User talk:SnoFox/Archives/2011/December
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SnoFox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
On SOPA
I'd like help understanding why you think taking a position on SOPA endangers the project's neutrality while our other infrastructural positions like verifiability, NPOV, and free content licensing do not. None of those are universally held views— and, in fact, NPOV has caused us to be called sacrilegious by some— but they're intrinsic to what we are. I don't understand how speaking up about a law which could endanger these core principles (by silencing our sources, by making us weigh presenting the truth against the risk of getting shut down, and by the public pressuring us to host questionably free things because all the no-questions-asked hosts are gone, respectively) is a violation of neutrality. Can you help me understand how you see it? --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that many who don't truly understand what Wikipedia is will simply see or hear what the news can (mis)inform them about us and our intentions. By removing our content and replacing it with a political agenda of sorts (combating SOPA) we will be taking a point of view on SOPA. While I personally understand this has nothing to do with the five pillars that I was lead to believe Wikipedia lives by, listeners from the general public may find it hypocritical of us to advocate neutrality yet push an anti-SOPA campaign in such a public manner. I sincerely hope SOPA and PIPA does not pass; however, I do not think a site notice or blanking strike is the correct way to go about this. -- SnoFox(t|c) 05:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If something like this is done, perhaps there is a way to present it which makes the connection to Wikipedia's mission maximally clear to the readers? I don't personally see the conflict, thought I understand what you're saying and don't disbelieve that others would see it, so I'm not able to see how we could minimize the harm (assuming we were to do something). --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps if a blanking strike were to occur, the resulting message would have to make our mission and intentions crystal clear within about a tweet's length. Sadly that seems to be anyone's attention span anymore. Even then, I'm not sure if it would work. Personally, I was all for the "fun" of a strike but after weighing it out for an hour or two, I felt strongly the opposite. This, if ever done, should be a last resort -- right before Mr. Obama signs it (if it gets that far). Unfortunately, I cannot provide an alternative option to solve the problem. This is indeed a great idea to provide mass awareness about the dangers of SOPA, I just am also not quite sure it is Wikipedia's job. -- SnoFox(t|c) 05:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If something like this is done, perhaps there is a way to present it which makes the connection to Wikipedia's mission maximally clear to the readers? I don't personally see the conflict, thought I understand what you're saying and don't disbelieve that others would see it, so I'm not able to see how we could minimize the harm (assuming we were to do something). --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)