Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Still Set For Full Blackout Wednesday

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the sopa-never-forget-never-relent dept.

Censorship 291

symbolset writes "Jimmy Wales confirms that the entire English language Wikipedia will be on blackout January 18th from midnight to midnight, Eastern Standard Time. The site's 25 million daily users will redirected to an education page with a call to action. Votes are still being taken on the exact implementation." Despite a small victory against SOPA in the House, Wikipedia still feels the blackout is necessary due to the looming Senate vote on PROTECT IP, and as a deterrent to future attempts to revive a similar law under a new name.

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chicken! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723486)

Shut it down for a week and you'll be able to almost hear the roar of a billion college students having their term papers failed!

Re:Chicken! (5, Interesting)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723514)

In fact, Jimbo Wales — founder of Wikipedia — kindly warned [twitter.com] students yesterday.

Re:Chicken! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723626)

For the love of all that is coffee, there are people outside the US that use wikipedia. Some of us rely on it for work/school.

Re:Chicken! (5, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723722)

You don't think SOPA/PIPA will affect you if you live outside the USA? This kind of policy has a tendency to spread to other countries with like-minded politicians. I'm in the UK and my only wish was that more big tech companies would follow suit (imagine if Twitter, Facebook, even Google all turned their services off for the day). We hear it time and again that the ordinary man in the street doesn't know or understand about these issues - well maybe this is the best way to get the message across.

Re:Chicken! (5, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723752)

Even blocking domains is enough to cause massive damage: most sites outside USA still use .org, .com and .net, especially in English speaking countries.

Re:Chicken! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723922)

> most sites outside USA still use .org, .com and .net

Well now here's their incentive to change, with plenty of time to implement the gradual redirection to the new domain.

Why are people so lazy?

Re:Chicken! (1)

KramberryKoncerto (2552046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723812)

Twitter isn't a big deal, Facebook is probably only marginally more important, but shutting down Google would generate all kinds of losses pretty much everywhere...

Re:Chicken! (3, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723754)

Just like how people outside the US rely on the internet as a whole?
We live in an international society, when the US plans to do something that affects the world at large, the world at large should be made aware of it and given the choice to pressure the US into sanity. If you don't live in the US and get pissed off at the blackout, feel free to mention it to your government representative so that they can go to their bosses and tell them to tell their US counterparts to stop being idiots.

Hopefully it won't end up a bit chinese-whispery and go from "Stop SOPA and PIPA from destroying the internet" to "Some girl on the internet called Pippa wants to ban Soap".

Re:Chicken! (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724088)

For the love of all that is coffee, there are people outside the US that use wikipedia. Some of us rely on it for work/school.

Apparently you haven't heard about the person in the UK who was just ordered to be extradited to the United States for "copyright infringement" despite the fact that neither he nor his website were located in the U.S.

If Wikipedia, Facebook, Google, etc. were really serious about protesting these bad laws they would completely shut down their systems for at least a week in order to really demonstrate what the effects would be.

Re:Chicken! (4, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724246)

Indeed.

The US's reach grows ever longer, and the idiocy ever more severe. Nobody can place exactly when we became the Corporate States of America; historians 50 years from now may point to Citizens United, or they may point to the various copyright extension bills, especially the repetitive Mickey Mouse Protection Acts bought by Disney over and over again.

Here is a blackout page suggestion: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723496)

The best laws money can buy

Re:Here is a blackout page suggestion: (5, Interesting)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723708)

A better one....
This is exactly how much content will be left when every publisher and celebrity makes up a reason to force Wikipedia to take down their pages.

Wikipedia has cleaned up its copyright problems... But it could never have been created in the enviroent about to be unleashed.

Maybe that is the argument to make:
List every large tech company that violated the hell out of IP laws they want to impose on everybody else. Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, etc could all have been kicked off the Internet (if we had the Internet) when they were "growing up".

