Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day/Archive 2

Backup plan

If the main page can't be changed, can we create a separate page for our content instead? -A1candidate (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Where? Beware WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bencherlite^Talk 16:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• As I suggested in the "What you can do" section, you can update Portal:Intelligence or create a new Portal:The Day We Fight Back. The WP page for this starts with a quote about how "A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media", but somewhere people seem to be forgetting this. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• A portal makes a lot of sense. A surveillance portal is thematically appropriate. You can even design a portal that shares layout style and section-types with the main page; so that if there is consensus to use that as the Main Page at some point it can be swapped in with minimal effort. – SJ + 02:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard work

Thank you all for your dedication to this project. I understand that some of the existing Wikipedia processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project. I recommend working within existing processes, rather than requesting exceptions. For instance, we should find a suitable featured article and nicely ask that it be featured. We should not ask the FA director to suspend the usual rules. Likewise, for DYK, we should have a list of articles that could be created or expanded, do the work within the 5 day period and submit them. If we are going to ask any special favors, they would be to coordinate the timing of appearances, nothing more. I hope this advice helps to reduce frictions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this advice by Jehochman. Good thoughts. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"some of the existing Wikipedia processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project" because they are resistant to using Wikipedia as a political vehicle! May I suggest finding your own website for engaging in activism ("Libertarianopedia?") instead of hijacking this one?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I hear someone talking about hijacking a page, it makes me suspect that they think they are the pilot. See WP:OWNERSHIP. My philosophy is to find out what the consensus is and follow it, whether I agree or not. We went though this "using Wikipedia as a political vehicle" argument with SOPA. The consensus is that we should use Wikipedia as a political vehicle if the issue is a threat to Wikipedia. Sopa was a threat, and so is this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to correct your "suspicions" by advising you that I consider myself a concerned passenger. Ironically, given that the political stance taken is supposed to be anti-authoritarianism, that consensus re SOPA was very heavily influenced by an appeal to authority argument, namely, that the Wikimedia Foundation says Wikipedia is threatened, therefore it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but can we prove it? Can we point to one person, even in China or Russia, who has been taken down the police station and beaten because he looked at our article on methamphetamine or Falun Gong or gay rights? How do we show the surveillance really is affecting Wikipedia? That's what we ought to feature. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is File:KS8-001.jpg, one of the NSA documents leaked by Snowden (top secret FWIW). It shows the Wikipedia logo alongside those of a few other Web sites. The slide tells us the NSA is "interested in" readers/editors of Wikipedia. It strongly implies that traffic to and from Wikipedia is being intercepted. If that's what's going on, the privacy of people's activities here is being compromised. The privacy policy is silent on the matter of third parties "listening in" but it's worth bringing to people's attention, even if just for a day or so. —rybec 02:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A slide containing logos of popular websites, used to illustrate the things that "a typical user does on the Internet"? That's the big evidence?

Can you cite reliable sources stating that this "tells us the NSA is 'interested in' readers/editors of Wikipedia" and "strongly implies that traffic to and from Wikipedia is being intercepted", or is this original research? —David Levy 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the image's description has a link to the article in which it appeared. I've made a mock-up main page that includes the slide; it's at Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Arbitrary_Mockup_3. —rybec 04:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where Wikipedia (or even the word "wiki") is mentioned in the article. —David Levy 08:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would provide something better than that leaked powerpoint picture ... I'll start a new section below. Wnt (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the Wikimedia Foundation received legal advice (from attorneys) that SOPA and PIPA directly threatened Wikipedia's ability to operate. What comparable evidence of a threat to Wikipedia exists in this instance?

Secondly, while both are forms of political advocacy, a material distinction exists between an indiscriminate blackout (which insulates the actual encyclopedic content from the protest) and the selective compilation and presentation of relevant articles (which accomplishes the opposite). —David Levy 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have a point there -- nonetheless there are things like WP:WikiProject Square Enix, a project dedicated to one particular company that gets one of its video games featured as TFA, like clockwork, every six months since the early 2000s. There was also a flap about a Gibraltar project that did the same. We want to be pure, but we don't have to be any purer than Wikipedia itself. If you want to propose a general reform that rules out Square Enix releases on the Main Page I'll definitely give it consideration. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to political advocacy.

An editor or group of editors is welcome to focus on a particular subject area (be it Square Enix video games, mass surveillance, or anything else). No matter how often we showcase the fruits of their labor on the main page, we don't handpick content as a means of informing the world that Wikipedia supports a related cause. That's what's been proposed.

The Gibraltarpedia controversy stemmed from allegations that Roger Bamkin (a Wikipedia editor and Wikimedia UK trustee) accepted consultancy fees from Gibraltar's government in exchange for using Wikipedia (including the DYK section) to promote the territory. I regard "surveillance awareness day" as a greater conflict of interest. In the case of Gibraltarpedia, the worst-case scenario is that someone got paid to ensure that content otherwise meeting Wikipedia's normal standards appeared (with questionable benefit to Gibraltar's tourism drive). In this case, we have a concerted effort to use Wikipedia's main page (and the encyclopedic material contained therein) as part of an organized protest. —David Levy 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd. Wikipedia has not concealed its strong disapproval for paid editing. But there's absolutely nothing that has ever prohibited anyone from starting an article about a law, politician, social phenomenon or event that they either like and want people to know about, or dislike and want to warn people about, so long as they do it according to the basic principle of providing neutral encyclopedic coverage. The real lesson from the Gibraltar story is that even after the first complaints, they still had the right to run DYKs day after day, week after week, because they have the same access to the process as anybody else. Wnt (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd. Wikipedia has not concealed its strong disapproval for paid editing. But there's absolutely nothing that has ever prohibited anyone from starting an article about a law, politician, social phenomenon or event that they either like and want people to know about, or dislike and want to warn people about, so long as they do it according to the basic principle of providing neutral encyclopedic coverage.

