folks that want us to change our Twitter avatars to some anti SOPA logo. What a load of nonsense. If the world of revolutions has come to the point that people think that changing ones Twitter avatar is something that will make a difference then I am really disappointed in peoples' real will to revolt. Re the SOPA issue, face it, look it really does not matter, no one really *cares*. For me it's not gonna affect the sites I go to on a daily basis. I simply do not care and if you could poll the population of the internet they would either (a) not care one bit or (b) what's SOPA? This discussion like so many things tech is a topic for a relatively small number of nerds mostly based in the valley. Just get over it.

You do not donate money to buy a product. You donate money to help fulfil a mission. Wikipedians, especially contributors and donors, are not there just to buy access to an encyclopaedia, they are there to promote a freely evolving compendium of structured human knowledge. Anyone who just wants an encyclopaedia 24/365, with no further strings attached, can go buy Britannica. You are also right to pick up on neutrality, but you end up doing it in the wrong way. Absolute neutrality is impossible – a proponent of neutrality has to be non-neutral both on the importance of neutrality, and on his or her own existence. When it comes to neutrality for Wikipedia, it is actually grounded in the principle of openness (the equilibrium for a freely-modifiable position approaches the current understanding of the neutral position at the limit), which is Wikipedia's organising principle (i.e. the thing it cannot be neutral about while continuing to exist). As a result, it must take a position on all of the issues (and only those issues) that undermine its organising principle.

[...] the blackout, Wikipedia is also abandoning one of its core principles. As Paul Carr [...]

I disagree, but an excellently argued piece. Great writing.

They are only closing the US Wikipedia, therefore fighting a national issue with a national protest, not a global protest. The first part of your argument is redundant however I do agree with the second point about the fact wikipedia should stay neutral and apolitical.

Not sure I agree wit you here, Paul. Although to be honest I haven't firmly settled on a position. But, gun to head I would suggest that Wikipedia shutting down for the day can be construed as an act of safeguarding balance and neutrality, not simply taking an arbitrary stance against it like you suggest. Your analogy to me, whilst pejorative, comes across as petty. Jimmy is safeguarding the freedom and balance of the internet by taking this stance and whilst it shows his company to be partisan protecting the non-partisanship of the internet is something worth protecting. Guidelines and policy are their to direct not dictate in situations. They are amorphous and maleable and it is important to view them as such. They are not supposed to become rigid structures of immense stature that hinder progress, both internal and external to an organisation.

How can you consider a law that controls what can be on the internet to be just of national impact? Dick is wrong. And you are, too, paul. Unfortunately.

what a laughable piece of trite bullshit. Hey buddy, I bought a pepsi -- I expect pepsi to support my political views. What sucker and another corporate nitwit.