Wikipedia editors criticize site's SOPA protest

A mobile device shows Wikipedia's front page displaying a darkened logo Jan. 18, 2012, in London. / Getty Images

NEW YORK - Can the world live without Wikipedia for a day? The shutdown of one of the Internet's most-visited sites is not sitting well with some of its volunteer editors, who say the protest of anti-piracy legislation could threaten the credibility of their work.

"My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales."

Online SOPA protest day begins
SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know
Wikipedia to join Web blackout protesting SOPA

Wikipedia's English-language site shut down at midnight Eastern Standard Time Tuesday and the organization said it would stay down for 24 hours.

Instead of encyclopedia articles, visitors to the site saw a stark black-and-white page with the message: "Imagine a world without free knowledge." It carried a link to information about the two congressional bills and details about how to reach lawmakers.

It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance.

The shutdown adds to a growing body of critics who are speaking out against the legislation. But some editors are so uneasy with the move that they have blacked out their own user profile pages or resigned their administrative rights on the site to protest. Some likened the site's decision to fighting censorship with censorship.

One of the site's own "five pillars" of conduct says that Wikipedia "is written from a neutral point of view." The site strives to "avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales argues that the site can maintain neutrality in content even as it takes public positions on issues.

"The encyclopedia will always be neutral. The community need not be, not when the encyclopedia is threatened," he tweeted.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which administers the site, announced the blackout late Monday, after polling its community of volunteer contributors and editors and getting responses from 1,800 of them. The protest is aimed at the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and the Protect Intellectual Property Act under consideration in the Senate.

"If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States," the foundation said.

Both bills are designed to crack down on sales of pirated American products overseas, and they have the support of the film and music industry, including CBS Corporation. Among the opponents are many Internet companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, eBay and AOL. They say the bills would hurt the industry and infringe on free-speech rights.

Social news website Reddit.com is shutting down for 12 hours on Wednesday, but most companies are staying up. Google Inc. said it will display its opposition to the bill on its home page in some fashion.

Dick Costollo, CEO of Twitter, said he opposes the legislation as well, but shutting down the service was out of the question.

"Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Costollo tweeted.

Since Wikimedia depends on a small army of volunteers who create and update articles, it's particularly concerned about a lack of exemptions in the bills for sites where users might contribute copyrighted content. Today, it has no obligation under U.S. law except removing that content if a copyright holder complains. But under the House version of the bill, it could be shut down unless it polices its own pages.

The plans for the protest were moving forward even though the bill's prospects appeared to be dimming. On Saturday, Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said the bill would not move to the House floor for a vote unless consensus is reached. However, Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said work on the bill would resume next month.

The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signaled it might use its veto power, if necessary.

That the bill seems unlikely to pass is another reason Lawton opposes the blackout.

"I think there are far more important things for the organization to focus aside from legislation that isn't likely to pass anyway," he said. He's been contributing to Wikipedia for eight years.

Danny Chia, another contributor to the site, said he had mixed feelings about the blackout. The neutrality applies to the content, but a lot of people interpret it as being about the site as a whole, said the Los Altos, Calif., software engineer.

In an online discussion, others raised the same point about the blackout: Appearances matter, and if the audience sees Wikipedia taking a stand, it might not believe the articles are objective, either.

Wikipedia has seen a small decline in participation, from a peak of 100,000 active editors a year ago to about 90,000 now. Wikimedia Foundation blames this mainly on outdated editing tools, and believes it can get the number growing again with software upgrades.

[thekohser]

If the Internet hipsters claim that they aren't against actual copyright piracy, why haven't I seen one Internet hipster offer a cogent suggestion of how online piracy *could* be curbed in a way that doesn't purportedly lead to "the end of the Internet" and society being "kicked in the face with the boots of corporate overlords" and whatever other fear-mongering images we've been seen pushed by the Freeniks?

[MegaProcrastination]

To those "editors" complaining about the blackout on Wikipedia today, get your heads out of your rear ends. Wikipedia is standing up for OUR rights (yours and mine) on the internet. I have an idea that if these bills pass you'd be a lot more ticked off if suddenly Wikipedia was just gone one day because someone decided it was in violation of either SOPA or PIPA. That's the reality, people. These laws are written to give that much power to those who will be in charge of enforcing it.

[askagain]

Blocking out websites in protest fles in the face of internet freedom. Websites such as Google could direct people to information about SOPA and PIPA without preventing people from pursuing their normal use of these websites. It is arrogant for Google and others to inconvenience people for their political posturing. Thanks to Google, I am revisiting the idea of making Yahoo my main search engine again. Way to go boys.

[mgy78]

Can you please explain how a website being 'free' to display whatever content they deem appropriate 'flies(sic) in the face of internet freedom'?

[MegaProcrastination]

If you actually bothered to check Google's page you'd see what you're proposing is exactly what they DID do! You don't even have to get out of your chair to check!

[retm-w]

If they don't want to offer a service and be dependable then it's time to quit using them. There are other sources for information.

[debbie1120]

Not theft and piracy, google and wiki are information tools for projects and etc like encyclopedia. They want to do away with these website and comparing them to websites like napster. before long every website you go to will have a charge the way they are going. I think they need to work on FB, twitter and skype more than these websites.

[credibility2]

Those against this need legislation advocate the theft of intellectual property that is duly registered and in accordance with prevailing copyright law. The proposed legislation hasn't anything to do with censorship nor denying freedom speech. Freedom of speech doesn't include stealing someone's effort and not paying for it. That's a crime, not a right.

[mgy78]

I have not seen a single argument in opposition of these bills that advocate the theft of IP. If that is how you interpret this protest, than you clearly have not taken the time to educate yourself on these bills.

This bill allows for the removal of websites without any due process and simply allows for a corporation 'acting in good faith' to have a site censored. If this bill were in effect 10 years ago, we would most certainly not have YouTube, social media sites, or any other "user generated" sites for that matter. This bill allows for a censorship mechanism that begs to be abused by those in power. Considering that we already have laws that combat piracy, removal of due process and a court of law IS NOT a reasonable solution.

[filmansantiago]

Well you can't blame those wikipedia editors having those kind of stand, but it was already well eplained by the majority of wikipedia why they are having that protest. Merely not an advocay but a step to protect the existence of the good most visited site, wikipedia.

More of my views at this site: http://etc.soundsfunny.ws/index.php/2012/01/in-support-to-wikipedias-blackout-protest/

Thank you