You appear to have misread my reply, in which I stated that "an editor or group of editors is welcome to focus on a particular subject area (be it Square Enix video games, mass surveillance, or anything else)." —David Levy 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

SOPA was a bill before Congress. The online surveillance we are currently discussing involves secret courts, secret interpretations of laws, secret police and presumption of guilt based on expression and association. It is hard for a lawyer to advise a client on secret interpretations of laws. Further, direct targeting of Wikipedia is largely nonsensical given the methodology of online surveillance (portions of which involve installation of mirrored routes from first tier telco providers to government storage facilities). In other words, the government "watching Wikipedia" is less technically correct than the government, for example, "watching every TCP/IP packet that touches a Verizon router" (the traffic of which involves Wikipedia-related posts, authentications, editor emails, etc). The issue at hand is that civilian surveillance of this magnitude is fundamentally antithetical to the Wikipedia project and online society, which is a society that relies on individuals from all over the world believing that it is safe and worth while to engage in public discourse over topics of social and cultural import. Constant, indiscriminate surveillance alters the calculus with which Wikipedia users rely on to justify their work. If our users fear getting online and writing an unpopular truth because they are being watched, Wikipedia is in jeopardy. That is the situation as it exists today. Jaydubya93 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that objections to the proposal stem from disagreement with the views inspiring it. That isn't so. The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. No matter how strongly we support or object to something, we don't modify encyclopedic content for the purpose of advocacy. Even in the case of the 2012 blackout, the encyclopedia was suppressed, not altered.

When it comes to the pursuit of "a society [in which] individuals from all over the world [believe] that it is safe and worthwhile to engage in public discourse over topics of social and cultural import", far greater obstacles exist. There are countries in which brutal oppression is far from secret, but we don't use the main page to protest the regimes responsible. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose. —David Levy 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, this is at its genesis your idea, we've mostly been brainstorming what your idea might look like. I've been operating under the assumption that Feb 11 would be an Ignore All Rules day after presenting such a proposal to the entire community. Now that you've clarified, you should probably do a rewrite of the proposal lede, perhaps do a title change. Then you or someone else needs to take the lead on the proposal process. I'm still happy to help, but I'm definitely not the person who could interface with the main page community-- I didn't know any of their rules before this proposal, I still don't know most of them, I've never planned for their rules to apply, and I've said as much. Any involvement I have going forward will probably bias them against the proposed content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing about POV is that there are a few illegitimate ways of advancing it, such as biasing articles and posting lengthy diatribes to their Talk pages. But there are also many legitimate ways to express it, like contributing image uploads from a demonstration, nominating an article, photo, or other media to feature, working on the article to make it featureable quality, starting an article about a notable topic and requesting a DYK, creating a WikiProject, creating a Portal, creating relevant See Also and infobox links to direct viewers between related topics, and creating/putting userboxes on your user page. Wikipedia reconciles the need to allow people to inform others about what they think is important with the need to develop neutral and comprehensive articles that present all sides of the story. Trust me, you're not sunk. The point of a demonstration is to demonstrate something. Demonstrating that you can throw away the rules of the encyclopedia to re-feature an article about Gerald Ford isn't proving much useful at all. Demonstrating that you can get together a group of people and write quality reviews of a dozen or more articles from scratch, in a few weeks, for the whole world to be able to consult for many years afterward, would be impressive. That's honestly how I see it. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I thought I should have chosen a different word than "hijack". Is "replace" all right? —rybec 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Editconflict, (to WNT) Well, we certainly have time to get a dozen articles created for DYK-- but who is going to decide whether it's okay to include them on Feb 11? My thinking had previously gone (1) We need to consult the whole community for a change like this, and (2) If the whole community is consulted, they are not bound by Mainpage rules. If we don't present to the whole community, who decides it's okay to schedule them on Feb 11? A half-dozen mainpage insiders? I don't know how cool I would be with them making such a change of such magnitude. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the end of T:TDYK. There's a "special occasion holding area" for DYKs that are accepted. It's not new policy, so there shouldn't be any great trouble with it. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but has "special occasion" ever been used in this way before? This isn't like the olympics, this is timed to coincide with an online protest. As I told the guy who owns TFA yesterday-- I don't think they have the authority to do a change like this on their own. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Olympics, The Day We Fight Back, what's the difference? It's two groups ostensibly in the public interest, ours a whole lot more than theirs. Sure, the Olympics has more money, but that shouldn't be a policy distinction. Besides, even if they did try to deny you the special occasion status granted to others, that would only generate support and sympathy, so you win either way. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'd count that as a "win", I worry I'd count that as them correctly recognizing the limitations of status quo consensus for main page content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't recognize a material distinction between timing main page items to coincide with a popular event and timing main page items to coincide with an organized protest, for the express purpose of supporting political advocacy?

The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal: Treat this like a "special occasion". Numerous examples of DYK "special occasions" were cited, with zero serving such a purpose. —David Levy 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment

So, I don't know how to proceed, and I have updated the page to reflect this. In light of the excellent feedback above, the current page is no longer a proposal in my eyes, merely a draft of one.

