Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

For more information on the proposed law itself, see SOPA
To see the conclusion of the community discussion, skip down to this section
For post-blackout news, initatives and discussion, see /Post-blackout activities and initiatives

This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and our response to it (if any). Jimmy Wales asked for community input on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives.

The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here.

Voice your support or opposition to the proposals by voting. You may also display a userbox on your userpage with the {{SOPA}} template.

Updates on SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN

January 23, 2012 - Senator Leahy made a statement urging the Senate to pass PIPA. From Politico:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) isn’t backing down from his fight for Congress to pass anti-piracy legislation and said on the Senate floor today he hopes “that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery.” Leahy said he regretted the Senate will not be proceeding with its cloture vote on the PROTECT IP Act, stressing that online piracy costs jobs and poses a risk to public safety. He added that “misinformation” was spread on the Web about what the bill would accomplish. “My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem,” Leahy said.

Senator Leahy's full statement is available on his website. For more information, see Sen. Leahy Isn’t Giving Up On PIPA Yet, Talking Points Memo. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 20, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) said that he is postponing consideration of the bill in response to concerns from critics who said the bill could lead to censorship. He stated:

"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy," Smith said in a statement. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would delay the vote scheduled for Tuesday to begin consideration until the Senate Judiciary Committee could make more progress. "We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.

January 17, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith announced that he expects SOPA markup to continue in February. Here is Rep. Smith's full statement:

To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy.
Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property.

As TechDirt predicted, earlier claims of SOPA's death were premature. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

January 16, 2012 - Mike Masnick from TechDirt explains the current status of SOPA and PIPA:

Issa's office put out a press release Friday night with Cantor's comments (I can pass along the press release if you'd like). Others have confirmed that Cantor has said that and that he's "serious" about not bringing it to the floor any time soon, though he has not made a public statement.
As for PIPA... Just yesterday, Reid reiterated his plans to bring the bill to the floor, saying that it was important for "jobs" even as he admitted that the "recent" concerns brought up by "Google & Facebook" are legitimate and he's worried about the impact the bill will have on the internet. But, he also claimed, he's working with Dianne Feinstein to sort out all the problems, since she represents both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Kinda crazy since Feinstein, just weeks ago, insisted that no one in tech was upset about the bill...

The New York Times has more on last week's developments in the SOPA and PIPA debate. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 14, 2012 - The official Whitehouse response to SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN recognizes that piracy and rogue sites pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. - Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas. As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For more recent media, see the media page and legislative timeline.

The legal understanding

Below is a copy of a post, made by Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham.

 

How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia

Posted by Geoff on December 13th, 2011

For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill.

SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, and others.

On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here).

In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement. Criticism has been significant. Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, for example, felt the bill “retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans’ ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet.”

Members of our community are weighing whether a protest action is appropriate. I want to be very clear: the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the decision of whether to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is a community decision. The Wikimedia Foundation will support editors in whatever they decide to do. The purpose of this post is to provide information for editors that will aid them in their discussions.

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

• The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
• The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
• The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not. We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.
• Although rendering it discretionary (Secs.102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)), the new bill would still allow for serious security risks to our communications and national infrastructure. The bill no longer mandates DNS blocking but still allows it as an option. As Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, explained: “The amendment continues to encourage DNS blocking and filtering, which should be concerning for Internet security experts . . . .”
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation advises that the new proposed legislation still targets tools that might be used to “circumvent” the blacklist, even though those tools are essential to human rights activists and political dissidents around the world.

More specifically with respect to Wikimedia, the new version is an improvement, but, in addition to the reasons listed above, it remains unacceptable:

Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an “Internet search engine,” and, for that reason, a federal prosecutor could obtain a court order mandating that the Wikimedia Foundation remove links to specified “foreign infringing sites” or face at least contempt of court sanctions. The definition of “foreign infringing sites” is broad and could well include legitimate sites that host mostly legal content, yet have other purported infringing content on their sites. Again, many international sites may decide not to defend because of the heavy price tag, allowing an unchallenged block by the government.

The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.

Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new version exempts U.S. based companies - including the Wikimedia Foundation - from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. (Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)(ii)) In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas. The measured and focused approach of the DMCA has been jettisoned. Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill will deprive our readers of international content, information, and sources.

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Geoff's notes on the bill

H.R. 3261 – STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT

Section 102

Section 102

A “foreign infringing site” is a:

• U.S. directed site:
  • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents OR that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
• Used by users in the U.S.; and
• Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
  • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
  • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

• Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
• Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

• A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
• The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

• Internet search engines:
  • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
• Service Provider:
  • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
• Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

Section 103

Definitions were changed and none of the Wikimedia.org properties (or any other U.S. registered sites) are covered by this section.

New definition of “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property”:

• U.S. directed site OR Site for which the registrant of the domain name used, and the owner or operator are not located and cannot be found within U.S.;
  • Wikimedia is outside of this definition because based on the “U.S. directed site” definition outlined above; Wikimedia is not a foreign Internet site.
• Site is used by users within the U.S.; and
• Site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of sections 501 or 1201 of title 17 or certain provisions of the Lanham Act OR the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Qualifying plaintiff:

• Definition has been narrowed down to be “any person with standing to bring a civil action for violations described in paragraph 1(C),” which requires infringement, rather than any holder of intellectual property rights harmed by activities of the site.

Process

SOPA Legislative Process

House

• Full committee markup (Thursday)
  • Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.
    • At the conclusion of deliberation:
      • A vote of committee members is taken to determine what action to take on the bill.
      • It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled (which means no further action on it will occur).
      • If no vote is taken, another markup will be scheduled
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor.

• Rules Committee Hearing
  • Determines whether the bill will be considered under a closed rule (no amendments), an open rule (any amendment in order), or a modified closed rule (in which only some amendments are in order).
• Floor time (probably not until early January):
  • If the bill is voted on and approved to move to the Floor, floor time must be scheduled.
    • Vote to recommit: vote to send the bill back to committee might be requested.
  • Vote on final passage: if the bill is voted on and passed by the House, it moves out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference.

Senate

• The bill is already out of Committee
• Hold on the bill:
  • Senator Wyden has placed a hold on the bill
  • Senator Reid can override the hold or call a cloture vote to defeat it.
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor
• Floor time (probably early next year):
  • If the hold is defeated or overridden, then floor time must be scheduled.
    • Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.
  • If the bill is passed, it is sent out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference committee.

Conference Committee

• Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be reconciled if anything in the two versions of the bill is different otherwise it is sent to the President (see below)
• The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences.
  • If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate.
  • If changes are of a more substantial nature a conference is called.
• The conference can be closed and informal or open and very formal.
• Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses. If they are able to agree on the bill, the bill is re-voted upon in both houses.
  • If they were able to agree only on some parts of the bill or unable to agree at all, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, be referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.

President

• Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate before being presented to the President.
  • This process could delay a bill a day or two.
• Then, the bill is delivered to the President.
  • The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance.
  • If it sits unsigned for more than a 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not.
    • The exception to this 10-day period is a pocket veto, in which the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit.
  • If the President vetoes the bill, a veto message is sent back to Congress.
    • The two houses of Congress may decide to revote, and two-thirds is needed to override the veto and have the bill become a law.
      • If no immediate revote is taken, the bill can be tabled for later vote or sent back to the committee to have further work done.
      • If a vote is taken to override, and the vote fails, the bill dies.

Calls to action against SOPA

As I noted in my blog, this Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up the latest version of SOPA. Some organizations are calling for action on Thursday. For your consideration in this discussion, I'm including some relevant links showing how others are handling their call for action:

• The Daily Kos suggests calling Representatives and speaking online before Thursday.

• FYI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has compiled a thorough list of resources and actions that can help you understand SOPA's problems. EFF has a tool that can help folks contact their representatives.

• American University calls for individual and organization-wide actions before Thursday.

• Techcrunch sets out some interesting action plans.

• In a call to stop SOPA before Thursday, one site allows you to censor your own online content, like this page, with a tool from Stop American Censorship.

• Mozilla is similarly proposing action this week.

To state the obvious, we probably should not direct community traffic to these other sites if they do not have the technical capacity to handle it.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lobbying" and Government Affairs

Some continue to ask about lobbying restrictions. Let me repost here what I have said elsewhere:

Basically, the posting of banners or a blackout landing page that immediately redirects users to call Congress arguably raises issues about lobbying restrictions. In short, these activities, as others may suggest, might be considered lobbying. That said, Wikimedia can engage in lobbying activities as long as such engagement is "insubstantial" compared to overall activity. Insubstantial is not defined, and is based on the particular facts and circumstances. One possible consideration is that total lobbying for a tax year, under a conservative reading, should be less than 5% of total activities (though, I should say, some may say that this is not in itself determinative as to whether lobbying is insubstantial).

Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS provides some background here.

WMF and government affairs consultants

In response to some inquiries, I want to spell out some of our government affairs work, though it has been quite limited to date. Once it became clear that the proposed legislation was becoming active, the Wikimedia Foundation hired Dow Lohnes Government Strategies (“DLGS”) to provide educational background on several bills, including SOPA, IP Protect, and OPEN. The crux of the work is to provide us information on the legislation, such as the changing schedule for the various legislative steps; the substance of amendments; the key political players, including supporters and opponents, in the debate; news about the legislation; etc. This information has been useful in updating our community from an educational perspective. Early on, DLGS did have limited contacts with the House Judiciary Committee to understand the initial version of the legislation and to determine whether there would be room for acceptable legislative amendments. However, upon understanding the overall structure of the legislation, the Wikimedia Foundation decided that amendments could not address our community's key concerns. In the immediate future, we do not anticipate significant contacts with members of the House or Senate by DLGS on the legislation. We will continue to employ DLGS to furnish us their expertise on the legislative process and the various procedural and substantive legislative steps affecting the proposed legislation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF and recent US media coverage re SOPA

In late December 2011 and early January 2012 US media outlets began speculating that Wikimedia Foundation and other big, US-based web companies were all contemplating major shutdowns to protest SOPA. ExtremeTech published a slide from a NetCoalition representative that produced a list of those companies on record as supporting a possible blackout of services. They also speculated on a date that the blackouts might happen.

To be clear: the Wikimedia Foundation has made no comment whatsoever regarding a possible date for a blackout, nor have we suggested that any specific action or timetable has been suggested by the community. These are purely speculative suggestions from the press. We continue to refer those making inquiries to this page and/or ongoing discussions on other pages. We're also under the impression that the other web companies listed have not made any firm, public statement suggesting a blackout of services. JayWalsh (talk)

The following web companies have committed to a blackout on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC): Reddit[1], the Cheezburger network[2][3], Minecraft[4], Tucows[5], XDA[6] MLGS[7] and it is almost certain (but not yet confirmed) that the Mozilla foundation and Boing Boing will join in as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

International SOPA-like laws

Spain

We were informed by Spanish contacts about a recent Spanish "Sinde law." Here is some unconfirmed preliminary research that one of our interns found on this law:

The Spanish "Sinde law" creates a commission, headed by the Secretary of Culture, that receives and investigates claims from copyright owners against websites. Once the commission reaches a decision (approximately within ten days of receiving the complaint), a judge will look over the finding and, if the site owners can be contacted, request that the infringing material be removed or the site shut down. If that's not possible, the judge will be able to order ISPs and other web hosts to have the site taken offline.

We encourage any additions or corrections to this summary. (It makes me think that, separate from SOPA, we should be monitoring censorship laws worldwide and keep track on an independent wiki. If there is support for that idea, I will set that up. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Here is an article outlining US involvement in the Spanish Sinde law and the Spanish legislative process: http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatened-to-blacklist-spain-for-not-implementing-site-blocking-law-120105/ 98.24.27.17 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reddit going black on the 18th

http://mashable.com/2012/01/10/reddit-sopa/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow

-- Jim Reed (Talk)  23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Has my whole hearted backing. This is a cause I am willing to die for. Not kidding in the least. Do not pussy foot around this thing. This is an existential threat to the whole internet infrastructure. Not just a playpen for politics. ENUFF SAID. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Once you go black... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea that they're doing that. But I feel we have to be careful if we decide to do it here. Don't forget, that day falls on a Wednesday, and many people will be coming onto the site for information and so forth, so doing it on here would be risky business. I'm all up for putting some sort of banner on the home page and what have you; but again, let's not go overboard. The idea Reddit has is good, but again, let's be careful about where we're going with this before we actually decide to do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Reddit on this one. One day won't hurt our credibility and will send a strong message to the world. A wednesday is an idea day to work as many people will be directed to the site, and thus, made aware of SOPA and its effect on the world. The news media is skirting the situation and we will be doing our moral duty as Wikipedians to inform and educate.  Marlith (Talk)  05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of matching reddit's blackout. A wikipedia-specific blackout, triggered by conditions agreed upon here, is fine but this would be a much more effective effort were it pan-internet. We have a week; let's get the community on board to set Jan 18th as a blackout day. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm in favor of a blackout, I think that we need to coordinate with bigger sites if we want to have more firepower. Alexius08 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, that the idea of a wp-en blackout is also appreciated in the german WP. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a 12-hour blackout on January 18th, and having it synchronized with the Reddit blackout. During the next SOPA-related hearing, I would like to have Congresspersons mention how Wikipedia is blacking out in opposition to SOPA. Here's our chance to have an impact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

12 hours is more than enough time to get the message out there. We don't need to take up the whole day to spread the word. But again, let's be careful about where we are going with this. I would agree to a 12 hour protest rather than go the entire day. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think very few people will visit Wikipedia during the night. We should also force some of the Wikifants to take a day off. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why I'd favor a 24 hour blackout; it's likely we'll entirely miss some people. But we should match what Reddit does, and we should be reaching out to other sites (someone mentioned a Facebook blackout of some sort, for example) to coordinate. When multiple top-10 sites go dark, it increases coverage exponentially - which is the entire point. Contacts from voters to representatives is one benefit, but getting high-profile media to suddenly start covering this issue is another, and the broader scope of the blackout serves that end. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to have a blackout. It goes directly against Wikipedia's aims and principles.

I'm not sure how much experience people posting here have with user behavior (particularly on computers), but users will ignore any pop-up or banner ad. If it's obtrusive enough, they'll find the "close" or "x" link. Otherwise, they'll simply filter it out. A total blackout (as opposed to a banner) will just cause people to say "oh, Wikipedia's down" and ignore any message you're trying to get across. It may be disheartening, but it's the reality.

For Reddit, a blackout is even more pointless, as the dozen or so nerds who visit Reddit already know about SOPA and its threatened impact. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The dozen or so"? Reddit had 35 million uniques in December, and over 2 billion pageviews. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia had a few more. And, uh, that was a bit of hyperbole. The basic points still stand: a blackout is a bad idea and the nerds who visit Reddit are already aware of SOPA, making it an even worse idea.

I should add that anyone suggesting Wikipedia should follow Reddit's lead in anything ought to be taken 'round back. Reddit is a cesspool of dreck. Surely not to be emulated. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The colloquial way of expressing that idea is "If Reddit jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?" :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the same cynical impulse about Reddit, but on reflection, I'm not sure it wasn't just being curmudgeonly. I can see a reasonable argument that for Reddit's community and audience, it's a motivational action (i.e. it's not that they don't know, but getting people to do something - especially something beyond ranting on discussion forums! - is an entirely different issue). HOWEVER, I don't think what Reddit can do, in terms of being a corporate site with a specific "voice", directly applies to what Wikipedia can do, as a charity with a nebulous "neutrality" claim. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The bored nerds attempting to access Reddit at work aren't going to take to the streets because they've lost their "discussion" forum (Reddit is to discussion what Encyclopedia Dramatica is to encyclopedias). Instead, they're going to get on Facebook. Or Slashdot. Or wherever else. And when the site comes back up on January 19, they'll come back and post more noise. What will have been accomplished? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They don't need to take the streets ("Occupy SOPA"?). There's a chance that a small portion of them might be motivated to contact their members of Congress and engage in a mild amount of real politics. Everything doesn't need to be hyperrevolutionary up-against-the-wall radicalism in order to be worthwhile (or at least I hope so). In terms of activism, the question I think is what's the expected gain, is it worth the cost, and who pays the cost. This is of course difficult. Much of my dislike of Wikipedia, and concerns about Wikipedia activism, are related to cost-shifting, where small "gains" for the top 1% are done at large "losses" for the bottom 99% (sound familiar?). But Reddit strikes me as a low-risk/low-cost effort. It may do a little good, it may just be net-flaming, but there's no big possible downside I see either. Wikipedia is in a different position in terms of that analysis, though. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are people that are going to be coming onto this site not knowing what is going on. All they will want is to get their information and be on their way. And by forcing someone to not be able to view what it was they came on here to get, their negativity will be drawn the other way. Ordinary people will generate negativity towards this site for doing such thing. I'm telling you right now, there's a good possibility that it'll happen. We should speak to those who use Wikipedia just to get information and be on their way. Or else, this protest won't work. Please take my suggestion and ask the ordinary users before we do a protest. And, again, since a majority of people on here seem to think opposite of these decisions, I would like to propose a 12 hour protest. 12 hours will be Enough Time to get the information out there. And, once more, I would like to remind everyone that January 18th falls on a Weekday. Let's all make a decision that is fair to everyone, and think about what we are doing before we actually go off and do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You tend to ignore the consequences of SOPA. It could bring the Wikipedia down for much longer than one day. Where can the people get their information from in this case? SOPA is such a serious problem, that we should adress it. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA will not bring down Wikipedia. See above legal post, quote, "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours.". I don't really want to be "the guy" who goes around saying "You are being lied to", since I'm not in a social position for it, and I'm very much against SOPA on civil-liberties and Internet architecture grounds. I'm trying to advocate appropriate protest, as there's also some caution to keep in mind. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This "new version" reduces the danger of the WMF beeing banned from payment services, but this does not affect the chapters. The DNS blocks are obscure. But even without those two points, the WP has to execute the regular control of weblinks. This point is probably even more dangerous than the other 2 points, as it could force us to waste ressources and to restrict the free-editing-policy. If the link-control can not be completely executed, the WMF would probably have to spend donations on fines, that could also waste their budget. The new version is not as bad as the old one, but it is still bad. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what could happen if SOPA becomes law. And I do agree with Seth. It's just a little confusing, in a way, trying to understand every little detail of wwhat SOPA would do to websites like this one. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's conceivable that a few links might be added to the existing WP:blacklist which is already lovingly maintained to control acceptable sites links at Wikipedia. But as much an offense to freedom of expression that might be, it's not going to bring Wikipedia down, which was the claim above. This is where I just don't want be "that guy", to write lengthy explanations of how you are being manipulated. For example, trying to explain where this sits in the universe of legal risks, compared to e.g. the completely opposite reaction that's generally seen with problematic sexual material. Once more, I am against SOPA, but the sky just isn't falling for Wikipedia. And there's reasons you're being told it is :-( . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're OK with telling us we're being manipulated, you also need to be OK with explaining your position. Otherwise you're just playing at FUD games. --JaGa^talk 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - we made a small site in response to Reddit's January 18th blackout - I think it'd certainly be smart if WP joins in on the 18th, but I also think it's equally important for a lot of smaller sites out there to join in as well: http://sopablackout.org Pvvni (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the "(click anywhere to continue)" sopablackout.org is using. Some users disagree with preventing visitors from viewing the content they came to Wikipedia to see, but we could provide a similar method (perhaps a button) for those visitors to view article content after learning about SOPA and what actions to take. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey: What about a short-term, user-controlled blackout option? That is to say, lock the site to anyone coming into Wikipedia. Like a EULA, make them have to read something about SOPA and its effects on the Internet. Include of course what they can do to help stop it. Then, once they have read it (maybe once they've scrolled down or after a set amount of time) a button will appear and when they click it they can gain access to the site again. Is that too difficult to do?