A Personal Appeal From Jimmy Wales (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723498)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Re:A Personal Appeal From Jimmy Wales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724360)

Score:3, Funny?

That ain't no funny. This crap is even more annoying than "normal" advertisment, they think they are above that, 'cause they do the right thing(tm). Thank god adblock does not discriminate (yet)...

Re:A Personal Appeal From Jimmy Wales (1)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724522)

You missed the joke. Remember the fundraising banner?

I wonder... (2, Interesting)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723502)

...if the difference in used bandwidth will save Wikipedia a few bucks.

Re:I wonder... (5, Funny)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723540)

Don't think so. Beginning at 04:50 AM, thousands of millions of people (mostly students) will be reloading the Wikipedia main page at a rate of 60 times per minute, 25 million people. Kind of Slashdot effect!

Re:I wonder... (1)

SavedLinuXgeeK (769306) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723668)

This is assuming they aren't doing their redirect with DNS records that are hosted outside of their infrastructure. Assuming they don't run their own DNS, wikipedia should be able to do this with almost no bandwidth costs.

Re:I wonder... (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723806)

I have no idea what you mean from your description, but Wikipedia does run their own DNS. They use PowerDNS for their global DNS load balancing.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723768)

On Wednesday, yes, but today the bandwidth will be gigantic as users rush to download the whole thing [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I wonder... (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724022)

Most of the cost of scale are fixed, so the cost savings will only be marginal, if anything the publicity will likely drive volume up in general. However, to compensate, it could drive some donations if simply to reward the best squeaky wheel on the Internet.

They wont be deterred. (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723536)

Theyll try to buy a new law when the dust settles. the only way to fix this, is to go on constant offensive, and buy lawmakers and laws FOR the internet, and to prevent content industry from buying laws AGAINST it.

Re:They wont be deterred. (4, Insightful)

schitso (2541028) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723602)

Even if every one of the bottom 90% put all the money they could towards bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H "contributions" for our lovely leaders, we wouldn't even come close to what interested corporations/conglomerates "contribute".

yes (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723622)

that's why google, amazon et al need to do it.

Re:yes (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723966)

Amazon will not take the risk of losing a day full of lucrative business.

Re:yes (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724018)

you dont need to go dark to do that. a huge headline with a catchline about net freedom being in danger and a page that tells about sopa in simple terms and calls to action with a link in that headline, would be a total kill on those senators/circuscritters.

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723662)

Nah, our politicians aren't just whores, they are also really cheap whores.

Re:They wont be deterred. (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724222)

Ah yes, but see, the "90%" have this magical thing called the "vote." You may have heard of it. As much as politicians love money, they love votes far far more.

Now, if only people actually realized this.

Re:They wont be deterred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724490)

While what you say is true, most politicians know that in general, people are uninformed at best. They realize that money = votes because their advertisements, robo calls, etc. will buy them the votes they need. If the "90%" actually were informed voters then the money wouldn't mean much. But they way things stand now, money = votes.

Re:They wont be deterred. (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723612)

No, the public opposition was greater than expected. Too much to try for a new law so openly. I predict a sneakier approach: An attempt to sneak something SOPA-like through as an obscure amendment to some apparently unrelated piece of legislation, likely something too popular to oppose easily. Using riders to get unpopular laws through before potential opposition even notices is a time-honored tradition in politics.

Re:They wont be deterred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724538)

Incidentally, SOPA/PIPA were already being sold as a bi-partisan "jobs" bill. Something that both parties could agree to do to "help save American jobs."

So SOPA/PIPA2 will most likely be attached to a jobs bill. Something like, say, extending an expiring payroll tax cut.

Re:They wont be deterred. (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723632)

No, if you play the money game against the "content industry" you will lose. What we need to do is take back our republic from the 1%.

Re:They wont be deterred. (2)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723756)

Although of course, if you do want to play the money game, the best way to play against the content industry is to not buy their crap. That would hurt them far more than trying to outbid for politicians (and it might get them to change their ways without us having to further corrupt our political process).