I'm going to step away for a day or two, and see if anyone else wants to propose something under this name. If someone else steps up to fill the vacuum, it's their proposal. If no one does, we can mark this as a historic and call it a day, knowing we've enjoyed a fun session of learning and brainstorming. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Endgame Timeline

Closed by proposer: No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a proposal for what we will do on February 7-11 only. Separate sections for "should we do this" and "details of what we should do" Because of time pressure, I suggest that we separate the discussion. In one section we will discuss whether we want to implement this proposal (arguments, straw polls, evidence of need or lack thereof, etc). No discussing of the details of what we are going to do in this section. In another section, we will discuss the details of what we want to do as if we had 100% consensus to go ahead. No discussing of whether we should do anything at all in this section. During this time we will also also decide on exactly who will evaluate the RfC to come and exactly who will do the final work and publish it. All proposals done by 23:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC) All proposals done by 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) At this precise time, we freeze the proposal, collapse the "what we want to do" talk section and within minutes post a 7-day RfC. Normally an RfC gets at least 30 days, so prepublicizing will be important. The "should we do this" section stays active. Final decision at 23:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) At this precise time, the RfC closes and, (if there is a consensus) the actual work of creating the page begins. Go live at 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC) During this time we can discuss the reaction in the press, what other websites are doing, etc. Shut down at 00:01 12 February 2014 (UTC) At this point we will open a "lessons learned" discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC) No. Three days for the RfC is way too short. There has been and still is enough time for this to allow at the very least a week. Of course, since this proposed day is not "the day we fight back" in disguise but something that simply happens to use the same day (right?), there is no good reason why this can't be held on a later date, with a full 30-day RfC first. Obviously, if this is out of the question and it has to happen on "the day we fight back", then don't pretend to fool anyone and rename the page and make the POV clear from the start. But in either case, a 3-day RfC is simply too short. Fram (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. I have changed the proposal to allow a 7-day RfC. I actually had a 7-day RfC in my first draft, but I thought 12 days was too short to finish the work. This doesn't address your other objections though. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC) No, but I appreciate the change. Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC) At what time shall the individual entries, for instance DYK nominations, be reviewed by independent reviewers for overall quality; including that they conform to neutrality, proper sourcing etc ? Experience shows that there are relatively often some (often minor) issues with DYK nominations that takes a little time to sort out. There is special emphasis on neutrality and accuracy of the hook facts which needs careful evalutations by reviewers and promoters. Iselilja (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC) All of that has to happen prior to "All proposals done by 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)". I cannot define the schedule for anything prior to that because many of the previous steps can be done in parallel, and are dependent on how many workers we have and how fast they can work. So, what happens if an entry isn't finished quickly enough to allow a proper review by independent reviewers? It gets frozen in an unfinished state, and there is a good chance that the RfC will shoot it down. This is a standard project management task; starting from a known end date and working back until you cannot define how long the previous task(s) will take. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC) This timeline does not account for a period of time between when RFC commenting ends, to where RFC closers review/evaluate/draft close.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC) This is intentional. The RFC closers don't actually need to wait until the RfC closes to review/evaluate/draft the close. They can do that concurrently with the RfC, and when the RfC closes do a quick check to see if any last-minute comments require the closing statement to be changed. Also, the people doing the actual work of creating the page (23:59, 9 February to 23:59, 10 February) do not need a closing statement to start working. Usually. it is obvious whether an RfC is going to pass well before the closing, and even if it isn't, they can start working at 23:59, 9 February and discard the work if. a few hours later, they find that the RfC failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Strictly as a procedural matter I disagree that it's appropriate for closers to prejudge RFC's before their done. It weights early comments. It's natural that once people start to make up their minds views become entrenched.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC) That is a legitimate concern, but is it worth taking a day out of the time allocated to doing the actual work? Given the fact we can ask that there be three experienced closers starting 8 hours before the RfC close, combined with the fact that most RfCs of this type aren't even close, I think that the closers will be able to set aside any prejudice. If this is a sticking point we can schedule another group of experienced closers to review the results as soon as they are posted. Besides, we already have an early-commenter bias in the actual !voting because of the bandwagon effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Support Timeline as written. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Support the general idea and the initiative shown by Guy Macon. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Two days gone by and there are a whopping two support !votes and no oppose !votes. Unless there are a flury of votes in the next few hours I am going to close this proposal as "no consensus". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC) You will see, below, that Cirt has started the ball rolling / taken matters into his own hands / jumped the gun (whatever phrase one prefers, doesn't matter really) by going to WP:TFAR with a proposal for Today's Featured Article on 11th Feb. BencherliteTalk 01:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Yeah, it seemed thing were really moving too slowly here. Plus there is already established consensus before this whole proposal thingy to use the protocols already in place at WP:TFAR, so I went ahead and used those. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Support timeline for areas other than TFA. For TFA, please see ongoing discussion at WP:TFAR. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. When the above proposal was written and quickly revised, my initial inclination was to support it. But I decided to wait and see how the endeavor progressed in other areas (an indication of the expedited timeline's feasibility). The snail's pace has convinced me that accomplishing the necessary steps (on a satisfactory level) in such a short time frame is wildly unrealistic. —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I agree, and am closing this as having no consensus. For those reading this that still want to help, I suggest picking a related article and improving it. That's worth doing no matter how this turns out. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Intelligence, WikiProject Intelligence Agency

I've just started playing with Portal:Intelligence. To be honest, I never really played with portals much before, but I think I've made a good start. The other thing is that if people are still interested and we can get a half dozen or dozen people to join and restart WP:WikiProject Intelligence Agency, that would make a good base of operations. Opinions? Wnt (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Both great ideas! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The existential threat to Wikipedia