Why don't we have a real vote, whether to have a blackout or not?

First edit in a while, but I'll throw my voice behind the blackout idea. Yes, it goes against the idea of wikipedia, but so does SOPA. It's not like we are promoting censorship, just like cropwalk isn't promoting hunger. Probably should setup a coordinated page for just the 18th blackout and have it linked on the community portal instead of this page, though.--Rayc (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Only a few days left to get this done. From the comments it appears most editors want WP to join the SOPA blackout on the 18th, so how do we get it done? What's needed, some kind of vote? Let's do it! Steevithak (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So...Why not blackout the front page? Or why not make a separate "blackout page" where every visitor that comes to WP via the home page sees, states what SOPA is, how Wikipedia will be affected, and add a clear link to be "redirected" to the official Wikipedia homepage. Although I favor a WP wide blackout, there are other alternatives such as what I listed above. I don't like the idea of a banner. Many people are annoyed by banners, and they often ignore what they say. To be as up front as possible I think these are probably the best options. Regardless of the decision, something should be done. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on a SOPA message on WP if action is taken

Like many of the folks on staff at WMF, I've been tracking updates on this issue carefully, keeping an eye on this page, and following the movements around the bill in Washington. To assist this discussion and to be useful, we've been trying to think about what exactly might appear on Wikipedia should some sort of advocacy action around SOPA take place in the future. We've put our heads together at WMF on this language, but it shouldn't be construed as an official or approved text from us, rather some kind of a starting point for what sort of text might appear to readers should actions on the project unfold (I haven't seen such text in other parts of WP so far, but if I should be looking there too I will). I've always admired how Wikipedians frame these issues up to readers, so I know that whatever text ultimately comes together it will be quite good - clear, direct and simple. As with Geoff, Philippe, Ryan and others, the communications team is also here to share ideas, provide feedback and support the conversation. I'm also pleased to report that WMF is ready from a communications perspective if or when any action unfolds. It will almost certainly become one of the most important media stories in the world, and we should be ready to talk to the press and point them to the right info in the event it all happens.

Two variations for a possible landing page are shared below. One would be more relevant for US readers, the other for non-US readers. It seems much of the conversation is making a clear distinction between the two audiences, which makes a lot of sense to me. In the case of the US message we've reached out to friends at the EFF about one scenario in which readers could be pointed to their current advocacy page (the URL is a bit brutal, but you get the idea). We've asked what kind of capacity they could handle, and the short answer is 'a lot.' This portal is also very simple for US readers and being EFF, it's very careful with private information. As I understand it, this advocacy tool is one of the most privacy sensitive and stores the absolute minimum of data. It's very important that if action takes place, where readers are sent to 'act' really must be chosen carefully. As others have observed, there could be millions of users flooding that link in a matter of hours. EFF's tool is ready for that traffic.

Here are the messages we put together. Of course we expect they'd see considerable change and adaptation - or a completely different message may come together. Happy to share more thoughts...

DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia

Users of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers - they contribute millions of hours a year to this project because they are passionate about sharing free knowledge. Today Wikipedia is available in 282 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is the fifth most-visited website online, with over 480 million unique visitors.

All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space. Wikipedia is absolutely dependent on this fact. Our editors and our readers must have access to websites hosted around the world - to verify and add facts, to research articles, and to offer critical context for encyclopedic articles. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users. On Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, upload freely-reusable pictures, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factually correct information anywhere on the web.

Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new bills - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that, if passed, will harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills endanger our Constitutional guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening model of Internet censorship for more repressive regimes around the world.

How you can help

Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.

The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.

NON-US Focused message DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia

Readers of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years volunteer Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Today Wikipedia is available in over 280 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is a top 5 global website with over 480 million unique visitors.

All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space for sharing information. Collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that the readers of Wikipedia have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factual information anywhere on the web.

Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new laws - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that would harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites. These bills endanger the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening precedent for more repressive regimes around the world.

Everyone who uses the Internet can make their views known about these pieces of legislation. SOPA and PROTECTIP, if passed in the United States, set a frightening precedent for free and open speech on the web around the world. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free and open web.

Let your local United States embassy know that you value the free, secure and open web. You should also reach out to your own elected representatives and tell them that there’s no room for this type of censorship in your country either.

JayWalsh (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I approve. One idea that I think would help is to lock down access to all articles except the ones on SOPA and PIPA, which will work well given the aims and parameters of this action.  Marlith (Talk)  05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We have prepared this message at the german Wikipedia. It consists of four parts: First, the existence of SOPA Second, the 4 critical points, in detail section 102, which demands us to control and censor our links, the restrictions on VPNs and similar tools, the Domain blankings and the restrictions on payment services. The message is concluded by a list of other organisations, that oppose SOPA. In my opionion, a message to the readers should not only state the fact, that SOPA will cause problems, but also describe these problems in detail .--Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The German message is excellent. Whilst the proposed text above is OK it's not very easy to understand for a reader who has no idea what is going on. At the very least the first sentence needs to say "Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary blackout in protest over two new proposed US laws" etc. The first paragraph is nice, and all that, but seems a bit sappy ("oh look how awesome we are"), which reduces the punch and impact on the message. I would scrap it in its entirety. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users.; this seems to be over-egging the basket a bit :) it's only SOPA that has made us sit up. Also; it should always be "English Wikipedia" as we are only representing ourselves - to represent all Wikipedia's is a decision we can't make :) Perhaps (with some style copy-editing):

English Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary **ACTION** in protest over two new proposed US laws which may limit internet freedom and material impact our goals.

For over ten years volunteer editors from around the world have been compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the English Wikipedia you use and enjoy every day. All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space, a fact on which the English Wikipedia is absolutely dependent. Our editors and readers must have access to websites hosted around the world to verify material, research articles, and obtain critical context for articles. On English Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add information, remove vandalism, upload images, engage in wide-ranging debate and discussion, and help ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written and factually correct information.

The United States House of Representatives and the Senate are currently considering two new bills (The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP) which may make our task impossible. If passed these bills will harm the free, secure, and open web and create new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills would endanger Constitutional guarantees of free speech and create a frightening model of Internet censorship.

How you can help

Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate English Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.

The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that English Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Observation: I have a feeling that if the claimant had a complaint against us the law would simply take away the whole domain and Wikipedia would be no more, unless we relocated to another country. So it would be worth verifying somewhere that the bills would drive out the information technology industry out of the US. --Marianian^(talk) 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not so. See above - "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This "new version" tends to make the DNS-Censorship and the restrictions on payment processors not a very serious issue for Wikipedia. However, the dns-blocks remain an obscure thing and I could not find a source, that states, that Wikipedia is completely out of danger from the dns-blocks. The definition of a "foreign infringement site" is very obscure and there is one line, to which we should pay attention: A “foreign infringing site” is a [...] Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents [...] that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site. The Operator of Wikipedia uses to be someone else than the owner of the site, the WMF. What happens, if someone claims to have a problem with things done by someone from Siberia on WP-RU and/or translations/transfers of this content to the volapük-Wikipedia by a bot? In this case, the User from Siberia is completely foreign to the US, the bot probably too. If you watch this video from the house of representatives, you will get an idea of how little the organizers of SOPA know about how the internet works. For Wikipedia, the line the owner or operator of the Internet site could mean anything, as the organizers of SOPA are probably not informaed about Web 2.0 . Of course, the final line is according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc., but as the definition of the person, that is responsible for the content of the site is too obscure, I would not trust on this line.

I am refering to the analysis by Geof Brigham, I do not know, if according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. was added by him. It would be good, if we would not have to fear dns-blocks, but this "new version" forces us to stay in th US forever. We have had a discussion at the german Wikipedia about setting up a strategic plan to become more independent fro, the WMF and to operate the german Wikipedia from Europe. Such things would become hard to do with SOPA.

Even if there would be a guarantee, that we would not be affected by the dns-blocks, SOPA still demands us to control and censor our weblinks, which is bad enough. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider myself corrected in part, although it is worth noting that I feel really strong over the scale of the plan. My thought is that DNS blocking is not an option for any site other than child porn and terrorist activity like Neo-nazism. If they wish to tackle online piracy, they should instead target companies that sell counterfeit goods for actual profit. But overall I respect other's opinions as well as making mine clear. --Marianian^(talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The part about according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. is in Geoff Brigham's original blog post. Wikipedia has far greater problems with non-US law, particularly third-party liability for content -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we could come up with an opener with more punch. For example, if the action is a blackout, imagine this headline in big, unmissable text on a black page:

Contact Congress now or Wikipedia may go dark forever.

This hooks readers into wanting to see more, and makes it clear that this is not a fundraising pitch. —Brent Dax 03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline is that you will make readers feel under pressure or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That sure would hook people, you're completely and absolutely right there. It would also be completely false. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline like that is you will make readers feel under pressure, or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This message is a good start, but the big problem is that we should (as in Geoff's blog post) list at least one concrete way that SOPA/PROTECTIP will hurt Wikipedia. I suggest the following:

"SOPA/PROTECTIP will prevent Wikipedia articles from linking to relevant websites that are accused of infringement, even if such accusations are baseless. The ability to reference sources and suggest further reading is critical to Wikipedia's reliability and utility."

Thoughts? Dcoetzee 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In the drafts it is not clear at all how it will hurt Wikipedia or others (Just says it will). I believe that before people take an action to contact their representative, they want to be very sure what they are protesting! Language needs to be created to precisely spell out what the possible (or inevitable) harm is from SOPA...not just hint that it is a bad thing. Would you sign your name to something if you didn't understand it or could not see what the fuss was all about? Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Further DRAFT messages for the public to use RE SOPA

We've been thinking about other important text to share with everyone asap. These messages are different from the proposed landing page text above. These are proposed texts we could and should put on an 'other things you can do to help' page. IF people want to go above and beyond using an advocacy platform, they should know what they can say and to whom - again, very much US focussed. These are broken into three topic areas... JayWalsh (talk)

Cyber Security

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would seriously damage the security of the Internet (in the House the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important part of our personal and business life. Therefore, a safe and secure Internet is vital to our privacy and economy. Over 100 well-known Internet experts believe that requiring blocking of Internet sites is badly conceived and threatens the security of the Internet. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Censorship

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, the PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. These bills would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites, risking the suppression of protected speech, even when that website or its information is not the subject of a complaint. This violates both the American concept and the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. It sets a terrible precedent and provides a frightening model for repressive regimes. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Innovation

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you as my representative to oppose bills that would seriously chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, PROTECTIP Act). Our economy has benefited enormously from innovation on the Internet. Not only has the Internet created successful multi-billion dollar businesses that didn’t exist 10 years ago, it has benefited literally thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market. These bills would put unreasonable burdens on the Internet Service Providers and search engines, the backbone of the Internet, and strip the safe harbor for innovation the law now provides. Less drastic alternatives must be considered which do not suffocate our Internet economy. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Discussion

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Other options

I've been trying to comment my concerns down below these sections here, but I don't believe they've been seen by, well, anyone. Apologize ahead if I'm posting in the wrong area, but I really do want to bring out a couple of points. First off, I've been searching for news on the status of SOPA/PIPA, and from the information I've read, it seems as if both bills will not be going up for debate this Wednesday (the day we've proposed as the day of our blackout), as they will further look into the bill. I was going to ask if we should keep that date, scrap it, or still do a blackout but not a full blackout. Second, I understand we're all very heavily debating about the blackout on here, but I don't believe neutrality is being brought up here. I just feel like things should be fair on both sides, regardless of where all of us stand on the issue. I'd rather have things equal than go out of hand. If anyone knows if there are any other pages where I can have these topics discussed, please let me know. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tallies

Option	Total Votes	Registered Users	Autoconfirmed Users
1. Blackout US only, global banner	479	443	395
2. Global blackout and banner	591	558	497
3. Blackout and banner both US only	24	24	22
4. No blackout, global banner	20	18	18
5. No blackout, banner US only	19	17	16
6. No blackout and no banner	76	72	67

Call for comment from the community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Summary

There appears to be an emerging consensus that the community wants to do “something” to demonstrate concern about this bill. Questions remain whether that should impact just the United States or the whole world, and what the “something” is. Based on what the WMF believes is emerging as consensus from community discussions, we are asking your input on the following open questions.

Update: A first round of designs for interstitial "blackout" screens has been posted to Blackout screen designs.

Open questions

Instructions: To show your support for any of the proposed actions below, add the following line of code at the bottom of the list of other supporters you wish to join:

#'''Support'''. ~~~~

US only vs global (all users)

Consensus appears to be emerging that this proposed action should target only users of the English Wikipedia. The blackout component would apply only to users geo-located to the United States. It's important to say that this blackout will be accomplished using a "splash screen". It will not remove or block any content. The banner component would display to all users, regardless of location.

To avoid clutter, please Support only your favorite option (do not Oppose), and if you wish state your feelings about other options in your response, referring to them by number.

(1) Blackout US only, global banner

1. Strongly Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.162.153 (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support It is imperative that the other, similar bills, are also given light. Just because SOPA can get shot down does not mean that the others will, too. The banner is better for non-US because they really can't do much to change USA's lawmaking. Ainola 14:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support - the 'soft black out' is a bad idea but it defeats the entire purpose of blacking out. OFF-LINE, and maybe a link to anonymizing proxies and/or Tor network to promote semi-anonymous traffic. Reid Sullivan (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support (1) Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. Jorge Haddad
6. Support, but (2) is acceptable as well. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Despite what some have said, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference to U.S. lawmakers if the site was blanked globally. Readers from other locations should be able to see the site. However, from what I've seen, most would be glad to join the protest so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Support - if there has to be a blackout, then it should only take place in the US, since there's no benefit to blacking out those in any countries (they can't do anything to solve the problem, since it's a US law that only US citizens can appeal against, so why punish them by taking away their Wikipedia access?). Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   The header when I left this message was 'US only' rather than the current "Blackout US only, banner for all users". I was trying to make the point that if a blackout happens it should only cover the US, nothing more. I'm generally opposed to a blackout at all. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry for confusion - maybe consider supporting one of (4)-(6) and then indicate that you prefer (1) or (3) to (2)? Dcoetzee 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

8. Support - (for worldwide blackout) Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. SOPA is not just an American issue anymore. Everyone has to be informed and involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - I agree with Mike Peel. However, expatriats and citizens of other countries should be informed to take part in the conversation and the opposition to SOPA from abroad, for example by calling the local US embassy and mention the concern. Since many SOPA supporters are international companies, there are local offices of these companies abroad, too. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support It may be a tip in neutrality, but doing wht is right is more important than being neutral right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatiusguy0 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support per Mathias Schindler's thoughts based on Mike Peel's comment. Reluctantly as I'd like a bigger impact but in this case targeting might be how to get that bigger impact. (Night w makes a similar point I have to agree with, too - US lawmakers don't seem to much care if the rest of the world disagreews when it comes to US security.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

    Very slim banner only, "This is what's going on in the US, show your support". A "protest this legislation" or heavy duty banner note might be less effective. The message for the United States is "this is what you're doing to your internet. And nobody else is going to hear about it or have its effects, except as an item on overseas news". Slim banner to make the point that effectively, the rest of the world it's no effect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

12. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters so pointless to antagonise the rest of the world. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support per AlisonW. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support --Teukros (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Jujutacular ^talk 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support This strikes the right balance between involving the community but focusing the protest where it is directly relevant. Many users outside the U.S. will complain about any action (in my opinion not grasping its global implications), but in the interest of doing something we should focus where there will be less resistance. Note, I would support a global click-through blackout but not a global full blackout. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. I'm willing to support but prefer to minimize inconvenience for people when it's less likely that they can effectively respond to the call. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support per Mike Peel. We need some form of action: short and clear. Greetings from Frankfurt Germany. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. I agree with what Jimbo said. A global blackout won't do us much good. A global blackout might even annoy some users. Nevertheless, I believe that non-US users need to see a banner so that they're aware of what's going on and why we're doing it. Some international pressure from the foreign press might do some good as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support I'm also willing to provide some technical support in regards to this. If we don't make a stand, this bill will pass, and we'll be kicking ourselves for not doing enough to try to stop it. --Ryan lane (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Perhaps banners for those in other countries preachin' the gospel (like Mozilla did). SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Shubinator (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Strong Support for this. I'll be blacking out my own site (small graphics developer) in support of Reddit and would very much like to see Wikipedia support it. Something needs to be done to wake up rank and file internet users in the US and time is of the utmost essence.Anarchistjim (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support — Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers. — madman 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support --Jorm (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support --Rayc (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Catlemur 15:00, 13 January 2012 (GMT)
30. Support Most graphic method of driving home the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.124.154 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
31. I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support +1 on this --75.80.212.166 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)— 75.80.212.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
33. Support This needs to happen to sufficiently raise awareness Geekwithsoul (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Since this seems to be the most popular option, I'll put my vote towards this. I think a worldwide blackout would be much more effective, however. SOPA impacts everybody, and I think non-Americans need to be informed. A global backlash against the bill will be very powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support with (2) and (3) as second and third choices. This issue is critically important to our future. Jnork (talk) 22:34, 13 January, 2012 (UTC)
37. Support, very much yes. Teamsleep (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support, I would also like (2)--Blood sliver (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Raises awareness to users everywhere, but keeps the focus where the issue can be most directly affected.--JayJasper (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Minimal banner for non-US, respecting that it's not their country, but they still may care --Ed Brey (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support followed by (3), (2), and (4). We should only be acting like this if there's a near total consensus here on the issue and the importance. I believe that's the case here with SOPA. Bennetto (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support. – Joe N 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) lets run this into the ground and shut down the entire website. The only way to fight fire is with fire, I will go (2) as a backup option myself.
45. Support, but happy with the other blackout/banner options too. Wittylama 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Yes - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support option 1 or 2, I do not think people will look at just another banner. Awk (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support AndrewPapp (talk)But, at least for the US, it should not be an easy click-thru. It should direct people to write to their Congress reps and only end their blackout early if they do.
49. Support Sarah 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support Agent 78787 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. The blackout should be a splash screen, and it should be targeted only to people who have representatives to contact (i.e. people in the U.S.) Even if foreign citizens contact Congress, they're not going to give them any impact. The splash screen should encourage people to take action, but not require them to do so. If they so choose, they should be able to decline and then use Wikipedia as normal. Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support --SirGeek CSP (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Aswn (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Would be up for 1 or 2 --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. 1 or 2 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support option 1 or 2 ~Feedintm^Parley 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support --The Requiem (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support I think a blackout is a good way to raise awareness about the bill, and I feel banners are more prone to being ignored (especially so soon after the fundraising drive). However, I don't feel that blacking out Wikipedia outside of the U.S. is necessary, as this is a U.S. law and the lawmakers responsible for the bill are U.S. It will affect people around the world, yes, but I don't think a global blackout will change any lawmakers' minds. I strongly disagree, however, with the idea of requiring a visitor to contact his or her Congressman before he or she can access Wikipedia. Those who support the bill or do not want to take action of there own should not be punished. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support We should do this on the mobile site too. Lucasoutloud (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Would also support global as well — the Internet is not just national, and if the US does this, there will be global effects as well. Additionally there are considerable numbers of voting Americans abroad. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support This will allow us to raise concern well domestically with the blackout and internationally with a banner. --Kylalak (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support The blackout will be unignorable. And I just think non-US users seeing a blackout pertaining to a US law might be made to feel like Wikipedia is not "for" them, like the assumed audience of Wikipedia is American. I don't like that idea, so that's why I support (1) rather than (2). Glowbee (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support seems to me a reasonable response. of course, many us citizens read other wp's, and many noncitizens read the english wp, but since the servers are in florida, the english wp has got to be the focus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support This being US regulation, makes sense to go US only. TNL (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support as second choice, behind full worldwide blackout. This legislation will affect the Internet, which is worldwide, not just the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Only an actual blackout for US users will have a sufficiently large impact to get this movement noticed in the way it needs to be.Dlswain (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters «»Who?¿? 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support This is a serious enough issue to draw attention, more in the US than elsewhere. As the bill(s) would have far-reaching effects that extend beyond the borders of the US, it makes sense for something to be broadcast outside the US as well. Spiffulent (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support This is not a a purely "political" act, SOPA potentially endangers the freedom of Wikipedia by allowing pages to willy-nilly be shut down. This is a HUGE deal. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support Ktdreyer (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support Has the foundation considered moving the project to a more friendly environment?Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Wikipedia should be more politically and legally active when the project is at risk. Savidan 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Doing so has my full support. We live in a democracy and we must make our voices heard. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support Wikipedia do your part. Mypagesarecool (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support We need to express ourselves with a blackout, but we also need to explain to all what is happening in the USA. Etineskid(talk) 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support. I still feel it would be more pointed to just target this at the U.S. House and Senate IPs, as well as those of the companies and organizations that support SOPA/PIPA, but if this coordinates with what other sites are doing, like Reddit, we're stronger doing it with them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support actual reddit style blackout. The whole point is to demonstrate what the internet is like without Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
84. 1st choice. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support and make the American users unable to use Wiki with a big banner, for that day. Saffy21 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Support: It is a global issue, no doubt, but the legislation is for America only, so we should keep the blackout to America. Jarmihi (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support Equaaldoors (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Support but (2) is also an acceptable alternative. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support Blockout is our only weapon at the moment to protest this, let it be an important day el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Zhang5 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Edit: Also I support that we put up banners well in advance of the 18th.
92. Support Dkriegls (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support Iconofiler (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Support action needs to be taken. I signed the petition on sopastrike.com and demandprogress.org, I will sign here too. Akihironihongo (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support Monowi (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Support Wikipedia must take a stand to defend freedom on the internet. U.S. users especially need this message now, but all Wikipedians should be informed of the dangers of these censorship concepts. Sonicsuns (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
97. support While I believe that too few people outside the US are aware of what's going on, I think a global blackout might confuse (what congressperson? I don't have a congressperson...) and annoy those who feel it is completely irrelevant. That said, failing this, I'd rather go big than tone it down: 2 is second choice. <edit: this for the splash screen, not full blackout.>sonia♫ 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
98. Support 1 and 3 are both adequate. I agree it should be enwiki and geolocated in the US. I also like the banners, as otherwise, I wouldn't have known about this issue. Perhaps blackout to US users and banner for others. After reading the proposals, it's utter rubbish, and the US public should do whatever it takes to get their voice heard. Captain Courageous (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
99. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Support --Cybercobra (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
101. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
102. Support Banners are often ignored, so more is needed, and as long as there is still access (albeit somewhat more circuitous) a blackout is sensible. I like the idea of warning about the blackout in advance. DopplerRadioShow (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Support elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
104. Support Perlit (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I find (2) also acceptable
105. Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
106. Support. Let's not do that 'America thing' and plague the world with our problems. A banner is great, especially for US citizens living overseas, where they may not have been exposed to information about to SOPA. As for the US, let no American escape. Commander Ziltiod (speak) 09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
107. Support SOPA affects every person in the US, and our community must take a stand against it. The bill also has the potential to affect Wikipedia itself, so we should let the world know our stand... but not black them out, that's dangerously like doing SOPA's job for it. For those voting in support of (5), and (6) who are quoting WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, or similar (ad there are some), a question: How do you reconcile that stance with the fact that you're participating in this conversation? An assertion that WP:NPOV should extend to more than article content seems inherently self-contradictory. FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
108. Support I'd love to see Wikipedia taking part in this. The blackout should be US only (I do like the idea of a clickthrough to allow people to access articles after seeing the blackout). Non-US countries should get a banner so that those in a position to affect US policy -- traveling or expatriate US citizens, for example -- should be a position to do so. Gaurav (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
109. Support Though, I would also support a worldwide blackout (maybe more, but not sure if it's "fair" since it is a US law) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
110. Support SOPA is way to vague if we want something like this to make sure creative people get what they deserve it needs to be more specific. although not the "worlds" problem i would appreciate what support we can get from anyone. however, international users shouldn't be punished for the US sucking, which is why i support here, but if they can help in anyway i'll love them forever (aka, be a better more involved human being, who continues to give a shit, but takes more action to help the world)i'm sure this makes very little sense but i just woke up for work at 5:40 am ESTKillemall22 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
111. US Politicians are out of control. They are here to sever the people, not corporations. I support US Blackout only pldinesh2 11:11 AM, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
112. Support per Mike Peel. -- kh80 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
113. Support --Wvk (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
114. Support -- Users outside the U.S. do not have any influence on U.S. politics. They should be informed about the protests, but they should not be hindered from using Wikipedia.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
115. Support. Blackout will have a massive cost to this project as it annoys millions of potential donators and editors, causing many people to make decision to never donate or contribute to Wikipedia. In fact, this blackout protest probably harms Wikipedia more than SOPA ever could. So please keep it as limited as possible. ML (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
116. Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
117. jo, US-only. push them back to reason but keep the (global) nuke in the base for now. sadly, we may need it soon enough, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
118. Support —Ed!^(talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
119. Strong Support 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
120. Support covracer (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
121. Support --Wormcast (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     Support. I have some sympathy for option (2) because the proposed legislation has global impact since the U.S. based servers have global reach. However, only the U.S. audience has significant influence on U.S legislators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     I am advised by a 'bot, acting on behalf of a consensus of administrators, that my responses to this RfC are inapplicable or unclear. Whereas my response to the above captioned proposition represents my best effort to communicate my position on that specific proposition, and whereas it has been deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking it and withdrawing from this RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

122. Support--[[User:Wisdomtenacit/small>/span>]]) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
123. Support --yfocus|WTF (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
124. Support -- Donald Albury 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) -Blackout US only, banner for all users -- Donald Albury 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
125. Support I am in favor of any or all options for expressing opposition to SOPA. -- Frankie1969 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
126. Support --B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. I oppose this option on the grounds that the copyright industry is pushing similar legislation in multiple countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     This first question is multiple choice rather than support/oppose. There are six options, the last of which is to do nothing. Simply vote for the one you want. No need to oppose the others. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     I understand that, but I still object to making some options multiple choice and others support/oppose. Such differences inject subtle biases. --Guy Macon (talk)

     Object in concurrence with Guy Macon on all accounts. Stuart Ravn (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