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

Garybaldy (1233166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723932)

But they would just use that as more reason for laws like this. All the lost sales being due to piracy.

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724290)

I'm guessing that was a joke, but there are people who seriously believe that to be a valid argument.

If no one is buying content from the shady providers it doesn't matter how many laws they pass they will die by attrition. The only possible exception is if they get a law passed that just invokes a tax against every citizen regardless of what they buy/do. In that event (the government being completely, undeniably corrupt that is) there are things called revolutions that can fix the problem.

Re:They wont be deterred. (2)

Garybaldy (1233166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724412)

Not sure if they will try the media tax again like they did in Canada. The media tax resulted in more people excepting that piracy is alright as they have payed for it every time they purchase blank media.

"The 1%" ?! Oh, Please !!! (0, Flamebait)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723856)

What we need to do is take back our republic from the 1%.

It's the highly-paid top marketing minds, political functionaries, spin doctors and government job lifers who conceived of the so-called "1%/99%" dichotomy and wrote all the slogans and seeded the memes that the deluded unwashed of the "Occupy" movement have been made to believe are their own. It's designed to allow Obama -- the candidate deepest in the pocket of the Content Industry -- to play an effective class warfare card in the pending election and defeat the Gordon-Gecko-esque Romney.

Stop being a tool.

Re:"The 1%" ?! Oh, Please !!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724082)

Who's the tool, tool?

Its only class warfare when we fight back, Renfield.

and what is wrong with "class warfare" ? (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724376)

huh ? if 0.1% of the society controls everything, buys laws, protects their interests while keeping the rest down for their own profit, it means there IS a class warfare and the majority is losing it.

the same kind of thing was being done with british monarchy back in 1774. why did you revolt against them. why didnt you say 'its class warfare ! we should stay united !' ?

the monarch and its immediate lower hierarchy was just enforcing their rightful share out of your economy through taxes.

the top 5% of america takes 70% out of your economy, even before taxes.

so if the crown did not take 70% of your economy through taxes, but instead did it through corporate and shareholder/fund ownership schemes, you were not going to revolt ?

get real. see things for what they are.

Re:"The 1%" ?! Oh, Please !!! (1)

iter8 (742854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724440)

What we need to do is take back our republic from the 1%.

It's the highly-paid top marketing minds, political functionaries, spin doctors and government job lifers who conceived of the so-called "1%/99%" dichotomy and wrote all the slogans and seeded the memes that the deluded unwashed of the "Occupy" movement have been made to believe are their own. It's designed to allow Obama -- the candidate deepest in the pocket of the Content Industry -- to play an effective class warfare card in the pending election and defeat the Gordon-Gecko-esque Romney.

Stop being a tool.

Do you have any evidence of that at all? Maybe AdBusters dreamed the idea up, but they are hardly highly paid top marketing types. They can barely market themselves. Where I live, the occupy group seems local. It was inspired by occupy Wall Street etc. but everything I have seen about the local activities makes me think the the occupy movement gave local folks a focus for a lot of existing concerns. Even if the spin doctors might have invented the memes, they lost control of them.

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724214)

I might be accused at being a radical for posting this but... Surely the Proper Solution (TM) would be to get lawmakers that cannot be bought but which make laws according to common sense and conscience?

Just a thought...

Re:They wont be deterred. (4, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724356)

It would be the proper solution, however: It's not possible. The current problem isn't really that lawmakers are being bought, it's that they have no way to do their jobs without being bought. It takes money to get known enough to win elections, and votes themselves are an almost uselessly imprecise tool to judge preferences, leading to lawmakers needing to listen to some group to understand what their voters want. In the absence of any better system, that tends to be the loudest group with money on an issue. Which is almost invariably a corporation lobbying for it's own benefit. (Or a PAC lobbying for a sub-group of the populations' benefit, typically a sub-group that has money to fund the PAC.)