Of all the things that I can think of to justify concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance: ProjectPM. Barrett Brown, a journalist who dug into a number of secret government operations, is presently facing 15 years for linking to an archive of leaked documents from the 2012 Stratfor email leak, which turned out to include some credit card numbers. ProjectPM is a wiki, indeed, even a MediaWiki wiki. Now the issue is a bit muddied because Brown made a few over-the-top statements and there's at least the potential the government is going to come out and claim he had some more direct role. And of course, we know he was gone after because he had his own wiki and group of volunteers, published news articles - he had a higher 'profile' and was more 'at risk' than mundane wiki drones. Nonetheless, the situation as it stands is that there is a claim in that case that if you edit a wiki and you link to a site, that you are responsible for whether any document on the site might be something frowned on by authorities. That is not something any Wikipedian should accept. Wnt (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You acknowledge that the situation is "muddled" (and that Barrett Brown's role isn't entirely clear), but you cite his prosecution "to justify concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance" (by taking part in an organized protest against the actions of government agencies). Why? Because Brown used a MediaWiki wiki to propagate information, thereby making him one of us?

I'll take this a step further. Let's suppose that a Wikipedian were prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed in connection with edits to Wikipedia. In the presence of substantial doubt as to the charges' validity, it would be appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to issue a public statement on the matter and for other members of the community to engage in advocacy aimed at righting the perceived wrong. It would not, however, be appropriate for Wikipedia itself to engage in advocacy by modifying encyclopedic content (including Main Page) to side with the hypothetical editor, thereby violating the first two of the five pillars.

Legal prosecution, much of it arguably unjust, occurs every day. As an encyclopedia, we document notable controversies, but we don't take sides. WP:NPOV is nonnegotiable, even when a kindred spirit is involved. That's when we need to be especially diligent in our efforts to avoid bias. —David Levy 08:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to throw out NPOV. Nor am I saying that Wikipedia should unthinkingly hold the man up as a hero (whether he is or not). What I'm saying is that this particular charge against him, in this case, should be a matter of direct interest on which it may be appropriate for Wikipedia to comment as an organization. I recognize that the manner of this comment may not be to engage in gung-ho support for this protest; however, this protest is in response to the persecution of User:Aaronsw, another of our editors, for accessing too many articles from a university. How close do we let the government come to saying "We'll put you in jail forever for looking stuff up" and "We'll put you in jail forever for citing your sources" before we recognize that Wikipedia is indeed directly threatened? Wnt (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to throw out NPOV.

Agreed. You're only suggesting that we set aside the principle when this stands to benefit causes with which we agree or persons with whom we empathize.

What I'm saying is that this particular charge against him, in this case, should be a matter of direct interest on which it may be appropriate for Wikipedia to comment as an organization.

The Wikimedia Foundation can issue a statement. Wikipedia (when operational as an encyclopedia) explicitly and unambiguously isn't a platform for social/political commentary.

I recognize that the manner of this comment may not be to engage in gung-ho support for this protest;

You stated that you advocate "concerted action by Wikipedia to oppose surveillance".

however, this protest is in response to the persecution of User:Aaronsw, another of our editors,

And when a subject relates to Wikipedia, exceptional care is needed to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Conversely, you want us to actually engage in favoritism.

for accessing too many articles from a university.

I regard the situation as tragic and disgusting, but you know perfectly well that the above is a gross oversimplification.

How close do we let the government come to saying "We'll put you in jail forever for looking stuff up" and "We'll put you in jail forever for citing your sources" before we recognize that Wikipedia is indeed directly threatened?

Hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device, but not when it strays so far from reality that the resemblance thereto is lost. —David Levy 15:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between breaking Wikipedia's standards in favor of a particular protest, and using Wikipedia's standards to help oppose surveillance in general through better education. And there is a difference between POV-pushing to make an article show only your side of the story, and using POV as an inspiration to focus more enthusiasm on upgrading the encyclopedia. Wikipedia may be neutral, but it also documents only those things that some editor found important. In the process of directing the energy of something like "surveillance awareness day", we refine raw partisanship into academic interest, which is manifested by an understanding of the importance of actually knowing the subject matter, which flowers in the understanding that one cannot be an advocate for either side without having extensive knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of both, at which point one is ready to devise new and more effective ideas. To advance your POV, you must be neutral, not because that is Wikipedia policy, but because that is how dialectic operates. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Advocating protests is a feckless venture. Please stick to NPOV principles and leave this proposal behind.Patroit22 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no actual proposal here, only a brainstorming session. I have already opposed proposals here that would deny NPOV principles. What I will not do is accept that fans of WWE have the right to get together and produce articles (including TFAs like SummerSlam (2003)) that document their favored commercial product on the main page so people can buy it (which I have gotten no support at all in opposing) but that we as people interested in one of the most important issues of the day have no right to feature our content. I haven't been supporting special treatment here, just the same powers that companies and their minions make use of on Wikipedia every day. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@WNT with regards to the WWE analogy there is an interesting point there. Here's how I see it. I could be easily persuaded to support a single timed TFA choice to coincide with this protest. This is far different from 'Let's take over the main page with surveillance content' as an overt support of the protest. Some may see that as a fine line, but IMHO it's a huge difference.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem unable or unwilling to recognize the distinction between timing main page items to coincide with a popular event and timing main page items to coincide with an organized protest, for the express purpose of supporting political advocacy.