127. Very Strong Support. The click through idea is rather clever, and I think it would work very effectively. --Torchflame (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
128. Support. The threat to the free availability to information needs to be addressed --Trödel 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
129. Support 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
130. Support --Narayan89 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
131. Support --Zinger0 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
132. Support --Tobias (Talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
133. ""Support"" -- Lets do this thing. The internet and wikipedia have brought enormous happiness and knowledge to my life and need to be protected.--Scarfieasbro(Scarfieasbro 11:15, 14 January 2012 (Eastern)
134. Support We need to take a stand on this important issue. It's too big for us to ignore it.--Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
135. Support. We may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. --Gwern (contribs) 16:32 14 January 2012 (GMT)
136. Support Yes, people should be able to click through it but it really should be a LARGE, noticeable black landing page with an attention-getting white headline, a concise summary, and a call to action and how users can make a difference. It should provide outside links to how SOPA and PIPA could hurt the internet and an easy way to contact your local representative. The point is, people should be forced to read it and find a way to close out before they continue to whatever article they were looking for, otherwise what's the point.
137. Support Dan653 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
138. Support -- Scokee 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
139. Support - Option 2 also okay. As long as content is accessible I have no problem with "consensing" with this, although the actual threat of SOPA to Wikipedia (as opposed to say YouTube or Archive.org) seems extremely low. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
140. Support. The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.
141. Support --Voyager (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
142. Algamicagrat (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
143. Support
144. Very Strong Support - Enkrates (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
145. Very Strong Support with 2 as a second option. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
146. Support -- PaleAqua (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
147. Support de Mediātōre Scientiae (discutere) 18:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
148. Support. — Aldaron • T/C 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
149. Support -- Time to make a stand and raise awareness, and in a way that ultimately does not harm the project. --McDoobAU93 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
150. Support, first choice, with 2 as second choice. There's no need to black out our worldwide users, but educating them about what's going on here can only help us. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
151. Support This or (3). I don't think we should be forcing a blackout on people from other countries, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to let them know what's going on. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
152. Support. James F. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
153. Strong Support. This seems like a rational response to SOPA. Dmarquard (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
154. "Support"* Support per AJ Sethi. Wikipedia is used by a lot of non-technical folks out there. The need to rope in as many people who are not involved in Web/Internet fields is important. Wikipedia outage can help raise this cause.
155. Support SOPA and Protect-IP pretty much only extend to the US. Of course, there are already countries that considered the option of Internet censorship like Spain, so 2 is also a viable idea. --User:Mistermister93 (talk) 10:23 14 January 2012 (UTC)
156. Support but (2) would be acceptable also -- Amillar (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
157. Support Blackout Wikipedia in ALL countries. US internet policy has a habit of spreading across the world, make the stand here and we won't have to worry about other SOPA bills passing in other countries. --User:If it bleeds we can kill it
158. Support Tinlash (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
159. Support Personally, I feel that Wikimedia, as a collective foundation, must take every action in its power to oppose SOPA and PIPA, both of which I oppose because the consequences of them may violate our First Amendment rights, censor and cripple the Internet, and threaten free speech, thereby jeopardizing the quality of human life and liberty. That said, I also feel that Wikipedia should have the same restrictions on copyright violations worldwide as it has in the United States. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 18:29, Saturday, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
160. Support US-only click-thru blackout. Only US citizens have any clout when petitioning their Congressional representatives. A global full blackout would direct user anger at Wikimedia, not Congress, where it belongs.
161. Support User:Dachvid Saturday 14 2012 (UTC) Passage of this law and signature by OUR sometime president would be a disaster.— Dachvid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
162. Support - the American people, the people that can influence their appointed leaders, need to be aware of what is happening and this is the best way to do it Taketa (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
163. Support I agree with AlisonW-2012 is an election year in the United States and we should a message to our public officials. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
164. Support A black-out to US American users (IP type blocking?) or English version of Wikipedia. All that should be visible for the blackout should be a message about SOPA/PIPA and all Wikimedia pages (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikia, etc) should display a banner (like the fundraising ones) that warns about SOPA/PIPA and tells users/visitors how they can help. -- Azemocram (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
165. Support dllahr
166. Support Jeremyb (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
167. Support --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
168. Support - This makes sense to me. --Talvieno (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
169. Support --Itu (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Me too.
170. Support - Limited support for (2) as well Ojchase (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
171. Support - US only blackout makes sense to me.
172. Support - The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.
173. Support - I share the same feelings as the previous supporters have expressed. Since this is a law that would affect American citizens, I feel the blackout should only affect us. But, since it's such a major campaign, a banner should be displayed for all other countries, too.EMathison— EMathison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
174. Support - CaptainTickles (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
175. Support --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
176. Support. Emw (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
177. Support RainbowOfLight ^Talk 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
178. Support Sargoth (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
179. Support -- A banner alone would not be enough to have a meaningful impact. Vencetti— Vencetti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
180. Support --KSnortum (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
181. Support -- While I do show solidarity to my US friends, I don't think we from the rest of the world should suffer because of the US politicians arrogance Deusdies 23:23, 14 January 2012 (CET)
182. Support -- Bab72 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
183. Support -- Only US users will be able to influence the Congresscritters, so it's pointless blacking out the rest of the world, but leave the banner to let everyone else know what's going on. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
184. Support -- TransporterMan (TALK) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
185. Support -- Geoff (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
186. Support -- User:Clementi 16:37 14 January 2012 GMT-7
187. Support -- User:Zaphraud 16:40 14 January 2012 GMT-7 (Arizona)
188. Support -- Crkey (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
189. Support -- — Ines(talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
190. Support -- User:Prolixium 19:18, 14 January 2012 (EST)
191. Support -- User:LegacyOfValor 16:46, 14 January 2012 (PST)
192. Support -- Don't punish global users who have no democratic control over Congress.Erudy (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
193. Support on much the same ground as others - I would oppose a blackout that affects people who have can no say in the process. But a banner to inform them of what is happening makes sense. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
194. Support --Nathan0n5ire (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
195. Support on grounds that we need to make a strong statement in USA; banner raises awareness of the issue elsewhere, and for Americans abroad. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
196. Support -- I heartily support a blackout, but feel that a U.S. only blackout would be most reasonable, since those users are likely the only ones who will be able to make a difference. Mesoderm (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
197. Support -- Sometimes, we as a community have to make tough decisions. This is on of them.Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
198. Support - Aibara (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
199. Support -- CuboneKing (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
200. Support -- Apmiller (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
201. Support with #2 as a reasonable second option. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
202. Support jkv (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
203. Support -- I cautiously add that if SOPA go forward, more extensive action (i.e full Blackout) should be seriously considered. For the moment, this seems sufficient. RandomArticles 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
204. Support
205. SUPPORT=AlejandrosFu
206. Support - DanielRenfro (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
207. Support--Found5dollar (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
208. Support I agree, it really sucks and I wish congress to do not pass this bill. JJ98 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
209. Support--Argos'Dad 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
210. Support--This might get tricky later on, but I say it's good. Docktur Todd (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
211. Support -- I think this is the optimal solution; choice 2 may be overkill, though it would be my second choice. Xtifr _tälk 07:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
212. Support. — Fleet Command (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
213. Support-- I support all options for a high-profile public statement against SOPA, although I understand the concerns of those editors who oppose the protest. I believe that this threat goes to the core of Wikipedia's mission, and that opposition to Wikipedia becoming a general political advocate ought not to prevent opposition to particular measures that might make it impossible for Wikipedia to exist in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
214. Support. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
215. Support --Anoopan (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
216. Support --Triquetra (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
217. Support. Let Americans know how the world can run ahead of us. Encourage the whole world to sign a petition in support of US citizens. Hozelda (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
218. Support. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
219. Support—No sense in damaging the site with a worldwide blackout, at least not initially, when it's a US-centred problem. Tony (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
220. Support This is a US Act not international law so a global blackout is not necessary, but a US blackout is enough to make a point about it in the US aka the place it affects. However I have no objection with a global banner as people can easily close it with the "x" icon if they don't want to view it whilst on the site. Then lets say a similar act in the future being proposed in the UK or another country, we can have a UK blackout and a global banner. IJA (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
221. Support smurfix (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
222. Support--Eugen844 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
223. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
224. Support --La Corona (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
225. Support. Prav001 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
226. Support . --216.131.118.170 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
227. Support Jane (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I was awed by the Italy strike. Besides the politcal statement, the Italy strike 1) let Italians know that Wikipedia is the result of individuals, and not a government-owned public service like the railroads or garbage collection and 2) supplied people the tools and teeth to participate in debate, rather than just feeding them information. Though I feel a global blackout would be best, I feel this is not fair to Britain and Australia. Jane (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
228. Support Denis Barthel (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
229. Support. Przemub (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
230. Support. Blackout US only, as foreign users cannot influence the US government, while American users can: they can protest and file petitions against SOPA. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
231. Support. Peter Loader (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
232. Support. Vishwas M Byrappa
233. Support - From someone outside the US (although I would accept option 2) AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
234. Support. Grancapo13 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
235. Support. Spartan S58 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
236. Support. This seems optimal. As a person outside the U.S. I am concerned, and would be impacted by SOPA, however I do not have a congressman I can write to (or withhold a vote from) LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
237. Support. --Milan.j (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
238. Support. Kaihsu (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
239. Support - if those of us who are not US voters cannot make any useful protests or representations about SOPA, then it seems harsh, and likely to antagonise non-US readers, to blackout WP for us for the day. And please ensure that the language of the banner avoids "American English" words or spellings like "fiber", as it will be aimed at a global audience. PamD 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
240. —S Marshall T/C 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
241. Support. wpoely86 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
242. Support — elmindreda (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
243. Support Ivo (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
244. Support Other places are helpless so why affect them? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
245. Support: Adam4267 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
246. Support: US Only: This is not global - we can move the servers Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
247. Support Mattaidepikiw (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
248. Support: This is US legislation, so Americans most immediately need to know what it means. There is no point blocking out Wikipedia in countries that may not even have anything like SOPA in the works. The world needs to know what's happening, however. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
249. Support. Danh (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
250. Support. Oneiros (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
251. Support. --Mazbln (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
252. Support Non-US users have no influence over US legislators; inconveniencing us serves no purpose. An informative banner would suffice Dtellett (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
253. Support. jamescook83
254. Support. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
255. Support. Aflis (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
256. Support. This is an American problem, but citizens of other repressive governments should be shown they CAN make a difference when they work together.
257. Support. yankhadenuf
258. Support that would be the preferable solution. -- Luk ^talk 13:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
259. Support.Sole Soul (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
260. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
261. Support - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
262. Support, though (2) would be preferable to not joining the blackout at all. Huon (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
263. Support. Chenzw  Talk  14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
264. Support. Fieldafar (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
265. Support. Avarhilien (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
266. Support. Extraneus (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
267. Support. Jacob J. Walker (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
268. Support.--Sergio.R.F.Oliveira (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
269. Support. 4th-otaku (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
270. Support. Quolav (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
271. Support. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
272. Support. Since it a US bill, blackout (only) in US makes sense. It does affect the people outside US but they can't do anything much about it. Global Banners can raise awareness among other nations about these laws without affecting their Wikipedia experience. A global blackout as suggested in (2) won't be fair. trunks_ishida (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
273. Support. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
274. Support. The whole world should be made aware of SOPA, The effects of the blackout need to be felt at least in the USA; a blackout in the rest of the world might gain more publicity, but the one that counts is the US. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
275. Support.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
276. Support. Folks outside US definitely need to be aware of this, but we can't do anything about it. Besides, if you still allow US users to use Tor or foreign proxies to access the content, that gives the nice impression of "see, have you considered that some people have to do this daily, and if this law passes, you might have to get used to that too." wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
277. Support. This seems appropriate because if, say, New Zealand Wikipedians wanted to protest a similar local law, it is probably doubtful that they could ever get consensus for a global block. So a local block in this case sets the right precedent.--FormerIP (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
278. Support. People outside the US can't do anything about SOPA, but they should at least know about it. Theon144 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
279. Support. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
280. Support. ... discospinster _talk 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
281. Support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
282. Support. Bk1 168 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
283. Support. If there are any other countries considering this kind of legislation, I'd like to suggest a 'sympathy blackout' as well. The Rev (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
284. Support. A banner will not do enough. Blackout is needed.
285. Support Prysewhert 16:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
286. Support. SOPA is a credible threat to the whole internet, and Wikipedia, being one of the top sites visited by US citizens is an incredible resource to oppose it. Gamersedge (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
287. Support. Vidnel (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
288. Support. Henridv (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
289. Support. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
290. Support. --Krischan111 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
291. Support.World wide blackout is needed, show other websites that you are a part of them. HunterZone (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
292. Support. Petervidani (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
293. Support. Act now or regret it later. JohnMannV (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
294. Support. - Bagel7^T's 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
295. Strongly Support. I strongly support a US blackout and a world-wide banner. I don't think this violates NPOV because we are not talking about an article; we are talking about an issue that could impact WP's ability to continue its mission. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
296. Support. I support full blackout. Vitaebrevis (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC)— Vitaebrevis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
297. Support --Aude (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
298. Weak Support Though I am only in favour of a "soft blackout," a banner can help to draw attention to the situation in the US and perhaps make connexions to laws in other jurisdictions that have been proposed (e.g. HADOPI) in order to reenforce the message that this is not just a US problem. Petropetro (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
299. 'Support' I am in support of a US blackout with only a message explaining SOPA and no option to continue on to read Wikipedia. Message for people outside the US. --Melab±1 ☎ 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
300. Support. Such a blackout would help raise awareness of the existence and severity of this bill. Rotorcowboy ^talk
     _contribs 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
301. Support. Aethersniper (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
302. Support. --Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
303. Support. This is a US problem and should only concern them. --Konero26 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
304. Support Tom B (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
305. Support. Boldra (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
306. Support First choice. Some things are worth fighting for. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
307. Support. Grotte (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
308. Support, one day site disruption versus potential indefinite legal disruption? Sometimes I don't understand how people weigh cost-benefit at this site. Blurpeace 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
309. Support Tooga - BØRK! 19:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
310. Support.  Armchair Ace 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
311. Support, second choice. Prefer blacking out globally since our servers are in the US and everyone needs to learn about this threat to us all. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
312. Support. A 24-hour Wikipedia blackout involving USA is awesome. M'encarta (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
313. Support As one of the originators of the first Black Out the Web Campaign and the Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression, I've obviously on board with this one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
314. Support --Port(u*o)s (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
315. Support - A blackout would send a strong message to policy makers in the US; doing it globally would not help, as the policy makers are only in the US. A global banner would; however, raise awareness across the globe. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
316. Support - A blackout would help raise awareness to the US about how very inconvenient SOPA would be to Americans, the banner should be there for the rest of the world, to help raise awareness about SOPA, and to try to gain a worldwide bit of support against it, but Non-Americans don't need to be shown the inconvenience of SOPA, as it will not affect them as badly as it will affect Americans.
317. Support- The only reason that SOPA has any support is that people are unaware of the vast damage it could do to the free flow of information on the internet. I hope that by participating in a coordinated blackout wikipedia will draw the necessary attention to this serious issue. alexchally
318. ""Support"" - SOPA is like using an atomic bomb when smart software and tweezers is the rational approach. I'm blacking out my sites for the day on 1/18 Lauriemann
319. Support - I will be blacking out my 6 domains & would love to see Wikipedia join me. A day-long Wikipedia blackout would help highlight how pervasive and far-reaching SOPA could be if it were passed.
320. Support. This seems like the most reasonable option to me. While non-U.S. users will not have as much influence on SOPA, they should still be made aware of its possible implications. U.S. users, however, must be directed to take action. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
321. Support. Euchrid (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Non user users should know about it, but denying their service does no good.
322. Support - Media coverage of this key issue has been nil. Google and FB might vocally express support, but, as for-profit entities, they'd never risk the financially fallout of a blackout. As a nonprofit with a massive audience, Wiki is in a unique position and should use it to raise awareness. A banner will be ignored, and a global blackout is beyond the scope of necessary action. However, a day without Wiki, while it may not in itself alter minds, will definitely get the attention of its millions of daily users. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
323. Support. No sense getting the rest of the world involved, but everyone in the U.S. needs to be fully aware of what life without Wikipedia (and other sites) would be like. Strumphs (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
324. Support. Seems to be the best option, global blackout seems too severe. Kurochigama (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Kurochigama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
325. Support - Strikes the right balance between awareness and inconvenience for non-US users. pmj (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
326. Support. Objix (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
327. Support. But global blackout is impossible, if only the en:WP will be asked about this problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
328. Weak support of full U.S. blackout. "Weak" because this kind of violates NPOV. :-) --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
329. Support. Is a good idea. Greetings from Bogotá, Colombia. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
330. Support. Vertigo700 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
331. Support. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
332. Support I thought about NPOV, but realized that NPOV won't matter if Wikipedia becomes too much of a liability to exist anyway. The way the bill is formulated reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works. The repercussions are global. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
333. Support. The point of the temporary inconvenience is to raise awareness and therefore political participation. Without the blackout there will be no story, so no awareness. Political participation outside the US will be ineffective, so there is no point in creating the inconvenience for them. lleeoo (talk
334. Support. Lklundin
335. Strongly Oppose, I am from the UK and USA law affects the entire world. This is not simply a US issue. Go global! Genjix (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
336. Support. Hous21 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
337. Support. I think this option would make a strong statement in the United States, but would still allow users in other countries to access Wikipedia. I believe the SOPA issue is important enough to justify the action, as this is an issue that could (and probably would) directly impact the future survival of Wikipedia. Elmarco 21:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
338. Support. Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
339. Support. Evilgidgit (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
340. Support. Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
341. Support. vvv^t 22:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
342. Support. You can't be neutral when your very fabric of being is under threat of erasure. Domiciliphile (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
343. Strongly Support. Seems the most reasonable course of action. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
344. Support; but prefer (2). Preaching to the choir is less effective than the entire assembly. — Coren ^(talk) 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — (The US isn't the choir in this instance, though, it is the congregation. --FormerIP (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
345. Support. Slow Riot (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
346. Support. Although I think others have made a good case for limiting action to an informative banner or click-through nag screen rather than a full blackout, and I would be happy with that action as well. CristoperB (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
347. Support. Powergate92Talk 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
348. Support. The global community cannot in any way intervene in a US law. However users worldwide should be made aware that a similar fate may follow if the bill is passed in US Sayan rc (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
349. Support. Matjaž Zaplotnik ^{(my contributions)} 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
350. Support. User:legodt
351. Strongly Support. The only reason the global option might be more effective is more public outcry and press response. This one is a very good idea as well. -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
352. Support. Naturenet | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
353. Support.User:KaitlynC As an enterprise built solely behind the notion that knowledge is free, wikipedia must support any action which seeks to degrade this concept. SOPA is an attempt to stifle the rights of U.S. citizens in order to make a profit for competing companies such as RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, TimeWarner, Walmart, Nike, Tiffany, Chanel, Rolex, Sony, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren, VISA, Mastercard, Comcast, ABC, etc. {Copied bytheway from (craigslist http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA) through the channel of facebook). In no situation is it appropriate to alter the free-trade of the internet's resources. As you asked the public for their contribution to this matter: I strongly support a blackout coinciding with all other particpating domains as this will call much needed attention to an extremely harmful piece of legislation.
354. Support - because if the US endorses internet censorship, other countries' governments may potentially view net censorship as an acceptable means of content and information control. Keep the internet censorship-free. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
355. Support. jxm (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
356. Support. I'm against a global blackout, there's no need to penalise the rest of the world when the rest of the world rely on Wikipedia. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
357. STRONGLY Support. US blackout, global banner. Let's not punish the whole world for our problems until it gets closer to passing. After that, we might need the rest of the world behind us. This would demonstrate perfectly how disastrous SOPA passing would be.— 65.96.96.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
358. Support. Konczewski (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
359. Support GyroMagician (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
360. SupportHenitsirk (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
361. Support, as other countries shouldn't suffer and locals can do the most about it. If this doesn't help, I support (2) aswell, just to inform the entire world. H2ppyme (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
362. Support it needs to be brought to everyones attention in the us but why mess up the worlds fun 98.210.225.243 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— 98.210.225.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
363. Support. Sniffnoy (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
364. Support A blackout has nothing to do with censorship, it's a method of pressure and everyone of them should be used. p4p5
365. Gritted teeth support Having some nonsense injunction to exercise power over the US legislature that I don't have is at least better than the other horse in the race.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
366. Support The only thing that would be effective is a sustained blackout. People will just be mad for the day its out and go back to their tasks the next day. A week long shutdown would really piss people off to call their congressman or take physical action.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
367. Strongly Support. Xkumo (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Xkumo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
368. Support. Wizardoz (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Wizardoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
369. Support Quebec99 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
370. Support --Matanhofree (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
371. Support Seeing as this is a bill in the United States Congress, I believe it is appropriate to blackout only in the U.S. Other nations around the world should, however, be alerted of the significance of SOPA's actions on the web and have a proper banner displayed. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
372. Support US only, oppose globally. MER-C 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
373. Support. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
374. Support --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
375. Support The global community should attempt to influence this US law. Users worldwide should be made aware that a similar fate may follow if the bill is passed in US. Derek farn (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
376. Strongly Support. 24.218.166.109 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
377. Support Mtking ^(edits) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
378. Support— 74.72.140.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
379. Support--Oldsmoboi (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
380. Support (1). Daufer (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
381. Support. 216.246.179.102 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— 216.246.179.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
382. Support Moez ^talk 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
383. Support. Rsperko (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Rsperko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
384. Support! yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW!
385. Support. If the blackout is global, it will be viewed as a sign of american arrogance. If the blackout is local as foreigners are informed, they will be more receptive than otherwise. Timeu (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
386. Strongly Support. Wikipedia is a gateway to knowledge. This includes informing people of SOPA who otherwise would not know of it. However it would still allow international browsing as it is meant to for people of no fault of their own. 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— 160.94.118.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
387. Strongly Support. --Absentia (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
388. Support. Qwa127 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
389. Support. Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
390. Support - Encouraging people to visit SOPA-related articles would probably be the best chance we have at educating others during the blackout. Shatteredshards (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
391. Support People need to know. --Gar2chan (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
392. Support. CheShA (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
393. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatdudeyouknowfromschool (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
394. Support squeeorama 04:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
395. Support --Clorox (diskussion) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
396. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.203.53 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
397. Support. Kautiontape (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
398. Support This legislation affects everybody in the end, so a global banner is warranted, but US citizens are the first directly affected. A local blackout creates the chance to educate the public on proxies and other ways to help route around damage. clacke (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
399. Support YES. Wikipedia should definitely be on the anti-SOPA side! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HUMANC0DE (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
400. Support Full blackout is the best way to draw attention. It should be global because SOPA would affect us all. Full blackout could be followed by a soft blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emu42 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
401. Support --Lucas Brown 06:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
402. Strong support SOPA is a threat to the Internet. Although to some it makes no sense to fight censorship with censorship (blackout), I believe the point here is to let the lawmakers know that we are against SOPA. All I'm asking is for us to sacrifice a small thing (being able to view Wikipedia for a day) in order to make way for a greater good. Global censorship on the 18th! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.23.99 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
403. Support. Cakedamber (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
404. Support.--Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
405. SupportNaŋar (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
406. Support. It's essential that Americans be made aware of what their lawmakers are doing, and for them to experience inconveniences and frustrations that are at least a shadow of the genuine losses that SOPA/PIPA will create. A banner won't do that; a click-through won't do that. Only a full blackout will. There are too few things that non-Americans can do to affect our political process to make it worthwhile to inconvenience them, however. jSarek (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
407. Support But how will people find out about SOPA if wikipedia is down?!--Frozenport (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
408. Support Reply to previous: ...obviously, Wikipedia will explain why there is a blackout. A blackout will make this issue aware to the US public, and it's one of the only ways to ensure that many people know about this issue. Global banner also helps let others know about it and do something as well - even if they are not in the US. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
409. Support I use Wikipedia every day but SOPA needs to go down Blckmgc (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
410. Strongly Support This will show Congress how serious people are if one of the most visited sites goes down. Please go through with this! Grapeon777 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
411. Support. It will not just be the US affected by SOPA due to international treaties and time. Thus support global action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
412. Support --Ayacop (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
413. Support. Neljack (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
414. Support. Atlasowa (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
415. Very Strongly Support. The entire planet doesn't need to suffer for a US bill. But international users should be encouraged to push for Americans. Antrikshy (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
416. Support. User:zacchiamachine 5:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
417. Support. As much as I hate losing one of my home pages for a day, I'd much rather lose it for a day than for the rest of my life. A global banner will show everyone else what's going on, while the US blackout will show us here in the US what could happen. I'd also agree that the Article of the Day should be SOPA for at least a day afterward.ChristopherGregory (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
418. Strongly Support International community should not be affected by a blackout aimed at a US bill, but should be kept informed about and encourage to voice out against this Bill.--Lionratz (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
419. Support. Cp21yos (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
420. Support Hakimio (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
421. Support --Pouyana (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
422. SupportMADe (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
423. Support. TheXenomorph1 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
424. Support - Ale_Jrb^talk 12:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
425. Support Remi Mathis (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
426. Support. User:Ro_Ro16 January 2012 Burroveo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
427. Support. AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
428. Highly Support. -- I definitely think that if we blacked out the United States site, the citizens of the US who use Wikipedia would be able to see it and call their Congressional representatives to voice their concern over SOPA. However, as other people have said, a global blackout may be pointless and will hinder some peoples' legitimate use of the site. Have a banner blackout everywhere, and a full US blackout, and we'll be set. Mikebruffee (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
429. Support. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
430. Support--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
431. Support-- I think this will have the best effect without pissing off those who have no say in US politics. Ohshazbot (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
432. Support-- It would have an incredibly significant impact on the american people, thus making it a issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.17.239 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
433. Support. Aarakast (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
434. Strong Support In Italy a blackout was effective in forcing the government to reconsider a law which would have allowed anyone to force their own POV in a Wikipedia page. I think it's better to treat differently users located in the US because it would give a taste of what SOPA will entail. US users could use proxies to access wikipedia, thus developing useful skills for the day SOPA will be law. --Lou Crazy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
435. Support. Strongly support and believe that access to the SOPA article (as suggested below) would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
436. Support. Ebelular (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) There should only be a blackout for USA IPs. (a) This is a USA law that doesn't apply to non-USAians (b) as someone not from the USA there is no-one can lobby or write to to oppose SOPA, and (c) this will show USAians that this law doesn't "harm the internet" per se, but instead will "harm the internet in USA". It will show them that SOPA might make them a 2nd class internet player.
437. Support. Should make the SOPA article available though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.182.74 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
438. Support --CatMan61 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
439. Support. A blackout that only affects the US would be the proper action, SOPA does not really affect the rest of the readers/editors of the English Wikipedia around the world. A banner to inform them about the blackout in the US should do it for the rest.--GDuwenTell me! 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
440. Support. --CatMan61 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
441. Support. Matthew Steven Kelly (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
442. Support. SOPA is being supported by the American Association of Publishers (AAP) who represent publishers of scholarly content (research, including medical). They are also proposing other restrictions (such as H.R.3699 / Research Works Act). While I strongly oppose SOPA on its own, if it passed it would give encouragement to pass other restrictive practices, which would also deny Wikipedia content Petermr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
443. Strongly Support. This will send a clear message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.25.70 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
444. Support Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
445. Support. This is strategically the best way to show America the effects of such a awful bill.
446. Support. However, a source of knowledge may be unavailable. B0o-supermario (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
447. Support. Gtrguy007 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) STOP SOPA!!!!!!
448. Support. I actually oppose any blackout (6) as a drastic NPOV fail, but since it seems inevitable that either a global or US-only blackout is going to win, I vote for the one that doesn't punish the rest of the world for something that they can't affect. neilk (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
449. Support. --Президент Ирака (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
450. Support. 67.189.88.239 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
451. Strong Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
452. Support. This might be selfish of me, not being in the U.S., but the U.S. is the area that needs to get the message moreso. Iainsona (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
453. Support. Ehamberg (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
454. Support. Mattmeskill (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
455. Support.Mfragin (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
456. Strongly Support. Renzoburo (talk) 21:46, , 16 January 2012 (CAT) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
457. Support. 78.23.54.150 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
458. Support. The world should be aware, this will affect the Internet for them too, but it should be focused in the US where the voters can affect it. ~ 10nitro (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
459. Support. I'd rather no soft blackout, as SOPA won't offer you the option to click somewhere to instantly regain net freedom and net neutrality. Correjon (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
460. Support but what if they(e.g. congressmen) use proxy? The bad thing is that this is just one step from not only making China style firewall, rather North Korea own Internet. Remember that in North Korea Internet block don't affect the high party members, and some science people copying ideas. The worst thing is that this just blocked North Korea economy and make death of people(imagine that using cheap china computers/mobile phones the North Korean could e.g. sell on ebay they hand made textilles and buy food/other items like Bhutan, or even world wide known honey from paradise islands). And probably only American citizens can change the governtment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.102.192 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
461. Support. Erkcan (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
462. Support. Vertig08 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
463. this very good idee you have right on this action or anti private law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.136.44 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
464. Support. Campan43 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
465. Support. SOPA may be American legislation, but it has global implications. Amphiggins (Amphiggins) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
466. Support. Cheyinka (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
467. Strongly Support. I'd rather not have the soft version as well - take it away for a day so people can feel the real impact. Hope this works on mobile versions, especially in the D.C. area. Digitallib (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
468. Support. NeoAdonis (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
469. Support. At least this much. I'm currently undecided about whether it should extend to outside the U.S. As far as whether Wikipedia should be involved/NPOV, if this law has the possibility of such a direct impact to even the existence this website, then yes, it is completely appropriate for Wikipedia to be involved. -Noha307 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
470. Support. Wiki servers are in the US where US law would strangle Wiki. Moriori (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
471. Support. Ahmetyal 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
472. Support. As the bill has temporarily been shelved, I personally think that a full blackout would be inappropriate, at least for now. On the other hand, I truly hold to be more than necessary that the banner be global in order to inform every Wikipedia user worldwide that SOPA represents a serious danger for the encyclopedia existence itself. Gnc9400 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
473. Support - probably the best option; blocking for non-US users is conceptually problematic, as no matter how dramatic the protest is it can't actually get them to do anything. Shimgray | talk | 22:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
474. Support. Domestic blackout & global banner to raise awareness and petition. Global blackout if and only if SOPA nears passing. The internet should not be state/government limited. Any attempt to do so is an inherent global problem. Tom.Reding (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
475. Support. --I'm a Graduate! (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Chris
476. Support. Jsgoodrich (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
477. Support, because we can't do anything significant from Russia. Roman (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
478. Support. Starvinsky (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
479. Support. A blackout would do incredible things to increase the awareness about SOPA. How about the only page accessible that day would be SOPA? -Deniz (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(2) Global blackout and banner

