One early winner in SOPA protest: Wikipedia

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

Commentary: There's talk that the online protests against the cyber siblings SOPA and PIPA constituted some sort of political coming of age moment for the tech industry. As if the tech moguls had "largely steered clear of lobbying and other political games in Washington" until now. Really? I love the New York Times but c'mon. This is the sort of fairy tale that sounds sweet but fails the smell test.

Silicon Valley has been looking to buy influence in Washington ever since tech companies started making serious money. Witness the sundry battles waged in the last couple of decades over a range of bread and butter issues including Internet tax breaks, the DMCA, or Internet porn laws. And let's not forgot that not-so-insignificant 1998 dustup between the Justice Department and Microsoft over antitrust.

But you could find one coming of age story in the 24-hour online protest: Wikipedia. When he announced that Wikipedia would go dark for a day as part of a planned protest, founder Jimmy Wales made a bet on the political potential of crowdsourcing. He turned out to be right.

A day before turning off the lights, Wales slammed what he described to CNN as a "very badly written" law, a piece of legislation that he likened to one used in China. "I don't think that's the right way the U.S. needs to go in taking a leadership role on the Internet."

And so Wikipedia set out to organize an inchoate movement with no easily-defined leader. A big ambition akin to herding cats. But the early results suggest that Wales made the right gamble. The Wikimedia Foundation disclosed on Thursday that over 8 million U.S. readers looked up their Congressional representatives through Wikipedia. Most of the rest of us suffered in silence. Yes, we managed without access to Wikipedia for a day but it wasn't fun. In fact, it was a big inconvenience for millions of people around the world who have come to rely upon the online dictionary, its gazillions of links and seemingly infinite number of community-curated topics. You could nod sympathetically as one wag tweeted: "Please don't ask me anything until Wikipedia is back up."

Now that it is back up, Wikipedia sent a signal that this might be the start of something bigger - an understandable ambition given its surprising - well, maybe not so surprising - success. "More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge," the organization wrote in a post earlier today. "You said no. You shut down Congress's switchboards. You melted their servers. Your voice was loud and strong. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet."

It obviously wasn't a one-man show. Wikipedia was part of a bigger Internet protest (For example, Google's online petition received 4.5 million signatures.) And the nascent movement could claim immediate results with eight lawmakers withdrawing their support for the bills - including a couple of co-sponsors - Marco Rubio from Florida and Roy Blunt from Missouri. By any measure, it was an extraordinary demonstration of muscle-flexing.

[LtSmily]

This makes me soooo happy, yet sooo sad at the same time. So happy because this is just bad law, including the POS Internet Fairness Doctrine, but it shows pwoplw can come together for a common good. Imagine all the different backgrounds of the people who signed petitions and wrote their Representatives.
It makes me sad because of the comment : "You could nod sympathetically as one wag tweeted: "Please don't ask me anything until Wikipedia is back up."
Anyone that relies on Wikipedia for accurate information is definitely in need of a slap upside the head. While Wiki posts can be informative, they are in no way to be used as a sole fact checking device. Combine with multiple other sources though, and Wikipedia can be a very useful tool.

[venusvegasvada]

I look at Wikipedia as an rare and wonderful institution.

What a fantastic warehouse of knowledge it has become. Everyone involved with the Wikipedia project should be very proud at not only what they have created, but also the understated way they go about it. They have done a fantastic job and you never hear them beating their own drum for kudos. They just keep working away at it like monks.

Also take note (Google) that Wikipedia has resisted the urge to monetize itself. It's still the same old Wikipedia (good for you) and still true to it's original vision. It delivers in spades.

This sort of proves that when your really the biggest and the best at something, you don't have to rub peoples noses in it to get respect and attention. People know Wikipedia is what it is and respects them for it. Understated elegance in an age of blare.

Nice to see so many people listen when Wikipedia had something to say.

[wfcaplejr1]

I agree with going after piracy, but not in a poorly written bill that could have real consequences for web sites down the road. How long until the government starts monitoring anti-government sites to see if they post any content that is copyrighted? They could then shut down that site. I have reservations about trusting "Big Brother" with the keys to the car. derbydeals.com

[credibility2]

Yes, the internet is powerful, but look at the brain trust behind it and those who blindly follow it as gospel, especially the likes of Wikipedia.

[antoniof123]

I called my senators and gave them a piece of my mind one who was going to vote for it has changed his mind. I hope we do this again to make congress listen to us.

[newsreader60]

Blackmail and bullying, and the brave new world of Wikipedia, Google, Twiter and other comunication giants: You do as we say or else!

Regardless whether SOPA/PIPA are good or bad laws, democracy and our freedom is in real danger, when a few executives have this much power over democratically elected officialls, and over our everyday lives.

Where are the checks and balances? What will prevent these executives to exercise similar influence on the future that are not so popular?

[TheOtherJamesBond]

I'm sorry, are you new to America? SOPA was written by the MPAA and RIAA. These are corporations that are drafting the legislation that we live under. Corporations have been pulling the strings in Washington for years. Google and Wikipedia simply allowed regular people like you and me to have a voice yesterday. We got to be lobbyist for one day!

[Jaylah54]

The fallacy in your attempted argument is that it was "a few executives" that "have this much power."

If people had just ignored the temporary black-outs, that would have sent the message to Congress that the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation was seen as being okay.

What made so many legislators change there mind about backing this legislation was not "a few executives" but the fact that over 8 million U.S. readers looked up their Congressional representatives and spoke out. That's exactly how the democratic process in this country works.

And it's not like this is the first time something like that has happened. Thousands of special interest groups have urged people (either through the internet or other means of communication) to contact their legislators over the years. Organizations that have represented such "far-right" groups as the NRA, and "far-left" as NARAL.

"What will prevent these executives to exercise similar influence on the future that are not so popular?"

If it's "not so popular", people won't contact their legislators asking them to oppose it.

[pnut134]

The Internet is more powerful than the pen.

That is why TPTB want to control it.

[WTF_____]

Thank You Wikipedia. The Feds messed with the wrong group this time. My guess is that if they attempt to mess the internet, there won't be an internet, at least for them. Ha,Ha.