Of course, you needn't agree that said distinction should lead us to treat the two situations differently. But it should be clear to you that we do (hence the absence of protests among the numerous "special occasions" on which main page content has taken on a particular theme). —David Levy 17:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cube lurker, I agree that the original proposal to claim some sort of special consensus to take over the Main Page was ill-advised... and the mock-up really brought this home. I agree with your distinction. On the other hand, I am positive that it is a bad idea to distinguish between "popular" events and "political" events, because there really is no difference between the two. Even something as neutral as Christmas or Halloween carries a veritable freight train of ideological baggage (for example, supporting Christianity, but not the kind of Christianity that frowns on materialism and the occasional pagan influence). If we're not going to have a strict standard for Main Page content such as DYKs to be unaffiliatable (for example, by ruling out all coordination with scheduled events or purchasable products) then it should be left to individual editor choice as to what to edit, try to feature, and hold for a particular day. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am positive that it is a bad idea to distinguish between "popular" events and "political" events, because there really is no difference between the two.

I'm not distinguishing between "popular" events and "political" events, which aren't mutually exclusive. We have synchronized main page content with political events (namely elections). But we haven't synchronized main page content with political events for the purpose of influencing their outcomes (e.g. to help a protest succeed). That's the distinction. —David Levy 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We all have personal feelings about many events, and reconciling those with Wikipedia activities is a basic part of contributing here. In this event, there are two ways of pursuing integration with the external event. One is to make a strong statement that Wikipedia supports their cause, which may be justified by circumstances I've described, provided that it is made very, very carefully and narrowly to address existential threats to Wikipedia's operation. The other is for Wikipedia, knowing that an event is going on, to provide information of interest to people who are involved in it. That's what we hope to do regarding the Olympics or any other event. It's the difference between Wikipedia pushing people and being pulled by people and engaging with their needs, where the latter is acceptable and even desirable. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The above is based upon the incorrect premise that any event automatically is eligible to trigger a "special occasion" on Wikipedia's main page, which simply isn't so. It also is based upon the disingenuous premise that the motive behind the proposal is merely to provide information of interest to readers, without endorsing a particular viewpoint. You know perfectly well that the intent is (and always has been) to promote "The Day We Fight Back". —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles.

Clearly, no one here advocates that Wikipedia's articles be written from a non-neutral point of view. I don't assert otherwise, so there's no need to belabor the point.

As I stated in the Hard work section, an editor or group of editors (including one organized and encouraged via a WikiProject or similar) is welcome to focus on a particular subject area, such as mass surveillance. This results in certain topics appearing on the main page more frequently than others do. But we don't handpick main page content as a means of informing the world that Wikipedia supports a related cause. That's when the first two of the five pillars go out the window. —David Levy 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "We seem to be going in circles", my proposed "Endgame Timeline" above allows us to do two things in parallel. In one section we can "go in circles" (some editors trying to shoot down the idea while others try to defend it) while in another section we can do the actual work that will be required if it isn't shot down. This would be followed by an RfC to determin whether the "shoot it down" or "do it" camps have consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of how the discussion is structured, we should strive to stop going in circles (which appears indicative of a communication breakdown). —David Levy 18:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should indeed strive to stop going in circles. Alas, I cannot think of any controversial RfC with a lot of !votes where we have succeeded in doing that, so we also have to figure out how to do the actual work without every second comment being from someone who has no interest in figuring out what to do because they are against the basic idea. We certainly don't want to suppress those comments -- those editors need to be given every opportunity to convince enough people so that the plan gets killed at the RfC -- but we need to give those who support the basic idea a place to get some work done. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"...give those who support the basic idea a place to get some work done". Thank you for saying this, Guy. How can we make this happen? petrarchan47tc 21:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if my Endgame Timeline Proposal above passed, that would do it, but not a single person -- including you -- has supported it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I thoroughly support it. petrarchan47tc 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that while Aaron Swartz may well have gone on to do other things with the downloaded data, the U.S., for peculiar historical reasons, does not actually have laws against future crimes a person might one day commit. The charges against him were entirely based on his merely accessing and reading a large number of articles that prosecutors did not deny he had the right to access, using a different Internet outlet than the one he previously used. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're oversimplifying the details. And I don't understand why you're even arguing the merits of the case. I share your opinion that Swartz was targeted unjustly (with tragic consequences), but no amount of agreement among Wikipedians will render this a neutral point of view. —David Levy 17:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for some more DYKs?

Visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intelligence_Agency#Project PM for a comparison of our article holdings with Project PM. Lots of work to be done here! Wnt (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

I think it is time to have a centralized discussion with a watchlist message so we can get a very broad approval to move forward with this project. Ideally we could start the discussion within a day or two and have a decision by Feb 1, allowing 10 days to select and polish content.

I see nothing wrong with "theming" the home page once in a while. We should probably avoid trying to do 100% all one topic, but we can certainly request a featured article, a featured picture, a few DYKs, and a few "this day in history". I don't think we can do much with ITN because that's driven by the news.

My schedule is really full these days. Is there somebody who would like to write a proposal and start a centralized discussion? After that, request it be added to the watchlist message. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what rats of Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day#Proposal: Endgame Timeline you are planning to skip. It sounds a lot like you want to ignore those editors who think that this is a bad idea and replace the RfC to determine consensus with "I see nothing wrong with..." like it or mot, several editors do see something wrong with it.