1. Support. raybob95(talk) 20:23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. How the SOPA event will unfold in USA will decide the future in many other countries. I belong to India and people here have only started to get familiar with freedom of expression through internet. As soon as US government will pass SOPA, government in countries like ours will have a justification to bring a similar law (as much of our policies are derived from the US model). This can prevent internet in becoming a medium of expression for people and instead become another way for our government to promote its oligarchical regime. A global blackout and banner can at least senstize the people in other countries against (possible) threats like SOPA. A worldwide blackout is important to make people realize that it is not another "read and forget" cause they are witnessing. --Chetanshaw (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. The US Government often speaks out against censorship in other countries. It's time they're heard from too. Questionkiddo (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Not only does the federal government have effective jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation and ICANN (which along with Verisign, located within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, controls the "Internet"), the government of Florida and Florida law also controls the Wikimedia Foundation, and the government of California and California law also controls ICANN (and can do the same things as SOPA.) Int21h (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. xmike87(talk) 4:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. ditto Agvulpine. alex3yoyo (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Supportly Strong, SOPA/PIPA doesn't just affect Americans, it affects the World. (Edit: As per what is suggested by others comments below, I want to clarify that I do mean Global Blackout w/o ability to view or edit articles. I'm told there's some confusion to this, now. I'm voting Against option 1 by voting For option 2: Full Site Lockdown.) ~ Agvulpine (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Strongly Support, I am from the UK and USA law affects the entire world. This is not simply a US issue. Genjix (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support. Cody Snider Black it all out, send the message that government and corporate censorship is unacceptable. 21:14:48, 15 January, 2012, (UTC)
11. Strong support If done, this just might be the most newsworthy internet event in history. Wikipedia has already changed the world, and this will only help show how much influence the encyclopedia truly has! — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Doing nothing accomplishes nothing; stand up for the internet. SLWatson (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support, although SOPA is technically for the American user, let's not forget that most of the websites are hosted in the US and that they're under the jurisdiction of the US gov't. SOPA affects everyone globally even those not living in America. We need global support from around the world. --Abderrahman (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support, I support a global blackout. SOPA will destroy our freedom, our internet, out digital frontier. Let our words be heard by the world through global blackout. CoMePrAdZ 10:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support, I support a universal blackout. Just like the internet, SOPA will affect users across the world. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support - I prefer a complete total global blackout. This is an issue that is focused on the United States right now but other countries around the world are considering similar measures. A global blackout would mean raising awareness so we don't reach this tipping point in the future. --Jasenlee (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. User: Radiomantx 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC
18. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Like Stephan, I believe this affects all our readers, and that all our readers have the ability to make their voice heard to US lawmakers. So let's reach out to them all. I would however accept (1) or (3) as a compromise. Dcoetzee 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Also opposed to a click-through workaround. It's a one-day stand against awful legislation. People shouldn't be able to work around it. --Straightbstudent (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. (worldwide blackout) Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. SOPA is not just an American issue anymore. Everyone has to be informed and involved. User:Spyvsspycomputers 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — Spyvsspycomputers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
22. Per Dcoetzee, I would prefer a global blackout. However, (1) would be acceptable as a step down from that.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Also support (1) and (3). Maplebed (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support 2,1,3 - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. First Light (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support per Dcoetzee. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Given the fact SOPA gives the US authority to take down foreign sites, as well as the de facto lead the US has in the creation of internet phenomenons from Wikipedia to youtube, this is truly a global concern.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Without any public display of the SOPA bill, most users will be left clueless as to what is going on. A partial-blackout is a good-idea, limiting certain features, or at least making it clear that SOPA could completely destroy this website that they love. Also, please make your SOPA banner distinct from the fund-raising banners so that users don't dismiss it thinking that they've seen and read it before. Thanks, happy anti-SOPA! --Jean Of mArc 15:46, 13 January 2012— Jean Of mArc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
29. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2012; 22:02 (UTC)
31. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)— Kcook969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
32. Support This would be my preferred action, as SOPA effects everybody, not just Americans. If all we can get is support for a US blackout, then so be it, but I think a worldwide blackout would be much more powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)— DfizzleShizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
33. Support SOPA can and likely will destroy Wikipedia. We must take a stand against it as a whole community. While I would also find (1) agreeable, unless we have a way to hide the infringing websites from US users, this will affect all of us. If we stand united as one, our collective voice will rise stronger than any smaller group of editors. In this issue, it is prudent to ignore WP:SOAP because the effects of this bill could be as disatrous to Wikipedia as deleting the Main Page. Hamtechperson 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support 2,1,3. The WMF projects are under threat, and it is our responsibility to inform people of that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support SOPA affects the entire planet, so the blackout (click though is better) must be global --Jon889 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)— Jon889 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
36. Support biggest blackout possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support SOPA is an Internet issue and is a worldwide issue. Blackout everything. Drivec (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support SOPA is a global issue. It effects not just US web sites, but it also enacts US courts to take down foreign web sites and try them under US jurisdiction. Even if it were only US sites, people worldwide make use of them. Worse, if the US is successful in pulling this off it could spread to other nations as part of "copyright harmonization". My second choice would be 1 then 3. --Schwern (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support, worldwide issue. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. While the outcome of SOPA hinges upon the actions of U.S.-based politicians and their constituents, the potential ramifications of the bill are global. Best to inform all users of it. Rivertorch (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support, other people from other countries should also be inspired to prevent this sort of legislation in their own countries in the future.Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support, Wikipedia has a huge voice, and many people visit this website daily. In fact about 4 million a day. We should inform everyone on this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support. The bill endangers the foundation of the internet, for information to be freely available for all. The US government would be impeding the spread of knowledge for the whole world, and thus it is a worldwide issue. Captain Gamma (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support, I would also support (1) Csquest99 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support, The world is much more than the United States, but so much of what happens in the U.S. can affect globally; this is one of those times. (1) would be acceptable, but (2) is preferable. Benscripps (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support, with (1) being my second choice. Reasons: (a) SOPA affects sites and readers all over the world; (b) similar legislation has been proposed and enacted in other countries; (c) international treaties may in the future require similar legislation everywhere; (d) therefore maximal pressure must be exerted on all governments of the world. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support, we want as many voices in this as possible. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support either global or US specific actions Varnent (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support SOPA merely begins in the U.S. but will affect the rest of the world. A true blackout, one that cannot be clicked through, is the best way of doing this. say anybob 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) anybob (talk) 8:19, 13 January 2012 (EST)
53. Support, I support a global blackout. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - SOPA affects the whole world. --J (t) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support SOPA, and policies like it wherever they are instituted impact the whole world. The US often criticizes other countries for their Internet policy, time for the favor to be returned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. I support the largest blackout possible. No one should be able to access Wikipedia for the entire day of 18 January. This shows what every day would be like with SOPA- no Wikipedia at all. Fendue (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. bcartolo (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so go big. I will add that I think an actual blackout would be better than the "blackout" with clickthrough that is planned.
60. Support Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support It is important to inform as many people globally as possible about this so that they can show what they think about this type of legislation before the politicians get inspired to follow suite... But it would be good if established users still had a chance to work on the backlog. Jopparn (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support Far too few people know about the possibility of internet censorship. Chillllls (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support Others have stated my sentiments exactly: this bill could have worldwide consequences. Best to inform everyone, and foreign pressure could help pressure Congress to not pass it. Lordvader99 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support agree with specific comments of AxelBoldt above. Particularly intellectual monopoly creep via supposed treaty obligations is a real concern. Huckfinne (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support as we are based in the USA this really effects the whole world and we should make as much noise as possible!LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support global splash screen, although #1 (US only) is okay as well. While the content would have to be different (non-US visitors don't have representatives/senators to contact), the nature of the Internet makes this inherently a global issue. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support for options (1) or (2) -- I personally prefer global as this legislation would have long-lasting effects on how services like Wikipedia can continue on as they presently exist. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support for a global blackout. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Strong Support Allow Wikipedia to have a wide and strong impact as a protest against SOPA. Any Protest against this removal of freedom should not be lightly. I have reinstated my support for a full world blackout below --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support We need to make an effective stand on this, and there is no better way than showing the world what they are at risk of losing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Take a stand now or cry later. Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support This will send a message that we don't want anyone fucking with us, no matter what government. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support If any community blacks out their part of Wikimedia, I'd want to see at least a banner on my part KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. ~Crazytales (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support SOPA affects the entire world, so everyone should know about it. Focus (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support as first choice. SOPA's impact would not be limited to the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support I agree that SOPA's impact would not be limited to just the US. The creator of Minecraft put forth his feelings on notch.tumblr.com. Yes, let the world know where we stand and the real consequences for SOPA. Jessemv (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support SOPA would affect more than just the US. Whether it's this or Option 1, Wikipedia should definitely do some form of blackout, as this bill would severely endanger the site. In other words, this issue is important enough to be worth the site taking a stand on.Yuuko41 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support By far the most effective option, considering this issue affects all Wikipedia users around the world, not just those in the US. Having both the blackout and banner will show citizens and members of Congress that we are very serious about fighting this bill, and we will do anything to accomplish our goal. Alexroller (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support. Carlsmith (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support. Bring out the big guns... oh, sorry, forgot about the NDAA. "Bring out the basket of happy puppies"! Tevildoii (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support I support (1) or (2) but prefer (2) Steevithak (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support Complete blackout, but suggest that perhaps some of the bots still be allowed to run in the background. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Full blackout world wide. Other countries can exert economic and political pressure on the US even if they don't have legal voting power. This is a serious issue.Canticle (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
85. And please note that I am British and based in Britain. American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest. —WFC— 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support Just because the blackout would only affect US users shouldn't deter WP from drawing support from outside the US. There's always the possibility that similar laws could be introduced elsewhere. 3.14 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Support Worldwide blackout and banner. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. Banner for persistence of information in the reader's working memory, because the vast majority of users automatically dismiss anything that looks like a pop-up without registering the contents -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support. This is an issue that ultimately affects everyone, not just the US. If a site as big as Wikipedia institutes a blackout for all its users, people are SURE to take notice, and word will spread that much more quickly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Support both banner and blackout worldwide. If SOPA passes, there is a very real threat that Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support upstateNYer 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support --Snackshack100 (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) SOPA MUST BE STOPPED!!!
92. Support. It should be a full blackout. Jdm64 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Support --Keraunos (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. Brandorr (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Support --Pretendo (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The ratification of SOPA would set a precedence for other countries to model. Toxic legislation in the US tends to have an unfortunate trickle down effect for the rest of the world.
97. Support. This blacklist legislation threatens to affect not just the U.S., but all Internet users who use services hosted in the U.S. (which is probably a large majority of Internet users) -- A.M. (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
98. Support --Rami R 08:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Support. Serve a truly helpful, informative page enabling people to take action if they want. They'll have enough extra time with no Wikipedia articles to read. -- Honestrosewater (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Support. This blacklist legislation threatens not only the U.S. but the whole world. Also, once this bill is passed the U.S. Government will for sure bully other countries to implement similar bills. That is already happening now before SOPA has even been made into law. XKthulhu (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
101. Support. ~GT~ (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
102. Support highest exposure. Edit: Actually prefer the soft blackout. Updating. Clegs (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Support Let it be the talk of the whole world. Most SOPA supporters are big international companies, and it's much more effective if they feel the pressure all around the globe. -- Orionist ★ talk 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
104. Support - SOPA will affect everyone, so the blackout should be global. CT Cooper · talk 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
105. Support - SOPA will have an effect on everyone and every single user of the internet. It must be stopped. ZergMark (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
106. Support - The passing of SOPA will have global repercussions; a global blackout would help to raise full awareness. ~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk
107. Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. --Ben Best 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
108. Support -- Get worldwide attention on it. SOPA/PIPA aren't just a risk in the United States; similar bills are being passed at the United States' urging in other countries. Help raise awareness everywhere and get pressure put on this kind of legislation everywhere. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
109. Support (1 as second choice, which is better than nothing), as what happens in the U.S. could spread like a cancer worldwide, and thus the entire world needs to understand the consequences. Also consider what expatriots can contribute to this. Last, consider how American corporate power reaches globally -- citizens of other countries, even if they can't properly contact our representatives/Senators, can vote with their money. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
110. Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Object to misleading title; it is called "Blackout and banner for all users" but the description text makes it clear that it isn't a blackout at all. I oppose this option on the grounds that a clicktrough banner without an actual blackout will be perceived as not joining the other sites that have actual blackouts. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
111. Support this, in slight preference to (1). Full blackout would be even better. Hans Adler 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
112. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well.
113. Support. US legislation has a way of creeping itself into other countries by economic pressure etc. So, don't expect SOPA-style legislation to remain confined to the US for long once adopted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
114. Support from Germany --Oliver Tölkes (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
115. Support I'm in the United Kingdom - this is a global issue tompagenet (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
116. Support (1) or (2), but this is a global issue, so I prefer this option. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
117. Support SOPA threatens us all, US or not. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
118. Support Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
119. Support Something similar should be done for the Spanish Wikipedia, as there is a sizable Spanish speaking population in the US that is also politically active. Separately, as a previous poster notes, this "US only" Legislation has a way of creeping into other countries. As I recall, there are banking regulations by the IRS that other countries must comply with or face consequences, all because they have US citizens as customers. Hires an editor (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
120. Support. SOPA affects all. Renwique (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
121. Support Hanna Barberian (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
122. Support Kavi96 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC) As a Brit, this bill will affect every country, so we need to take global action. Everybody can do something, even if US citizens will have more impact.
123. Support either (1) or (2) but strongly prefer global. This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
124. Support --Aude (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
125. Support (1) or (2), prefer 2. (e • nn • en!) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
126. Support I'm in the UK, and this will affect us as well. Wikipedia has the power to raise world wide awareness for this issue. I would shut down all languages, but I doubt that will happen. Skeletonboy (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
127. Very Strong Support The issue is global, so this is the right balance of agitprop to reach, not just the American expatriates, but Netziens at large, some of whom have standing with our legislature as well as their own, and some of whom shall begin such involvement kencf0618 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
128. Support. Like it or not, the world has to deal with whatever is going on in the U.S., in more ways than just SOPA. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
129. Support -- the whole world needs to know what's going on here, not just the US. SOPA will cause ripple effects and legal repercussions all over the world. 24.228.164.210 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     Bleh, above was me, forgot to sign in. Macoukji (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