The system is operating as designed: Broken.

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724272)

Not sustainable. The public's span of attention is... well, short. The only real way to fix this, and every similar case where corporate welfare is placed ahead of the citizens' welfare, is to do away with corporate personhood and to remove corporate spending from the political process. Public campaign financing, for example.

Re:They wont be deterred. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724410)

pointless. the corporations will just guarantee lucrative employment after their term for candidates through backdoor dealings, and get their way. thats what they already do with bureaucrats - the people who you cant directly donate money. what happened with the ex fcc commissioner you think ? google it.

Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (1, Interesting)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723546)

I'll get around to writing to my senator right away. What? England isn't represented in the senate???

No Blackout Without Representation! Or... something...

Because English is only spoken in the USA, of course.

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723572)

The primary reason for creating SOPA and PIPA is to get around the pesky inconvenience of having to deal with all those other countries and their own sets of laws. Because the US controls .com, .net, and .org as well as having both IANA and ICANN, big media could simply use the courts they have bought here in the US without having to deal with that annoying inconvenience of other sovereign nations and their own sets of laws.

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723690)

These laws will *NOT* only affect the USA. They will affect other countries, and especially countries that extradite people to the USA when they feel like it (*hint*).

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (5, Informative)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723694)

To quote the wiki page [wikipedia.org] :

We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations. For example, one British editor stated "American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest", a principle we felt had considerable support.

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (3, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723794)

Indeed - if the laws in the US attack US sites that have a global audience, we already have a vested interest. When those laws seek to punish sites outside the US, even more so. We also live in a world where alleged copyright infringers are now being extradited to the US for trial - nobody who lives in a country with a US extradition treaty is safe from this garbage or should stand idly by (and certainly nobody has the right to complain that a free site will be offline for a single day when the cause is so laudable).

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723818)

The Internet isn't a national thing. If something hurts a part of it, the whole net gets hurt.

Re:Yeah, thanks Jimmy. (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724264)

The USA has been bullying other countries into passing similar legislation, effectively saying, "If you can't get such legislation passed, we'll consider you a bad country and take you off of our trade lists."

Imagine the "egg on their face" effect when the country pressuring others to pass such legislation or be a "bad country" in regards to trade laws isn't able to pass such legislation themselves.

SOPA/PIPA affect the entire planet, whether directly (due to control of com/net/etc domains) or indirectly (harder to pressure other countries to pass similar laws when they can't even get through domestically).

The largest virtual protest ever? (2)

Sir Mal Fet (1402403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723564)

I believe this must be the largest virtual protest ever made. It will affect what, 20 million persons? I hope this is enough to get the regular public to know about this law.

Murdoch (5, Insightful)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723576)

I suppose now Murdoch will accuse Wikipedia of being a "piracy leader" along with Google. After all, Wikipedia just serves up other people's content and takes money (what they call "donations") for it.

Political reality (5, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723580)

Politicians, welcome, I would like you to meet reality. His name is the Sheep With Gun and he is going on strike.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Re:Political reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723872)

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

You forgot to mention that in this kind of liberty the wolves are also armed - and known to be violent.

Re:Political reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723880)

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahaha haha hahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahaha.

+5 - this is the funniest thing I've ever read.

Better print it out (5, Funny)

shoppa (464619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723590)

I'm going to start printing out Wikipedia today.

I figure I'll be done by Tuesday night.

If anyone needs something looked up on Wednesday, give me a call.

Re:Better print it out (1)

bLanark (123342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723660)

Or the offline-wikipedia project [sourceforge.net] ? ? ?

Re:Better print it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723698)

Or just download the database dumps [wikimedia.org] and a copy of MediaWiki/PHP/Apache/MySQL/anything else I missed to put it in.

Re:Better print it out (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723974)

and 464619 is your phone number?