I personally am agnostic on the question of whether this is a good idea or a bad idea other that as an exercise in something I am very good at, which is organizing a project so that it meets a deadline. Or possibly showing that the deadline cannot be met and saving everyone a lot of effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing wrong with theming the main page once in a while. Respectfully, there's something very wrong with theming the main page as a means of engaging in political advocacy by participating in an organized protest. —David Levy 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Once and for all, please note that WP:NOT prohibits

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[2]"

On one hand, notions to change the purpose of the Main Page to support the project are not going to fly. On the other, we are subject to the same interpretations as sporting events, which is to say, if you can reserve DYKs for the Olympics, we can reserve DYKs for this. But what's all too painfully clear is that talking about special 3-day site-wide RFCs is absolutely irrelevant. We just don't have the people lined up here. We need to think about what we can do, especially as individuals, and within Wikipedia's purpose. And that's a lot. There are more of those ProjectPM redlinks than I'm likely to DYK in a year! Even if they break their policies in the name of enforcing them, screw us out of the chance to feature February 11 ... so what? This is Wikipedia, our purpose is to join together and get the facts and make them available so people can figure out what's going on. We really don't know much about this issue now, and that, the ignorance, is the problem we need to tackle. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wnt has a valid objection, and he is not alone in his opinion. Thus, if you want to override his objection, you have to prove that the consensus is against him with an RfC. Of course it could turn out that the consensus is with him; it certainly is not clear which way an RfC will go. Once there is a legitimate objection, establishing consensus is not optional. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying I just objected to there [that needs an RFC, that is], and also, I put "DYK" for "RFC" at one point, but my feeling is that we're not even at an RFC yet, because there's no specific proposal, and it doesn't make sense to plan to wait to discuss what hasn't even been put forward yet. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you were pretty clear about what you are objecting to in your earlier posts:

"Bending every rule to hack together a Main Page like that is just not a good idea. .. Face it - we do not have the level of involvement and support we need to take the grandest lectern in the world and parade around for a day."

and

"there's something ''very wrong with theming the main page as a means of engaging in political advocacy by participating in an organized protest."

As I said, those are legitimate objections. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I do want to make it clear, though, that I regard concerted individual effort that has this net effect (such as creating new articles and asking for the DYKs to be featured) is in my view appropriate because we do it already, and intend to continue doing it throughout the February Olympics. The difference being that in the first case, to get featured you have to line up supporters from your side to win a vote for political control of the site, but in the second, you have to line up people to do work on Wikipedia. As we're seeing presently, with just three DYKs nominated under the project so far, that isn't really something prone to get out of hand. And I'd rather welcome if the supporters of the spying program would propose "their own" DYKs in "retaliation", the occasional terrorist caught by such data, because as I've said, the more you know about both sides of an issue the more effectively you can argue yours. Of course, regarding any overall plan to skew the Main Page, I would not be happy to see the other side win that! Wnt (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do want to make it clear, though, that I regard concerted individual effort that has this net effect (such as creating new articles and asking for the DYKs to be featured) is in my view appropriate because we do it already, and intend to continue doing it throughout the February Olympics.

"Concerted individual effort" is an oxymoron. This proposal is a concerted effort to communicate to the world that Wikipedia endorses "The Day We Fight Back".

And I'd rather welcome if the supporters of the spying program would propose "their own" DYKs in "retaliation", the occasional terrorist caught by such data, because as I've said, the more you know about both sides of an issue the more effectively you can argue yours. Of course, regarding any overall plan to skew the Main Page, I would not be happy to see the other side win that!

Look at what you're writing. You're openly acknowledging that you regard "supporters of the spying program" as the other "side" and hope to "win" at "skew[ing] the Main Page" if your opponents attempt the same.

That isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't intentionally funnel content favorable to a particular "side" onto the main page and encourage the other "side" to "retaliate" by submitting content favorable to its viewpoint. Editors are welcome to concentrate on a particular subject area, but there's a material difference between an influx of DYK items about birds/sportspeople/the Eurovision Song Contest/etc. and DYK items written for the express purpose of supporting a political cause. —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I firmly believe that every editor has a POV on any contentious topic. That POV may be "moderate", combining aspects of both sides, or he may pretend he has no POV, or (often) he may not even know he has a POV. His POV on a question exists before he even knows that the question exists, or even understands that it could be asked. So I believe there is nothing harmful, nor disqualifying, about an editor being up front and saying what his POV is. I think that a key aspect of the dialectical process, which Wikipedia is a part of, is the conversion of the twin statements "I like this" and "I hate this" into one single outcome: "I want everyone to know about this". Of course, as anyone at AfD knows, deciding what is important can also be a POV, nor a weak one, until people learn to also accept that others have different foci of interest. The final desired outcome: creativity, the unexpected, an unseen multitude of readers who now can move forward with a synthesis of ideas, in which right prevails by right. Wnt (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So I believe there is nothing harmful, nor disqualifying, about an editor being up front and saying what his POV is.

Agreed. At no point have I suggested that Wikipedia's editors are (or should be) disqualified from writing about subjects on which they possess biased views, provided that said views aren't intentionally assigned preference (e.g. by cherry-picking information that supports them).

My primary objection to the proposal doesn't relate to individual users' actions. It relates to the idea of Wikipedia (as opposed to particular editors thereof) endorsing a political cause by participating in an organized protest via a special presentation of encyclopedic content. Surely, you recognize the distinction. —David Levy 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a meeting of the minds after all. The circumstances in which I want "Wikipedia" to get involved are quite narrow - for example, so far, I've seen sufficient reason only for making a statement, or perhaps joining in an amicus curiae filing, regarding the charge against Barrett Brown for placing a link to a public resource on a public MediaWiki wiki. That is, obviously, something very different and far removed from putting a banner on the Main Page saying "call your Congressman and tell him to vote for the USA FREEDOM Act". Instead, I envision this event as an opportunity for individual Wikipedia editors to get enthusiastic about joining WikiProjects and providing resources for the people interested in this issue to consult. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances in which I want "Wikipedia" to get involved are quite narrow - for example, so far, I've seen sufficient reason only for making a statement, or perhaps joining in an amicus curiae filing, regarding the charge against Barrett Brown for placing a link to a public resource on a public MediaWiki wiki.