130. Support geo-location is evil, regions and countries don't exist on the internet, there is only one internet. Blackouts and banners should not try to discriminate between users based on their national origin. SOPA is a global issue that threatens the worldwide internet and would affect everyone. --memset (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
131. Support. Buggie111 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
132. Support We are all directly or indirectly impacted by SOPA Kelson (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
133. Support - if it affects Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects), it affects all users equally, no matter where they're from. Schneelocke (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
134. Support - Jonathunder (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
135. Support Good for raising awareness worldwide -download ׀ talk 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
136. Support Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
137. Support, with (1) as an acceptable second choice. As much as I hesitate to support limiting access to a free encyclopedia, I am convinced by Geoff Bingham's legal analysis that we are justified in taking this action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
138. Support, but not as currently written. Strongly support a blackout screen that is NPOV, e.g., "SOPA could affect Wikipedia. Click to read analysis..." Since this would be purely educational, it is appropriate for non-USA users, too. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
139. Support since US legislation will have an influence to everybody worldwide. Many users from all over the world use content that is hosted or even routed through the US. We see people that are not breaching local laws even being deported for trial in the US (like Richard O'Dwyer). We cannot allow the US to shape the world even further to what they want. They're not 'God'! Users from all over the world must be made aware that they will be effected by SOPA. Jurjenb (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
140. Support This seems to be the best answer, since SOPA would effect everyone in the world, not just Americans or English language users. (1) would be OK, but everyone needs to know what may/will happen if SOPA or PIPA pass. TEG (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
141. Support As if people outside the US are not going to be affected... protest should be as big as possible. Von Restorff (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
142. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
143. Support This will garner more international press this way, and it's important to have other countries aware & equally outraged. -SColombo (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (American)
144. Support. Wikinade (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
145. Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
146. Support The U.S. government is more likely to listen if the entire world is angry at them, rather than just Americans. Merlinsorca 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
147. Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. We also should protest the NDAA of Fiscal Year 2011, which authorizes the ability for the US President to abduct, indefinitely detain, torture and kill any one at any time in any part of the world, including US citizens captured in the U.S., without any requirement to show evidence of any kind. When the SOPA act is protested with a banner, protest in graphic format the NDAA legalization of indefinite detention!!
148. Support. mabdul 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
149. Support. SOPA crap is contagious, we need to warn everybody. -- Wesha (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
150. Support. Marktaff (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
151. Support. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
152. Support. Though SOPA is US legislation, the effects can be felt across the web; hence I support making this a global issue. - angrytoast (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
153. Support. This legislation would come to affect the whole world. nonky (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
154. Support. Definitely a global issue. I can only think of Holland and Spain off the top of my head, but US activity has definitely been influencing other countries to institute SOPA-like restrictions on the internet. musicGUY GUY 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
155. Support. This will make a larger statement in the media than (1). asmeurer (talk | contribs) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
156. Support -- It is important to let as many people as possible about this. Mchcopl (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)!
157. Support, I think the English-speaking world can live without Wikipedia for a few days in exchange for net neutrality. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
158. Support. Lonewolf9196 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
159. Support. Kirkesque (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
160. Support -- prefer #1, but this is fine as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
161. Support --Chimino (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
162. Support, Although I don't think I can articulate my opinion any better than all the people above me have, but I am more than willing to give up my precious wiki for a day or two so that we can at the very least, spread the message around the world about what dangers a free and open internet is up against. スミス ナサニアル (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
163. Support For the sake of worldwide awareness as big media corporations use their puppets in the committee to try and destroy the internet as we know it, a worldwide blackout must take place. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 05:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
164. Support - This bill will affect users of Wikipedia around the world; implementing everything for everyone would have the greatest impact. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
165. Support. -- It will pretty much spell out trouble for everyone who has an internet connection and aspire to create content for the web, so if it means that everyone must be informed of impending doom to the saftey and structure of the core of the internet, regardless of location, then so be it. Whisternefet (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
166. Support. It's unfortunately a global issue, but I'm not opposed to (1) either. OttoMäkelä (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
167. Support. Air55 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
168. Support. It will affect the whole world, and similar measures are being proposed in other countries. InverseHypercube 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
169. Support. --Asdf01 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
170. Support. The problem is, SOPA will almost certainly affect people living outside of the United States. Abedwayyad (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
171. Support David Garner
172. Support. SOPA reflects on what we will see in the rest of the world tomorrow, SyDoX Tom Ryan Fredriksen | 08:24, 15 January 2012, Norway
173. Support. Mbza (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
174. Support. I also feel that the blackout should be total, not clickthrough. The world won't stop just because people can't get to Wikipedia content for a day ...though that runs counter to the message we wish to convey. So on second thought, the clickthrough may be a good idea. -- SidShakal (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
175. Support-- I support all options for a high-profile public statement against SOPA, although I understand the concerns of those editors who oppose the protest. I believe that this threat goes to the core of Wikipedia's mission, and that opposition to Wikipedia becoming a general political advocate ought not to prevent opposition to particular measures that might make it impossible for Wikipedia to exist in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
176. Support. Full blackout Clockbox (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
177. Support. Full blackout --minhhuy ^(talk) (WMF) 07:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
178. Support. Full blackout and banner should work. We should use those things to get people's attention to stop SOPA and PIPA bills now. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
179. Support for global blackout with banner, on the same grounds as others have given above. Further comment: SOPA is an existential threat to Wikipedia, so WP:NOSOAPBOX is not applicable as the action is not for the purpose of promoting a point of view, but is rather for the purpose of maintaining Wikipedia. It is a system-administrative action, not an editorial action. Even if it were contrary to that policy, the policy should be abridged in this case as it does not make sense to hold to a policy which leads to calamity. Policies are there to improve the encyclopedia; when they do the opposite, they are bad policies worthy of correction.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
180. Support - We are all a team here at Wikipedia. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
181. Support. Full blackout Ysth (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
182. Support. Marianian^(talk) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
183. Support. Iokerapid (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) SOPA will affect more than just the USA if it goes through.
184. Very Strong support We need to get the message out there about SOPA/Protect-IP. I recommend pointing out how a US ambassador bullied Spain into passing it's own SOPA-like law at the start of the month. If SOPA/PIPA passes here in the US, many other countries will follow suit. Raising major awareness with these blackouts will spell instant death for these bills, which are already on the ropes as is. NamelessFool
185. Support. Regadollc (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC) This will eventually effect the globe. Black them out, All of them....
186. Support. I'm quite sure this have global effect by effectively breaking the consistency of the DNS system. Alice Margatroid (talk)
187. Support full blackout. Lunchable1
188. Support Someone has probably already suggested this but: I think a temporary full blackout, followed by the click-through blackout screen would be best (Lexandalf (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
189. Support. --Juusohe (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Juusohe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
190. Very Strong Support - blocking Wikipedia in USA will make it shut down, because its servers are located in the US, and it's an open encyclopedia, so it should be available to everyone. And, we can ignore block in Iran, but we can't ignore block in USA, because it's one of leading countries in computing technology. SiPlus (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
191. Support. Though SOPA is a United States bill, it will affect other countries all around the world. The bill does not only target websites hosted in the United States, but it also targets foreign websites. Futhermore, if the bill gets passed, more countries would undoubtedly follow suit. Wiikipedian 08:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
192. Support. Kameraad Pjotr (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
193. Support. Atario (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
194. Support. --Curson.dax (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
195. The consequences of a SOPA-like law being passed in the US will affect everyone. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
196. Support. Definately a global block and banner, as the internet is shared by all. It's time to teach countries of the world that national decisions that will affect the way the internet itself behaves will have international repercussions.Gunderberg (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
197. Support. Shuipzv3 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
198. Support. The bill has global ramifications, so the blackout should be global as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
199. Support. Andrew (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
200. Support. SOPA will affect everyone, not just the US Tigger-oN (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
201. Support - global implications. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
202. Strong Support, per Tigger-oN. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
203. Support. Thom 10:48 15 Januari 2012 (CET)
204. Support. Joeyfjj (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
205. Support. SOPA will affect everyone and the free information around of the world Xjmos (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
206. Support. Nikthestoned 10:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
207. Support Kleuske (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
208. Support AMERICOPHILE 10:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
209. Support. ThePastIsObdurate (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
210. Support, I support a global blackout. SOPA will destroy our freedom, our internet, out digital frontier. Let our words be heard by the world through global blackout. computerkidt 10:016, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
211. Support. Wikipedia belongs to everyone. SWH ^talk 10:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
212. Support. Hom sepanta (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
213. Support. The more people know, the more harm can be avoided. Sioux.cz (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
214. Support As a user of the italian wikipedia, and as an italian user of the en.wikipedia, I think a global blackout should be appropriated. The SOPA is a global threat that would affect all of us, whatever is our homeland or our mothertongue, and all the open-source web. So, I think our action should be equally global. (PS: I hope my homewiki will join this protest)--Barbaking (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
215. Support We should make global community realise about the concern. --Octra Bond (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
216. Support This will raise awareness worldwide. Hekerui (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
217. Support. Tinithraviel 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
218. Support - .com .net and .org are all de-facto American, therefore this is a global issue. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
219. Support. This is a global issue, what SOPA proposes to do to the internet in America will affect the whole world, as a result the whole world needs to be made aware of it. Zero no Kamen (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
220. Support. Global issue, like Zero no Kamen says. --bender235 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
221. Support. This is a global cause, hence global blackout. YregYorulis (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
222. Support. Global issue. --Blogotron (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
223. Support. Irandill (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
224. Support from Catalonia. --Lluis tgn (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
225. Support. Reboelje (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
226. Strong support from Catalonia. --Davidpar (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
227. Support. Global issue — .com, .org and .net are effectively controlled by the US and the US is pretty good at asserting extraterritoriality when it wants to (see current Richard O'Dwyer case). I would weakly support a US blackout and global banner and very weakly support banner-only options. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
228. Support I'd rather see the US's control of the internet removed entirely, but a global blackout seems like a good start. Parrot of Doom 12:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
229. Support. MrMarmite (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
230. Support, to warn citizens and lawmakers in other countries against following proposals in SOPA's direction. Sietse (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
231. Support, time to stop large corporation trying to overthrow a resource that should remain available to everyone without coporate constraint.Rjstott (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
232. Strong Support. This need to happen. xDividedByZer0 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2012
233. Support Mecanismo | Talk 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
234. Support. Chrisjohnson (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
235. Support either (1) or (2), but global could have more impact. --FoeNyx (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
236. Strong Support, to awaken people on how important the freedom of the internet is. We need to do this! Then they will stand up and fight. Crew-L-T (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
237. Support The internet is a global phenomenon, thus global action is needed. Copyright violation is a real issue, but the SOPA laws are vastly over-reaching, giving private US copyright holders powers over the internet which are equivalent to those of the Chinese state. SFB 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
238. Support — Toдor Boжinov — 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
239. Support. Prolog (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
240. Support. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
241. Support. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
242. Support. Im fine with both 1 and 2. I feel that the first option would be the more sensible one as its targeting seems more spot on, but at the same time i would not find it correct to primarily support a measure that would block other editors access while leaving my own in tact. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
243. Support. Because SOPA affects us all. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
244. Support. SOPA affects everyone, not just the US Andrewmc123 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
245. Support. Although I'm non-US & in UK, when I read on the SOPA page "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction", this belief that the world's most powerful nation has the right to censor anyone on the planet and extend its laws anywhere it wants just because someone in the USA doesn't like something is more than worrying. Its a thin edge of the wedge. The US-UK Extradition Act 2003 is already constantly in the UK press for how its being (ab)used by US lawmakers. I'd even support a full shut down of Wikipedia bar pages explaining why. One day's inconvenience is nothing compared to the effects laws like this can have on individuals lives if they're caught up trying to defend themselves against The State. Innocent until proven Guilty, etc. The Yeti (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
246. Support. SOPA will potentially effect everyone, the whole web, incl. Wikipedia. I find it bizarre to think in terms of "nations", when the reality out here is something completely different. Landgang (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
247. Support. Olsi (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
248. Support. Sertmann (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
249. Support. Amazeroth (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
250. Support. LouriePieterse 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
251. Support. This affects the global internet community. What's most important to US congress members is financial support from corporations/advertising - these corporations and their clients are spread around the whole world. Boud (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
252. Support. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
253. Support. Everyone should be aware of SOPA, as it will affect everyone, not only people in the USA. Amunak (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
254. Support. The Bill's effect will not be limited to the US - just ask Richard O'Dwyer. So I feel that it should be publicised to users in other countries. And the 'blackout' will not stop anyone using wiki - it will be just a click away. Regarding 'political' advocacy - if wikipedia had been around when the Mickey Mouse Protection Act was going through, this argument would have prevented argument against it. Alekksandr (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
255. Support. I live in the Republic of Turkey, where internet censorship is mostly on two grounds: obscenity and copyright infringement. The latter blocks legitimate sites, such as blip.tv, Turkey is an example of what can happen once any censorship is allowed. And Turks don't understand why I object to censorship, having never lived without it. There's a large Turkish population contributing to Wikipedia, and surely from other countries where censorship is an issue. As I heard it from a couple Britons, the UK has also begun down this road. It's absolutely a global issue. --Quintucket (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
256. Support I'm not in the US, but these kinds of issues affect other countries too. Mdwh (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
257. Support--Milad A380 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
258. Support. Is the only way people react. --Kizar (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
259. Support. In Brazil we also struggle with attempts to control the internet. I think a global protest is needed, as the issues are very similar. However, if in the end the community decides for a US blackout only, the banners in other countries should be able to express the connection between various attempts to control the internet and free expression in general.
260. Support. Jcaraballo 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
261. Support. Tange (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
262. Support. If not this, then (1). Also, soft-blackout, as opposed to full blackout. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 15:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
263. Support. This concerns us all. --Berntie (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
264. Support. Finar (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
265. support. go global... if SOPA goes into affect it won't affect just the US, it will affect everybody else. And lets face it, the other countries can apply some pressure on US politicians.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
266. Support. I'm in Europe, but internet censorship affects everyone, everywhere. Nanea (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
267. Support, as it may draw attention to similar proposals worldwide. Stordoff (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
268. Support If this bill passes, the USA will no doubt become the de-facto standard for the rest of the word. Curtiswwe (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
269. Support. Worldwide, the public needs to know and feel the affects of legislation(s) which would affect their lives if passed Ne0Freedom 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
270. Support Even though it is the US politicians fault, it will still affect countries everywhere, notably Canada.Eshade (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
271. Support. More effective; and definitively this will affect the public worldwide who needs to know about this. If not this, then (1) - benzband (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
272. Support. This is a major threat to Wikipedia worldwide, it needs to get the attention. Maybe some people who don't care about SOPA will learn to respect the matter. Pitke (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
273. Support. This bill has global implications. We need to get everyone to fight censorship everywhere Rrrr5 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
274. Support: The internet is not bound by any borders and so I don't see why geographic location should factor into this at all. I strongly support this move by Wikipedia. Good call. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
275. Support: Should i repeat all the arguments above ?let's give world a rest day, see what it provokes. Zeugma fr (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
276. Support SOPA will affect all versions of wikipedia, not just the US one. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
277. Support Internet censorship on a large scale? F*ck no, even if I'm not a US resident. Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
278. Support. What happens in US affects all the world. All users of en wiki would be affected, not just those in the USA. Let them feel it. And anyway, they have theirl local wikipedias to run to if needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
279. A.Savin (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
280. Support It affects us all! Xaromir (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
281. Support. We are all in this together. Let's send a message that will be heard. —Michael Z. 2012-01-15 16:50 z
282. Support. Gabi83tm (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
283. Support; number 1 as an alternative. SOPA endangers the globe, not just the USA. I'd prefer no work-around, but a link to the addresses of the Congress members and President would be useful to many. htom (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
284. Support--Cattus ^talk 17:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
285. Support--Saehrimnir (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
286. Support We're all affected by what the US legislature enacts against freedom of expression, which in this instance touches crucially on web users world-wide: if democratic freedoms are in retreat in the US (as in the UK) there's no obvious reason not to highlight the SOPA issue to the Chinese too - at least those of them who have bothered to master the English language enough to use English language Wikipedia. Charles01 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
287. Support Wikipedia's scope is global, and likewise an issue that could affect a very significant portion of both its articles and users should have significant global awareness. -Jhortman (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
288. Support. MusicaleCA (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
289. Support. Because of the ramifications this bill will have on Wikipedia and the potential chilling affects we must make a strong stand as a community before it is too late. I support a full global blackout. --BHC (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
290. Support Global blackout. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
291. Support. The effects of this will be felt globally, so it makes sense that the protest is also global. DeMoN2009 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
292. Support. The internet is global, the protest should be global. LeedsHK16 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
293. Support. (From France) Similar laws are being voted everywhere. The first W of WWW shall not loose its meaning. --Arcaruron (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
294. Support . This shall hurt the web which should be open everywhere else, and for reasons aforementioned.--Stephenwanjau (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
295. Support . Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
296. Support It affects all of us, not just US citizens! jscholt 18:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
297. Support . It may have a strong impact on the Internet.Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
298. Support. Processr (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
299. Strong oppose: (The instructions ask me to support one option; but the only opinion I have about the options is that this one is terrible.) This is a US-only issue, please don't pollute other english-speaking countries' use of Wikipedia with US political debate. I'm fully aware that people outside the US make use of US websites and therefore could be affected by SOPA, but the same could be said of all countries. --mcld (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
300. Very Very Strong Support. Pug6666 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
301. Strong Support. This issue affects people outside the US, mcld needs to realize that others countries CAN and WILL follow suit. - Another n00b (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
302. Support. Jsem Global blackout means global awareness. The act will have an effect not only in the US, but globally - make everyone aware of this before similar legislative efforts also reach other nations.
303. Support-- first choice. Our servers are in the US-- international readers need to know about this threat. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
304. Support. Ricardo Oliveros Ramos (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
305. Support. Marin M. (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
306. Support --Chmee2 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
307. Support SOPA's effects will be felt worldwide, and should be opposed worldwide. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
308. Support. In order to be effective, the blackout needs to be as widespread as possible. Angelikfire (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
309. Support. --Ragimiri (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
310. Support. Waldir ^talk 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
311. Support Everyone on planet earth will be censored that way, even in the free, northern European countries, STOP CENSORSHIP! It's a reason i will not go to Italy or China. Wikipedia is meant to be free, and may never be hunted down by any government. The USgov should shame itself for their hypocritical idea of freedom. The only time we hear BLEEP, it comes from the US! The so-called free country. OPolkruikenz (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
312. Support. — JViejo (tell me)
313. Support. Not everyone is aware enough of SOPA in outside countries, even in the UK. We need to raise awareness of how devastating it will be to the independance of sites on the internet. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
314. JViejo 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
315. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetmurphy (talk • contribs)
316. Support both #1 (US) and #2 (Global). Global blackout is preferred. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
317. Support If the internet does not stand up for itself, who will?
318. Support so that the rest of the world learns if the US is really "the land of the free". — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
319. Support. MarlinMr (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
320. Support To show the world that we care about SOPA. Good luck everyone! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
321. Support Absolutely needed. Now it's just US, but you feel the pressure of the US is already affecting European policy makers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
322. Support I have mixed feelings about pushing US politics on other nations, but this evil legislation will ultimately affect everyone so I'm going with global. —Geiserick (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
323. Support. Wikipedia should be neutral, but SOPA's eventual consequences seem to harsh to just neutrally ignore. I live in Denmark where some ISPs have blocked certain sites, and while SOPA might not have a major effect on me because I live outside the US, I'm against it because of how it would worsen online freedom (which is not just applicable to people doing "piracy", a buzzword people should stop using, but also for many, many good things). Everyone should know. NqpZ (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
324. Support. The effects of SOPA will be felt world wide so the protest should also be world wide. Better a day of voluntary black out, than an eternity of censorship.
325. Support. Since the servers are mostly in the US, this will affect us all. It will also affect global sites other than Wikipedia; so this gives me (a UK resident) the chance to protest the US Congress's attempt to impose a global rule by unilateral action. A total blackout will show the world what they're at risk of losing. Alec.brady (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
326. Support. Pratstercs^{Talk to me} 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
327. Support. Datapolitical (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
328. Support. SOPA will affect internet users worldwide, so I support a global blackout. Stiaand (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
329. Support. It is one Internet and one world. Wikipedia should not use geolocation like that. Geolocation is a bad thing in my eyes and only used to prevent global free speech and enforce outdated copyright regions. Real Joe Cool (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
330. Support. While it's something that is primarily a US issue, I think it's important that the global community protest as well. Krazykillaz (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
331. Support. This will get attention. --Braniff747SP (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
332. Support. Internet is worldwide; The laws will affect ALL internet users, not just the ones in the U.S. And honestly, if these bills pass in the U.S., it'll enable other countries to pass such bills as well. This is a worldwide issue!
333. Support. The only page or information that should be unblocked should be describing SOPA, so people can still use wikipedia for information about the blackout. 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
334. Support. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
335. Support. Just because SOPA is primarily American doesn't mean it won't affect us all. The internet is worldwide (World Wide Web), and this could damage the internet if passed, so I support a world wide blackout. GeekofGames51 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
336. Support. One Day without Wikipedia won't kill anybody; it's necessary to get more attention. --Slay555pt (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
337. Support If SOPA affects Wikipedia, it will affect everyone, not just in the United States. Whenaxis about | talk 22:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
338. Support. Rathgemz (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
339. Support. Behnam (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
340. Support; the law is American – its effect are worldwide. While the rest of the world may not be able to influence voting, worldwide grumbling is heard in Washington. — Coren ^(talk) 22:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
341. Support. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
342. Support; full global blackout. –TheIguana (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
343. Support. This is about getting people's attention. Why limit it to English Wikipedia? NeuroE (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
344. Support. Bunnyboi (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
345. Support. The world needs to take notice, international pressure against SOPA would be the final nail in the coffin for the bill. 184.175.2.46 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
346. Support Rjwilmsi 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
347. Support. Maxwell Kramer (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
348. Support. Mlm42 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
349. Support. The blackout must be global (UK-based user). Tiller54 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
350. Support. A Dirty Watermelon
351. Support. "The Internet is a global system", emphasis added, are the first six words on Wikipedia's entry for Internet right now. --Sbp (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
352. Support. Haseo9999 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
353. Support. Timwi (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
354. Support. it's quite apparent that the infrastructure of the internet doesn't translate to our geographical understanding of the world. Wikipedia is a predominantly based and hosted in the US (is my understanding), and therefore a decision in the US would have a disproportionate effect on the global wikipedia user base. Legislating such a complex system as the internet at this stage in it's history by people with such a fundamentally poor understanding of it doesn't seem close to reason. Wikipedia has a good platform to speak out against the notion of censoring the internet, and it should in the strongest possible terms.
     - Tim Greene 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
355. Support. Nubzor (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
356. The biggest Support which could even exist in the world from Brazil. MetalBrasil (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
357. Support. Alexcho (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
358. Support. Bahati (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
359. Very Strongly Support. Moving support to "Full blackout". EmJayCrawford (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
360. Support, after much consideration. There are multiple reasons why the blackout should be global: a) SOPA's ultimate targets are websites outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction; b) it is much simpler to implement from a technical perspective; c) a protest action should be as attention-grabbing as possible; d) the U.S. portion of the community would not be available to help run the site for that period, leaving the ranks of processes such as RC patrol short-handed; and e) the bill threatens Wikipedia to such an extent that the entire community needs to stand up united against it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
361. Strongly Support Any possibility of Internet infringement by the government (unless in case of worlwide, rapid, war-like virus/hack) must be eliminated! -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
362. Support, though I would also support (1). Nineworlds (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
363. Support. Busha5a5a5 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
364. Support, Marcus Rowland (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC) This is a global issue, I'm in Britain but I think that the consequences of this misguided and badly-written law are serious enough that it should be brought to everyone's attention.
365. Support. Þorkell Einarsson (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
366. Strongly Support. It is not only Americans who will be affected. If they cannot access the sites, other people on those sites will suffer as well. Cauhtcoatl (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
367. Strongly Support. See what Agvulpine said. InTheRevolution2 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
368. Strongly support. Julianhall (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