The Research Works Act (4, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723600)

Wouldn't mind them helping with awareness of the RWA, where publishers are basically trying to make public access policies illegal. Read more here [guardian.co.uk] .

How to do the same on your site (5, Informative)

John3 (85454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723610)

Probably been posted already on a prior thread, but if you want to support the blackout on your website, blog, twitter, facebook, etc. there is useful info here [sopastrike.com] .

Donations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723638)

Okay so they'll still shut it down as a political protest.
As a non-US citizen I can't really influence US laws anyway.
Now as the US tries to push these laws on other countries how much more often will they turn off wikipedia?
These laws will not stop, and they'll push them continuously, are they going to turn off wikipedia for every one?

Is there a non political wikipedia or a mirror that won't be arbitrarily shut down?
I can tell you I definitely won't be contributing cash when they do things that harm their supporters, yet do NOTHING to actually stop the guys causing the problems.

Re:Donations? (2)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723688)

Well, it is only the English version of Wikipedia. Which means that non-English speakers in the US (Spanish for example) are unaffected, but English speakers outside the US are stuck.

Re:Donations? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723892)

There's no indication yet that this will be a common thing. So far they've announced they will be offline for a grand total of one day. That's hardly going to kill you, you have advance notice so you can plan around it, too - they could have a technical outage at any time with the same affect but you're not refusing to donate until they can prove they have sufficient levels of failover support I assume? You really need to listen to yourself - this is a huge issue with potential for global impact and you're whining because you can't look up information from this one service (the rest of the internet is largely going to be there) for one single 24 hour period.

Re:Donations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724500)

Did you vote to support a US-only blackout?

think of the children! (1)

mwfischer (1919758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723640)

...and not a single High School project will be completed that day.

Re:think of the children! (2, Insightful)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723828)

What is wrong with the kinds learning something about how important the Internet is for them ?

If they pass the law (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723680)

Could you shut down the Disney site as The Lion King is a copy of Kimba?

"Look at me, I'm important." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723750)

Please. Jimmy, just accept victory and move on. But I guess we should expect little else from someone who plasters their picture in the header of their website.

My production will go up (4, Informative)

boristdog (133725) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723764)

With all the sites going dark tomorrow, my work production will see a marked rise.

Re:My production will go up (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723864)

Didn't Google mention they would do the same ?

Not sure if they would, but if they did I know some parts of my work probably won't become easier. Bing might help fill that gap slightly.

What would happen if they disabled gmail too ? That would be 'interresting' to watch.

Re:My production will go up (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724238)

Didn't Google mention they would do the same ?

No.

Re:My production will go up (2)

mrxak (727974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724012)

I plan on taking that extra time spent getting lost on wikipedia links I'd normally lose in my day and write letters to my Senators and Representative, then call up all their offices. Unfortunately both my Senators are co-sponsors of PIPA, so I don't expect much movement there.

Full blackout? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723772)

More like full retard. In other words, business as usual at Wikipedia.

Thanks a buttload, Chet... (1)

Xenious (24845) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723796)

I'm all for calling attention to stupid legislation, but causing major inconvenience to me just angers me against you. I think a full blackout against reading the site is just BS. Just make everyone do a couple of extra clicks to get to the content and call it good. I suppose I'll brush up on my French in case I need to look something up that day.

Re:Thanks a buttload, Chet... (2)

Garybaldy (1233166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724078)

Sorry, but you don't get how protests are supposed to work. You are like those that tell protesters to go protest among themselves in a stadium out of sight of everyone else. Protesting is designed to get your attention. To get peoples attention who are unaware. So you would be angry with Rosa Parks who did not sit in the back of the buss causing an uproar and inconveniencing you?

Re:Thanks a buttload, Chet... (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724328)

No, a few clicks through of inconvenience won't convince users just how bad the situation is.

They need to be given a "taste" of post-SOPA life to truly understand it.