Do you mean Wikipedia, or are you referring to the Wikimedia Foundation?

Instead, I envision this event as an opportunity for individual Wikipedia editors to get enthusiastic about joining WikiProjects and providing resources for the people interested in this issue to consult.

If only something along those lines were under discussion, I would have no objections. —David Levy 15:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was the 'What you can do' section. To answer your question it would have to be a WMF lawyer to file an amicus curiae brief. (I'm not sure where a Wikipedia banner message would be initiated, but it would be far more powerful if reflecting a WMF resolution and filing on the issue) Wnt (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

An official position of the Wikimedia Foundation isn't necessarily an appropriate position to convey via Wikipedia (particularly in conjunction with encyclopedic content). Of the two, only the latter is bound to maintain a neutral point of view. —David Levy 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that position is taken to the extreme, one could say that Wikipedia shouldn't display a donation banner, nor should the WMF prevent editors from featuring child porn on the front page. In reality though, we rely on WMF to take certain steps, only as necessary, to preserve the existence of Wikipedia. It probably won't be clear whether the charge against Barrett for linking to a public document reaches that level of imperative until the appeal, which is when the ACLU and EFF would get involved and an amicus curiae would be filed anyway, but if it is clear that this is a direct threat at that time then it would absolutely be appropriate to do all that and a lot more. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that position is taken to the extreme, one could say that Wikipedia shouldn't display a donation banner,

An analogous act would filling the main page with encyclopedic content about the virtues of donating money.

nor should the WMF prevent editors from featuring child porn on the front page.

How is that relevant? If you interpreted something that I wrote to mean that the Wikimedia Foundation can't impose restrictions on Wikipedia's content, you were mistaken. —David Levy 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Imposing any restriction, however unavoidable the law makes it, is not neutral; and it is the direct counterpart of making a top-down policy for the inclusion of content. It is true, of course, that running definitely skewed articles (like that donating money is good) would be wrong; but would it be wrong, during a funding crisis, to run an encyclopedic article on the Wikimedia Foundation? Wnt (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Imposing any restriction, however unavoidable the law makes it, is not neutral; and it is the direct counterpart of making a top-down policy for the inclusion of content.

As I just noted, the Wikimedia Foundation has no neutrality obligation.

It is true, of course, that running definitely skewed articles (like that donating money is good) would be wrong; but would it be wrong, during a funding crisis, to run an encyclopedic article on the Wikimedia Foundation?

I would oppose such an idea.

Due to concerns of this nature, when Wikipedia was a featured article, the FA director deemed it ineligible to appear as TFA. —David Levy 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the second comment that you quoted, Guy. —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On one hand, notions to change the purpose of the Main Page to support the project are not going to fly. On the other, we are subject to the same interpretations as sporting events, which is to say, if you can reserve DYKs for the Olympics, we can reserve DYKs for this.

Again, only the latter is a concerted effort to participate in an organized protest, thereby supporting a political cause. It's reasonable to argue that both are defensible, but please don't pretend that there's no basis for drawing a distinction. —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think this it's a good idea to put this in front of the community now, rather than the suggested timeline above. If a handful of people pre-select all the finer details of this, it just gives others more things to object to. IMO when Jimbo brought this up a proper discussion should have been called ASAP, the two resulting scenarios would have been either a) proposal broadly rejected and this page needn't be made b) sufficient support is found and there's 50 people here working on developing it rather than 5. Personally I expect the former of those scenarios to be the most likely, but either way it seems the sooner it's opened up the better. benmoore 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the above. My proposed timeline shows the absolute latest that these things can happen; any of the steps I mentioned could get done earlier. The obvious objection is of course that if we run an RfC now we don't know exactly what we are !voting for, but a well-crafted RfC can compensate for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is not advocacy to cover a topic in an NPOV way when we know that topic is going to be particularly relevant on a particular day due to expected media coverage. We are planning our content to match demand. Providing the user with timely, relevant information is what all good websites do. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote when you proposed the special main page content:

I'll pipe up as a marketing guy. A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media. We're an encyclopedia. On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy. That will send a strong message, and help educate people. It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Send a strong message." Those are your words. You suggested that we do so via encyclopedic content that also would serve to educate, but the underlying motive is (and always has been) to "market" the protest occurring that day. Pretending that we're merely "planning our content to match demand" comes across as an attempt to engage in advocacy and obfuscate the fact. —David Levy 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The strong message is that people need to be informed about what's going on. Wikipedia every day sends a strong message that knowledge is better than ignorance. On this particular day we would focus on a particularly timely and relevant subject. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion to which you contributed the comment pertained to methods of conveying that Wikipedia supports "The Day We Fight Back". The statement "That will send a strong message that people need to be informed about what's going on, and help educate people." is an obvious redundancy.

The issue of mass surveillance has been in the news for some time, and it's unlikely to vanish anytime soon. So if the intent is merely to provide "timely, relevant information", why is there a mad rush to do so on the day of an organized protest (one that this proposal's advocates happen to support)? —David Levy 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any mad rush. I had suggested a centralized discussion. Can we proceed with that? Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that "ideally we could start the discussion within a day or two and have a decision by Feb 1, allowing 10 days to select and polish content."