369. Support. Jandalhandler (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
370. Support. (worldwide blackout) Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. SOPA is not just an American issue anymore. Everyone has to be informed and involved. User:Spyvsspycomputers 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Spyvsspycomputers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
371. Support. Per Spyvsspycomputers. NereusAJ (T | C) 00:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
372. Support – Smyth\^talk 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
373. Support anything less is half-assed. full support. ... aa:talk 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
374. Support. AndyGraham10 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— AndyGraham10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
375. Support this. --HylgeriaK (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
376. Support International pressure would kill this bill 100% Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
377. Support. Fowlerism (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Fowlerism (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
378. Support: I'm going with this because sadly I don't think just a banner is going to get the world's attention. Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 01:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
379. Support. Kreachure (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
380. Support. atomic7732 01:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
381. Support. Hello71 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
382. Support. Ltr,ftw (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
383. Support. Styko (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Styko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
384. Support. Nekiko (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
385. Strongly support For many, many years other countries have looked to the USA to see the future. I do not want SOPA-like initiatives to spread to my back yard. (Also ditto Jean_Of_mArc's comment; "please make your SOPA banner distinct from the fund-raising banners so that users don't dismiss it thinking that they've seen and read it before") Katana (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
386. Support. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
387. Support Trashbird1240 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
388. Strongly Support Starship.paint (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
389. Support – Sapphire Dragon777 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
390. Strongly Support - This bill will have a huge impact on not just the United States, but the entire world. Countless websites from the United States that are used internationally, such as wikimedia itself, will be heavily impacted by this bill. The rest of the world needs to know how this bill will also affect them as well. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
391. Support - A global blackout to protest a globally damaging proposal. Swarm ^X 02:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
392. Support. Kennethhurst (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
393. Support. Nessman (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
394. I'm Canadian, and you'd better believe this'll have an effect on me if it passes. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
395. Strongly Support. Vaprotan (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
396. Very Very Very Strong Support This must end NOW! --yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW! 03:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
397. Extreme Strong Support The United States Does not own the Internet. Congressman Smith's actions endanger the free internet and he should resign at once. Shame on the RIAA and MPAA for demanding this legislation!!! Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
398. Support. It'd be a shame to lose Wikipedia as a resource if SOPA passes, but the more backing the protest has, the less likely this will even have to happen. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
399. Support. The US is the current superpower of the world, and it'll affect the rest of world. More SOPA-like bills will most likely be proposed in other countries. EryZ (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
400. Support either (1) or (2), but strongly prefer global, as it sends the message planet-wide. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
401. Extremely Strongly Support. This is not just about the United States. Ultimately it is about every person on the planet. It is about governmental control of the people's access to information itself. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
402. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
403. Support The issue is a global one and should be treated as such . Voiderest (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
404. Support Saveur (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
405. Support. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
406. Since 1 isn't going to pass --Guerillero | My Talk 04:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
407. Support. Global activism could increase pressure on the US (Congress and President). Fishal (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
408. Support Strongly This law would affect worldwide web interfaces. Support the global blackout and banner--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman279 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
409. Support. Corbon (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
410. Support. This is a global issue, at least because of how SOPA would affect the DNS. Thus, the message must be global as well. --Bloody Rose (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
411. Support Strongly While the most direct effect would fall on Americans, this law affects users of the Internet all around the world. Not as much can be done by we non-Americans to influence the vote by contacting lawmakers, but more exposure for the issue is extremely helpful. A public outcry is what is needed, and international outrage is a powerful motivator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rituido (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
412. Support Getting people all over the world to contact their governments about their concerns, who can then be pressured into calling up their local American embassy makes sense. User:orathaic
413. In my mind it would not really make sense to do a US only blackout. We're after media attention here, to be noticed. The full lockout last year of the Italian Wikipedia worked. SOPA will affect Wikipedia, which is a worldwide resource and would be affected across the globe by SOPA. While it is true that Wikipedia shouldn't generally be used for politics (Wikipedia is not-for profit, etc etc) I'd rather that we do that for one day as opposed to having our hands forced by legislation for eternity. This isn't an ideal course of action, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
414. Super Hella Strong Support Corporations are global entities. They need to know that SOPA-like legislation is unacceptable everywhere. Our global comrades need to be made aware what we are up against. Saudade7 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
415. Support. After US reaction to 9/11 and specially after attacking Iraq, global haterd against US had a sharp rise. Since, Obama's administration in power, US became very concerned with this global hatred. With a global black out, we are making a direct relation with approval of SOPA and increase in this global hatred. This might make them think twice before voting in favor of SOAPA.Bossudenotredame (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
416. Support. The law may be a national action but it will have global results. The actions of Wikipedia should reflect this. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
417. Support. GetThePapersGetThePapers (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
418. Support. prattmic (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
419. Support. Majority of the servers of the 'important' and 'helpful' sites are located in US, thus repercussions of SOPA would be felt throughout the world and will not be localised in US. Thus although non-US citizens can do precious little, but it would raise awareness about the threats to net freedom. On a separate note I would like to quote an anon guy from FB who said 'I dont support piracy but I support freedom', this should be stance of wikimediaLegalEagle (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
420. Strong Support I feel that it would have the most impact, and gain the most notice (and therefore notice for the issue) this way. Kuralyov (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
421. Support. Jovian Eye _storm 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
422. Support Wikipedia should be blacked out globally, as a message to other countries who might want to follow the United States in censoring the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan392 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
423. Strongly Support. Salman Gurung 06:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Samsujata (talk · contribs)
424. Support. Robert0122 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
425. Support, I support a full global blackout. The US has an enormous political influence, globally; any policy like SOPA is a direct attack on Freedom of Communication Rights. Nerd65536 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
426. Support. We don't want our supermarkets (internet sites) shut down simply because someone posts a notice on the community noticeboard about stolen property (copyrighted material) Dahvyd (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
427. Support. FattestSurfer (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Full global blackout, coming from someone who relies upon this site on a regular basis. USA needs to know, and the rest of the world needs to know that some of us in the US are still sane, thank you very much.
428. Support - As the situation with Richard O'Dwyer shows being a citizen of another country DOES NOT MATTER. The fact the US is extraditing a UK citizen for things that are according to many legal experts are not even a crime in his native UK shows that US interpretation of copyright extends far beyond it borders and it does NOT matter what your local laws are! So logically SOPA will effect the entire world.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
429. Support, the US gets upset when other countries pass laws that affect it, let's see the rest of the world get upset with us. Al-Fozail ibn Iyaz (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
430. Support Hammy (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
431. Support One Salient Oversight (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I live in Australia. We follow what US does. We in the world community need to stand up to what might happen to us.
432. Support. WHLfan (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
433. Strong support - Its not only the US that will get affected, so many of the web's servers are located in the US, with them abiding US regulations. Besides, US users could access Wikipedia using tor/overseas proxies. I say block the site for everyone, with no exceptions. --chinneeb-talk 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
434. Support. My reasons are given in a section further down this page. zazpot (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
435. Support. Dtyger (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
436. Support this (relatively) moderate approach. We're all global citizens now. Let's not play the total-blackout card too soon, if at all. Braincricket (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
437. Support. Somteimes I think it's like the whole of the USA is against us on the internet, you know? Sometimes it feels like I'm going to wake up one morning and I don't know if wikipedia is going to be there. How can America be so reckless? Because my God, my sweet sweet God, I never thought I'd be signing something like this. I never thought I'd be calling for a global blackout. But if that's what it takes to raise international consciousness to the level it gotta be at? Man, sign me on up for that shit. But I want you all to know, you all who are reading this are witnesses to what I say here today, that it is with a heavy heart that I sign this page, and may God have mercy on us all. May God have mercy on the politicians debating SOPA. May he guide them to making the right decision. God is so good. Halleluah, Amen. Good night... and good luck. SlipperySalmon (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
438. Support - A bill as radical as this is certain to have far-reaching repercussions, well beyond the confines of the United States of America. ~shadeMe (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
439. Support - SOPA will affect people outside of the U.S., and this may help draw international attention to the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.58.244 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
440. Support. SOPA in the USA will affect people and businesses around the world. Global attention is appropriate. Ds13 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
441. Support global blackout. Wikipedia protesting SOPA isn't politics, it's self-preservation. We need something this drastic; I know how stubborn US politicians are. And it should be global, because Wikipedia is a global resource. We're all in this together. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
442. Support We must show the governments of the world that this kind of legislation is completely unacceptable. Dsavi (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
443. Support. vivacissamamente (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
444. Strongly Support - SOPA is not intended to deal with domestic persons. This legislation is meant to cut off financial backing to international organizations at the request of IP holders, eliminating the overhead of due process. The accused have no rights. They are the mercy of the United States. Wikipedia deals heavily in user-edited IP, and would be an easy target. It has a responsibility to stand up for it's own freedom. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
445. Support. The action should be as strong and widely distributed as possible. --PhilipWinter (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
446. Strongly Support. I support a global blackout and banner, as SOPA will affect foreign as well as US domestic sites. --JonMarkGo (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
447. Strongly Support. The more people that're exposed to an anti-censorship message and informed about whats at stake, the better- Both within and outside the US.--Lerikson (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
448. Support (from Italy), because SOPA affects us all. --Retaggio (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
449. Total support. The internet has been the place of freedom for an entire generation. SOPA is the latest, and most severe Big Brother attempt to date. The world needs freedom. Supporters of SOPA and PIPA must open their eyes. --MrStavanger (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
450. Support If SOPA is passed in the US, other countries will follow suit. It is important to raise awareness now. --Dittaeva (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
451. Support DimiTalen 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
452. Support. Riwnodennyk ✉ 09:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
453. Extremely Strongly Support SOPA affects the entire world, not just the US. As an Australian Wikipedian, I can conclusively state that it would have a negative effect on the global internet, probably destroying it. Unfortunately, the issue is almost totally unknown outside of the US. It must be brought to worldwide consciousness-or else the repercussions will be horrible. --Stealthy (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
454. Support Kpengboy (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
455. Strongly Support — ʞɔıu 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
456. SUPPORT Anyone who thinks this SOPA is an "American only" or a "political" thing is an idiot. If this Orwellian scheme goes ahead, mark my words, it'll be the thin end of the wedge... watch as other countries like Australia, UK, Canada, etc. trip over themselves implementing similar draconian measures. KEEP THE INTERNET FREE! JQ (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
457. Support. YES, do support-it globally, it will increase awareness on SOPA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl ionescus (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
458. Support. CaAl (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) SOPA will have global effects — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaAl (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
459. Support as SOPA/PIPA may be a US law, but it affects a global industry. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
460. Strongly Support TedTed (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
461. Strongly Support. Tal Galili (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
462. Support. Dralokyn (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
463. Strongly support - needs a global, strong statement as the effects would not be limited to US only. Ingolfson (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
464. Strongly support full global blackout. 212.247.249.162 (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
465. Support. Filiprem (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
466. Support. Signalkraft (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
467. Support. As much as I hate to make others suffer for a U.S. issue, the reality is many U.S. websites that could be affected by this bill have a vast global reach, like Wikipedia, and as such the entire world needs to understand the severity of the situation Otebig (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
468. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.170.100 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
469. Support. Zaijaj (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
470. Support full global blackout - shut her down until Obama grows some hair on his balls and rips SOPA.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
471. Support.World-wide awareness needed - Go global --Keamari (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
472. Support. Global problem that needs global pressure -- makomk (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
473. Support. It needs to be done. Global is the best decision. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
474. Strongly Support. Simon.hess (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
475. Support. People all around the world must be aware of this. Petru Dimitriu (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
476. Support -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
477. Support. Tom Meijer (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
478. Support. ROCKOPREM^talk 13:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
479. Support.--Danidvt (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
480. Support. (a)As per argument number 1 in this subsection, US has been the big brother (for the better or for worse) in influencing the freedom of expression in many nations all over the world and SOPA will have a wide impact. (b) What happens in any nation is every other nation's business. Staticd (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
481. Support.—Emil J. 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
482. Support. ZorbaTHut (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
483. Support. When a major world super power that has been founded in and has exhibited freedom since its creation attempts to pass a bill censoring the internet, this is obviously big news, and can set an example for other countries. This should be a worldwide blackout. Also, Americans could easily bypass the blackout through proxies if the blackout was US only. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
484. Support. In Italy, the blackout already worked. Do it again! Angros47, from Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angros47 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
485. Support. This affects everyone, and SOPA certainly won't be the end of it. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
486. Support I live in America and India. I think communities in both of those places should be concerned about the global interconnectivity of this issue. Other countries should participate more in American politics since America is participating in theirs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
487. Support. --Olei (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
488. Support The US does not own the internet, nor should it have exclusive control. This and other similar acts affect everyone around the globe. Bromeliad39 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
489. Support. Although this is technically an issue for the US at this point, if the SOPA passes and goes into effect, it will end up becoming a global issue. The more awareness we can bring to this, the better. User:mayelisa —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
490. Support. Prefer this to option 1 by a small margin. T. Canens (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
491. Support. Passing SOPA sets a precedent for more censorship and other countries will most definately follow suit. AlphaGENERIC 14:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
492. Support. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
493. Support - I think a global English blackout is preferable, not just to those who geolocate to the US. So I suppose somewhere between this option and option 1? Of the two, this is my preferred. Resolute 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
494. Support. Zinnmann (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
495. STRONGLY Support. Modi mode (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
496. Support.--Lpmfx (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
497. Support. Once USA does it, that sets a very dangerous precedent. We must ensure that this kind of law is widely unpopular throughout the entire world while we still can, to make it politically infeasible. Romanski (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
498. Migdejong (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
499. Support. Internet regulation in USA affects the entire world. Other peoples may at least indirectly influence actions taken because of this initiative. Also, I agree with the decision of other organizations about the action in the first place and think a real impact depends on a larger set of organizations helping them. Finally, this should reach a majority of Internet users. ----hdante (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
500. Support （支持） Freedom Internet is voice worldwide. （互联网自由是来自全世界的声音。）We Chinese have a idiom "惟恐天下不乱", which means block globally may work. --王小朋友 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
501. Support. Minoru-kun (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
502. Support. Leastfixedpoint (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
503. Support. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
504. Support --Endlessdan (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
505. Strongly Support The negative repercussions of SOPA and PIPA will affect the global community. For maximum effectiveness, the US needs to hear from its neighbors how bad DNS blackout could potentially be. --Basil Fritts (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
506. Support. Although Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advocacy, it should have the means to influence decisions which threaten its existence globally. Zangar (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
507. Support especially over a US-only blackout, which can be circumvented easily through caches and open proxies. If there is a shutdown, it should be worldwide. I have no opinion on whether or not the blackout should occur. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
508. Support. Andrii Muliar (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
509. Support. Sfaugue1 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC) If this bill gets passed, the course for a smooth worldly future will indeed be compromised. This bill will effect the whole world, it doesn't just affect Americans.
510. Support. Decisions of the US-government will (still) affect politics and industry around the world, so let's show people that they need a free (as in speech) worldwide internet! BNemsi (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
511. Support --JimmyX (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
512. Support -- it's a global issue, as decisions in one jurisdiction will affect the experience of people in another. Besides, if it "works" in the US, lobbyists in other countries will rush to follow. SOPA, PIPA, whatever -- it needs to be stopped, not just tabled.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
513. Support --SCottman1995 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
514. Support --Wolbo (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
515. Support. What is done legislatively to the internet by the United States will have an effect on the rest of the world. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
516. Support --Azoreg (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
517. Support --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 17:37, January 16, 2012
518. Support. But how can the articles be accessed? May Wikibooks work? B0o-supermario (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
519. Support. SOPA's push to overhaul DMCA is genuinely needed. It's undermining of DNSSEC is silly. The removal of due process is unconstitutional. I'm a multilingual US dual citizen, residing overseas. SOPA's reach is far beyond US, Anglospheric, or Hispanospheric borders. We need awareness out here and we can deal with a one-time shock. Rolling shortages out here though would weaken Wikimedia. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
520. Support Morninj (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
521. Support It's only 24 hours.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
522. Support Could be even longer to give the right impression. --Niabot (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
523. Support. should be 24 hours Neozoon 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
524. Support. Solar42 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
525. Support. Lgladdy (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
526. Support. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
527. Support. The purpose of this action is to give people a taste of what censorship is really like, and to make sure that this hits every major news organization. Half-measures won't cut it. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
528. Support. Under the condition that access to a handful of censorship/SOPA -related articles remain available (as discussed below).--Glorimous (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
529. Support Will draw more attention. --Wagaf-d (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
530. Support --Technobliterator (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
531. Support. The world needs to know what the US Congress is about to do to the global internet. jillrhudy
532. Weak Support, my second preference. I prefer (1) Blackout US only, global banner. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
533. Support. Kaligy (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
534. Strongly Support Worldwide blackout and banner page, for every language that Wikipedia can get a translation for. The (clearly unnecessary) increase (from life +50 years to life+70 years or from 75 years to 95 years for pseudononymous works and works for hire) in copyright terms was forced (by the copyright industries, especially Disney, they got the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act because they were going to see Mickey Mouse go into the Public Domain around 1998 when Steamboat Willie was 75 years old) for the purposes of "harmonizing" copyright terms among countries in order to force those with shorter terms to lengthen them (thus giving the copyright owners a huge benfit and gives nothing to the public; adding 20 years to the end of a copyright term doesn't give us new works and the difference is not enough that if it wasn't there that it would discourage new developments); this sort of garbage, if it starts here, will be forced on other countries by the copyright industries claiming (a completely false premise, of course, just like the alleged "need" to "harmonize" copyright terms, but always upward) that this sort of draconiam legislation is necessary in all countries. It isn't and we have to oppose this. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
535. Support. It's a message to every politician in the world. Don't mess with the internet!
536. Support.
537. Support. 78.22.101.164 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
538. Support. The Internet is international, there are no borders.
539. Support Wouldn't it be great if people from all over the world were sending messages to the U.S. Congress?
540. Support. The Letter J (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
541. Strongly Support. The potential consequences of this bill on the internet and free speech are dire indeed. Strong action needs to be taken to oppose it and any other bills that would seek to limit internet neutrality and free expression. NBWriter (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)-
542. Support. Saibh (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
543. Very Strongly Support. As a resident of the UK, I feel I speak for many when I say that Wikipedia is as vital to us as it is to people across the globe. This blackout needs to create the greatest possible impact, with opposition to the bill coming even from people who are powerless to stop it. JTG.Turbo (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
544. Support. JusBer88 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
545. Support. I'm in the US. I believe that ridicule of bad US law in foreign media is very effective here in the US, so a global blackout and banner will help us much more than US-only measures. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
546. Support. Wikipedia is a global organization with a single american point of failure, just like every other website in the world. American legislation affects everyone, and everyone should be aware of this. --Zethraeus (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
547. Support. The world is small, a mess made by one nation affects us all. Folks in other lands need to see the consequences of legislation such as SOPA. Imagine opposition to this mess being conducted through diplomatic channels. Cedarviola (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
548. Support to make clear that similar bills are unacceptable anywhere. .. .dave souza, talk 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
549. Support. The English version of Wikipedia is used worldwide. NoelyNoel (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
550. Support. This should give the action worldwide media attention it deserves. Jan Winnicki * 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
551. Support. Global black out - everywhere. Let the silence be deafening Akinsope (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
552. Support. Sorry to tell you this folk (and Foundation), but you get only one chance, aand then you get drowned out in the media by the response chorus. THE BATTLE IS ENJOINED
     As voters we have no influence. Congress demonstrates that. Only money counts. Speaking of which, when will the financial institutions blockade Wikipedia as they did Wikileaks? I trust the "blackout will last 24 hours, and the "black screen" will have a complete explanation and links to relevant law text and interpretations of its probable effects. Whatever, just do it! Passivity is death to the Wiki-movement. This is only the government's FIRST step. A law only opens the door. It does not limit the measures which may be taken in its name. REALIZE the States are only some millions, compared to the billions in the rest of the world. The government regards as self-evident that they own and control the world. They still speak of "losing China", as though we had owned it once. Like it or not this battle will continue. I'm very gratified and impressed by all the work evidenced here. As for First amendments, etc. Its application is to message, not media----and web content has been denied protection before. Strive on, said Buddha.Idealist707 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealist707 (talk • contribs)
553. Support full global blackout D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
554. Unequivocally support full global blackout - This legislation has the potential to affect global internet usage, and the lives of millions worldwide. All should be made aware of this. EpidemicSTS (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
555. Full Support. ALoopingIcon (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
556. Support. 186.49.235.45 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
557. Support. The legislation has global effects, a global blackout would give it the international attention it deserves. Jonhall (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
558. Support. You may shut down en.wikipedia completely, but you must not (under no circumstance) block access from a single country only. Wikimedia has to make a stand for net neutrality, not using its own technology to circumvent it. As to the blackout itself, I don't think a banner would make any difference at all. It's no sooner than when congresspeople's kids start complaining at their mum and dad that they couldn't do their homework due to their own silly politics that something will change. --88.130.198.60 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
559. Support. We have or likely will have similar discussions to SOPA in many other countries. Sitic (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
560. Strongly support The entire world community will be affected if the US goes ahead with this. Fork me (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
561. Support. Afita (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
562. Support GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
563. Strongly support.Elmagio (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Projects like SOPA are already in the work in many European countries (France, by example) and I think that even just for SOPA, it's important to make it clear that the entire community of Wikipedia is as one on this.
564. Support So that people may be aware. TheGrimme (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
565. Support Some lessons are to be learned the harsh way, let's show how much SOPA threatens our freedom...
566. Support. Paul1337 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
567. Support SOPA will give the US the power to block sites based anywhere in the world. Hell, they've already started. 146.115.21.211 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
568. Strongly Support The issue needs global attention. Matt (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
569. Support. Internet is global, so act global. This concerns us all. By having a global blackout, also non US users might be triggered to think about this, and what is means for their country.
570. Support. Thank you for considering this. Mitzilewis (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
571. Strongly Support This law is a risk to the entire world, not just America. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
572. Strongly Support We must show that these laws are strongly spoken against by the majority.
573. Support. This will have the largest impact, and will demonstrate the need for a rejection of SOPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.239.33 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
574. Support The Internet connects and affects us all, there are no borders. MJ94 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
575. Support. Timekiller001 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
576. Support. 65.221.3.17 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Get other websites to do the same
577. Support -- RichiH (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 85.113.248.230 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
578. Support full global blackout. The American people and the international community have now had it up to their noses with those corporate whores who call themselves the American govt. They can blow their corporate financiers all they want, but they better keep their filthy hands off the internet. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
579. Support. Try to get other sites involved, along with others this could mean allot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samskibambinski (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
580. Fuckin' A I Support That. PIPA is even more dubious an idea. Anyone hear of IPv6? Hello? I will personally co-blackout ALL websites hosted by me as well on wednesday. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
581. Support --Der Buckesfelder - Talk - Valuation - E-mail 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
582. (edit conflict)Vehemently Support -- SOPA and PIPA won't be restricted to users only within the USA. Persons would be affected worldwide. The Internet knows no borders. Wikipedia needs to reflect that. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
583. Support - This would be far-reaching, well beyond the borders of the US. Lara 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
584. Support. Only right thing to do. This is global!
585. Strong support. The effects of SOPA will be global, so should the blackout. —Entropy (T/C) 22:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
586. Support. I am international and this is an international issue. Миша I, Швейца́рская Император 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
587. Support. J.Aldred 22:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'm a Jamaican citizen, there is no doubt that whatever happen with SOPA will have an impact here and in the rest of the world. Our government would be quick to follow. I'm in support of the blackout, we don't know what we have until we lose it. Let them know what they have and what it will be like to lose it. Hope Facebook and Google do the same.
588. Support ThemFromSpace 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
589. Support As a British citizen almost all the web pages I use are based in America. It is a global issue, despite being directed by the American government. LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
590. Support. Zanariot (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
591. Strongly Support The Internet is international, but due to a strong degree of US control of the internet, I think we need to go full global. Zanotam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