Re:Thanks a buttload, Chet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724366)

Remember this when the legislation passes and Google/Wikipedia/MSDN/ANYTHING THEY FUCKING PLEASE gets shut down due to alleged "copyright infringement". Then you can come talk about “major inconvenience”, dumbass.

Re:Thanks a buttload, Chet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724560)

lol

Re:Thanks a buttload, Chet... (5, Insightful)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724616)

You can take out your anger on me. I'm one of the Wikipedians who said Strong Support for a hard global blackout. I'm sorry that you're inconvenienced, but THAT'S THE POINT.

One step further (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723804)

Every time such law is successfully fought, it comes back under another name.

We should go further : ask for a law that protects DNSs and internet freedom. Even a constitutional amendment, why not ?

Who gives a shit? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723808)

It's only Wikipedia. Frankly, I'd like Wikipedia, Facebook and Google to all shut down for a week in protest. Then people might get some fucking work done, and if they want to learn something they might go to a reference book and get something that's at least been researched, rather than relying on Wikipedia's self-appointed "experts" or having to filter the drivel that Google spits out. And, in the meantime, office productivity would skyrocket, which would make a small contribution to dragging our economies out of the mire.

Google Translate FTW! (1)

dingo_kinznerhook (1544443) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723824)

So we just take the next largest Wikipedia, say the French or German one, and run it through Google Translate.

International users (1)

brucmack (572780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723896)

I wish these sites would limit the black-out to US users instead of making it a blanket black-out. Yes, I know SOPA and its ilk would affect everyone, but as a non-US citizen, there isn't a damn thing I can do to stop it.

Re:International users (2)

Garybaldy (1233166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724098)

I live here and now you know how we feel.

[Citation Needed] (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723948)

"Jimmy Wales [who?] confirms that the entire English language Wikipedia will be on blackout January 18th from midnight to midnight, Eastern Standard Time. [citation needed]

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Your donation helps us in several ways.

Google blackout (2)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723950)

If Google were to be awesome and join the blackout, everyone would get the message. Wikipedia and Reddit get a lot of traffic, but Google gets pretty much everyone else.

Re:Google blackout (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724096)

having most users switching to Bing? There is only one Wikipedia.

Re:Google blackout (2)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724576)

Then Bing can join in the blackout as well. Unless they want to be seen as scabs.

Just use the cached version from Google (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723972)

That's what I plan on doing tomorrow.

a whole 24 hours? (4, Funny)

Fippy Darkpaw (1269608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723976)

That's a lot of time where I could have been deleting other people's efforts. :( - A Proud Wikipedia Editor

Donation Catchup Opportunity (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724036)

I haven't given any money to Wikipedia in a long time. This seems like a good opportunity to catch up on my donations. I figure to do it while the blackout is in progress, if the donation page is up, or right after if they have donations blacked out.

It is easy to find examples of people getting paid to do things that harm society. Here's a chance to pay a company, which has earned the money, for doing the right thing. They even make the first show of good faith -- every day -- by existing, not charging, and not accepting advertisements.

And, (0)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724054)

nothing of value was lost.

Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724184)

Would love to see more sites jump on this. Slashdot, Digg, and can you imagine if Google did?

Will Slashdot Be Joining The Blackout? (4, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724186)

If not, please consider it.

What if it doesn't work? (1)

Maajid (922035) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724482)

What's the last resort if these protests ultimately prove fruitless? Can anyone see the likes of Google and Wikipedia moving their businesses abroad?

Actually, the voting is over (1)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724554)

The voting was closed last evening and the community decision was announced.

You can tell when it's closed by it all being boxed in, with a gray background, and the message "The discussion above is closed." appearing at the bottom.

Protect IP, or IP? (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724584)

I read Protect IP and thought "someone's trying to save the Internet Protocol?". Obviously...

Can you really have well protected Intellectual Property keeping a fully free Internet?
Can you really have a fully free Internet that protects people's Intellectual Property?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>