I regard this as a mad rush. To be more precise, it's a mad rush to arrive at a decision, followed by a second mad rush to act on it (if need be), both for no reason other than to present special content on "The Day We Fight Back".

I see from discussion on your talk page that you also support "push[ing] a new article to FA in an expedited timeframe" so it can appear as TFA.

Again, if the intent is merely to provide "timely, relevant information" (and not to support the protest), why not take our time and get it right? The subject of mass surveillance will still be timely and relevant in March and April. —David Levy 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, information is more timely if people involved in the protest who start arguing about some particular topic can link to a good Wikipedia article than if they can't. But the way to "take our time and get it right" is to put things through the regular DYK and FA process, and I'd only want to see that expedited in the sense that the articles reach the same quality benchmarks faster, not that we have DYKs from last year or twice-run TFAs or any of that other nasty stuff some were suggesting. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the idea that information on the subject of mass surveillance will be "more timely" on the day of the protest relies upon a biased perception of the protest's importance and sheer speculation as to its impact. (Conversely, for established events like the Winter Olympics, reliable sources already have made the relevant assessments.) Worse still, the intent is to contribute to such an outcome (i.e. to help the protest succeed by promoting it on the main page).

If the protest has far-reaching impact without our help (which, as discussed at length, we have no business providing), the resultant increased awareness will make the subject of mass surveillance "more timely" after the protest than during it.

Secondly, a request for comment, featured article candidacy or other Wikipedia process carries a particular time frame for a reason: that's how long it takes to do it properly. Expediting these processes can only greatly increase the likelihood of problems arising. —David Levy 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

David, you're making excellent points-- I agree what we're proposing here is exceptional and needs a site-wide consensus. And I agree that WP:NOTADVOCATE is the most relevant concern. Lastly, I share your worries about rushing articles through FA-- I felt comfortable ignoring all rules on main page because mainpage isn't part of the encyclopedia, but FAs are the core of the encyclopedia. Yes, I'm still open to an attempt to push an article to FA, but we need to be 100% sure we're not bending the substantive rules.

That said, I want to reiterate-- what we are doing IS very very different than participating in the protest. At present, we aren't taking a "side" in the protest. For me personally, this is a sincere stance-- I don't know "what" should be done, I just know "it's important". That's very very different from us actually participating in the protest. If we did that, we would have messages saying "call your senator and tell them...". But we're not doing that.

We admit upfront we don't have the all the answers. But we ARE able to anticipate some of the questions people are going to be asking. And, given site-wide consensus, we should prepare 100% NPOV answers, when possible, to the questions we know people are going to be asking-- again, if and only if site-wide consensus supports doing so. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page is part of the encyclopedia. It isn't an article (and it differs from articles in many respects), but the same overriding principles apply.

I don't doubt that you're sincere in stating that it isn't your intention to be non-neutral. But even if each individual surveillance-related item appearing on the main page is written from a neutral point of view, recognizing February 11 as a day of special significance — one on which it's exceptionally appropriate to present such material — constitutes a formal determination that "The Day We Fight Back" is important. This is not a neutral viewpoint; it's a declaration of the protest's legitimacy. —David Levy 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can debate about whether normal Mainpages are part of the encyclopedia, but we can agree that "special" content stored located at mainpage which deviated from the status quo policies wouldn't be "part of the encyclopedia".

I 100% agree with you conclusion that a "special" page on Feb 11 would require a consensus that there are "legitimate" questions that merit special attention. But let's be clear-- we don't automatically endorse the conclusions of TDWFB; We just acknowledge that they're going to be raising legitimate questions of interest to our community on Feb 11, and we can plan for that. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can debate about whether normal Mainpages are part of the encyclopedia, but we can agree that "special" content stored located at mainpage which deviated from the status quo policies wouldn't be "part of the encyclopedia".

No, I don't agree with that, unless said content draws upon no encyclopedic material (e.g. nothing but a message proclaiming support for the protest, which I nonetheless oppose for reasons discussed previously).

I 100% agree with you conclusion that a "special" page on Feb 11 would require a consensus that there are "legitimate" questions that merit special attention.

My point wasn't that there must be consensus that the protest raises legitimate questions that merit special attention; it was that it's inappropriate for us to arrive at such a determination.

But let's be clear-- we don't automatically endorse the conclusions of TDWFB

We needn't do so explicitly, as it's clearly implied. In the absence of agreement with the principles on which the protest is based, this proposal wouldn't exist. —David Levy 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for Jericoman's idea to move forward to a centralized discussion. I think we're somewhat clear on the opinions of the 5 editors/admins involved here. Can we figure out a way to open this up for a proper debate? petrarchan47tc 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk candidate for TFA discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Afroyim_v._Rusk.

Thank you for your consideration,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added an RFC tag to the discussion, listed it at WP:CENT and left pointers to the discussion at T:MP and WP:VPR. Bencherlite^Talk 01:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bencherlite, I've got no objections to all that, it is most helpful! — Cirt (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NEVERMIND, I WITHDREW IT FOR THAT DATE AND ADDED IT INSTEAD FOR AN UNRELATED DATE. DISREGARD PLEASE, THANK YOU. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia-only read-only TOR exit node?

I just posted a proposal that may be of interest:
User talk:Jimbo Wales#Proposal: Create a Wikipedia-only read-only TOR exit node
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Mass surveillance and Focus of Collaboration

Just want to issue invites to WikiProject Mass surveillance and the collaboration Draft:FISA Improvement acts. If any one has time to spend, that seems like a non-controversial way to improve Wikipedia. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}