(3) Blackout and banner both US only

1. Support enwiki only, limited to users geo-located to the United States. Oppose "banner component would display to all users, regardless of location" Bulwersator (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose (1), (2), (4). I don't want propaganda about something happening in the US cluttering my usage of Wikipedia. [Editor's note: assuming 3, 5, or 6 are okay with Peter]. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. No clear preference for 3, 5 or 6, that's up to US editors to decide, I'm opposed to anything affecting non US users per my previous comments, the evidence for this having much if a direct effect on wikipedia is limited so I don't see any reason why we should do this for all users as opposed to say for the Spanish law or any of the other laws out there. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Perhaps there are better times for other locations. Should happen when there is an actionable item available for local government. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - I support a full blackout with banners in the US only. Would support (1.2.1.1), or (1.2.1.2) if enough (majority?) non-US users felt comfortable having a blackout or banner. Dkreisst (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support US only, for this, but I don't agree with EN: only. Apparently Americans only speak English? I don't think so. Anglophone-centrism not much better than Americentrism. Re what Nil Einne said, WP ought to do this for other laws, in other countries -- like UK's recent law that does pretty much the same as SOPA! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support --YMS (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Object to misleading title; it is called "Blackout and banner for US only" but the description text makes it clear that it isn't a blackout at all. I oppose the "banner portion of this option on the grounds that a clicktrough banner without an actual blackout will be perceived as not joining the other sites that have actual blackouts. I oppose the US only portion of this option on the grounds that the copyright industry is pushing similar legislation in multiple countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   There was already a weeks-long straw poll on "do something" with 89.9% support. It's perfectly legitimate for the WMF to ask "ok, what?" Selery (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   The above comment appears to be unrelated to my objections. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

9. Support. It's a US issue; I think we should focus on potential US voters. Only a tiny sliver of Anglophones outside the US are US expats. Keith D. Tyler makes a good point about other US languages, but I don't know where the debate or process stands on that point. --Allen (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support U.S. issue --Aflafla1 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. The US should know what going on with Wikipedia and SOPA, but the rest of the world doesn't really care, in my opinion. Chevsapher (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support So far it is US only. Few Americans recognize how dangerous this legislation is. We could be headed toward at worst a secret police enforcing copyright laws or at best exacting a private tax on anyone who uses copyrighted materials unknowingly without recognizing that one is using them. One could get slapped a $10 fine or tax for singing Happy Birthday at a birthday party. Because America is on the way to becoming a plutocratic oligarchy, anything is possible -- including the copyrighting of information itself on the ground that the first to discover knowledge is the only one with the right to disclose it. Fair use, which paradoxically makes copyrighted materials more valuable to a copyright owner and creates more material suitable for copyright, could also be at risk. Copyright should reasonably protect a copyright-holder from a blatant infringement (like downloading a whole feature film or book under copyright -- for gain or not) but it should never become an excuse for corporate control (a/k/a censorship) of culture. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. USA issue, not global. -SharonT (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. This is a USA only issue. We should not extend the application of this law to outside users. They will not be affected by SOPA, so they should not be affected by the protest. JohnT (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support No harm can happen to society or Wikipedia from a one day block, but massive harm can happen if the bills pass. However, there's no need to get other countries involved with a block. U.S. wikipedia would not shut down for some other countries' objectionable law. Wxidea (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support This seems the most sensible option; I oppose all international "blackout" options. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support, users outside the United States have no real way of influencing US legislative moves, so it makes no sense to inconvenience them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC).
18. Support. In fact I would be in favor of a global blackout and banner, but I do not think that the community here in the English Wikipedia should overrule communities of Wikipedias in other languages where other decisions may be made, and where only a part of the respective community is able to follow English-language discussion at all. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm not sure whether the "global blackout" is intended to apply only to the English-language Wikipedia anyway; if yes, then I would agree. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support.I think Wikipedia should join this "project" beacause Wikipedia is an important site and have the power to move something.Abol65 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support. Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. It pains me to argue for ANY cessation of service on Wikipedia, but it is such a heavily visited site that a blackout will be INCREDIBLY conspicuous. Wikipedia ostensibly has a vested interest in seeing this defeated as well. So long as the blackout is short and has an predetermined, fixed termination date, I think the obstruction of information exchange is tolerably slight.
22. Support. Wikiwooster (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Wikiwooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
23. Support. Thank you so much for considering this. It's going to make a HUGE difference. In other news, I am panic-downloading offline wikipedia.
24. Strongly Support. Renzoburo (talk) 21:46, , 16 January 2012 (CAT)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.118.249 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(4) No blackout, global banner

Support -download ׀ talk 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Moving to support of blackout -download ׀ talk 19:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Very Strong Support--LeslieCarr (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - Wikipedia claims to be opposed to copyright violations. If they are, then they should support the SOPA bill instead of protesting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Comment - No Bugs SOPA will do more than stop copyright violations, it will stifle our freedom of speech! --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   There is no freedom at speech at en wikipedia. Freedom of speech is irrelevant to creating articles by reporting what reliable sources have reported. If you are worried about your freedom of speech please do not used en wikipedia to vocalize your personal issues. - Youreallycan 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I'm talking about wikipedia's, this is just like a massive superinjunction if SOPA passes congress will be able to dictate what information we can and can't have on here!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Comment - Does Wikipedia actually claim to oppose copyright violations? As far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a published stance on copyright violations; they are removed for legal reasons, not because of Wikipedia's stance on them. To say nothing about how most opposition to SOPA is unrelated to copyright violation. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   Comment Read the legal review from Geoff Brigham, General counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia strongly opposes copyright violations, and equally strongly opposes SOPA. It's obvious that original commenter hasn't read that legal review, or he/she would not say "if you opposed copyright violations, you would support SOPA." That argument is analogous to saying, "If you opposed terrorists, you would support killing all Muslims." One has nothing to do with the other. -Jhortman (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Support - Not really sold on the blackout idea and definitely oppose a full black out. That said, the SOPA and related bills have much farther-reaching consequences than just to the U.S. Think a banner is warranted for all users. Banners DO work and can be effective at reaching a lot of people. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - I'm also not sold on the blackout idea, but putting a banner up that explains what this legislation will do is an important education tool. A banner can describe the implications of this legislation for sites, such as Wikimedia.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - Effective enough without the annoyance. Rodri316 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support I also left an opposing comment to a full blackout below. I think a banner will suffice to all users. It's important to let everyone (worldwide) know about the situtation, however, I don't think a blackout or click-thru will really help, it will just be irritating to those using the site, and may backfire. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. "Support"-Banners brought me to this sight, banners work.
8. Support. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support I don't think SOPA is bad enough to justify a blackout.. Banner should make it clear that it's a U.S. law that's being protested against, but it would have global effect and other countries are considering similar laws. Cheers WMF for advertising this poll to all editors! eug (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Banner at first, then (eventually) blackout. AnjaQantina (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support A blackout wouldn't help Wikipedia, but a banner would really help the many readers know that SOPA exists. What a pro. (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Strongly support Maaa9998 (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. I do see the reasons for (6), and would support that over blackout, but I think having GLOBAL banner, with option to click for further information is the best option. VikÞor | Talk 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support or, alternatively, (1), (2), (5), (3) in order of preference from most to least favorite. Jamface1 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
16. strongly support a blackout may be unnecessary, since a banner might be just as effective in educating people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support - blackout may be unnecessary and may anger people. Big banner is sufficient. ShotmanMaslo (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - Banners are the most effective. Dont think blackouts would be the right thing to do right now. Amaltash (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Strongly Support The banner must be Global - such a law in the US could very well have a major effect on the entire world in regards to Wikipedia, and other websites ... in addition, the banner should be on every page of Wikipedia, at all the sister sites - with no option for the user to remove it during the action. PoizonMyst (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support. I support the largest blackout possible. No one should be able to access Wikipedia for the entire day of 18 January. This shows what every day would be like with SOPA- no Wikipedia at all. User:Galifreylord

(5) No blackout, banner US only

1. Support - Blackout is too radical for an important website as Wikipedia. Make it a very well visible banner with a clear message that only states that if SOPA passes, WP might have to censor articles or shut down completely. Blocking out access for a full day to millions of people seeking free information would not be a good idea. Riddergraniet (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support This legislation is only taking place in the US, and many non-US users are not interested in fighting the so-called SOPA. A blackout is very likely to hit Wikipedia's image harder than SOPA's; the majority of the userbase, I believe, will read a blackout as site downtime. AUN4 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
   1. Comment - In Russia, for instance, SOPA is given very good coverage as it will affect everyone on the Internet. We're interested, we really are. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
3. It won't really help for people on other continents and in other countries to pester US legislators' offices with comments because they aren't even part of that legislator's jurisdiction. A blackout is also a waste of time because it doesn't change anything. The best method is to call readers to call their Congressional leaders. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
   1. SOPA will affect everyone on earth. No matter if other people are in the jurisdiction, the US is claiming jurisdiction of users accessing US-based websites. Everyone will be affected, everyone should be notified of the possible consequences. Jurjenb (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support A banner calling attention to a Wikipedia article on the issue is the most Wikipedia should do. There is more heat than light coming from the anti-SOPA camp and Wikipedia shouldn't get swept up into the hype. Also, as a number of other people have pointed out, Wikipedia would be violating its NPOV policy if it openly advocated a political cause on its site. ProfGiles (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support I agree. I have seen other websites do this in response to SOPA, and I think it would be the most effective way to get the message accross. We can still keep the website open for people's use, but spread awareness at the same time. Samcashion (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support WikiCopter 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support This issue is only in America, and isn't very relevant to other nations. Also, a full blackout would more likely irritate neutral people on the issue. Therefore, a banner could alert users of the issue without infringing on their viewing. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support This is an political issue limited to the U.S. and blacking Wikipedia out, for those not yet concerned about SOPA, will likely only be seen as an unexpected outage. For those that are concerned about SOPA, Wikipedia's probably the first place for many of them to get the detail they want/need. Furthermore, Wikimedia should not suspend its service to make a political point, no matter how deserving. Wikimedia (and especially Wikipedia) is so valued because it doesn't take sides in disputes (even though, at times, it provides a rather public forum for supporters in those disputes). Blacking Wikipedia out would do more damage to its perceived impartiality than any benefit that could possibly come from it. mcornelius (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - I don't like the idea of a blackout, especially a full blackout, but think a banner discussing the issue is fine. Dough4872 02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - Wikipedia has become an essential source of information for many people. I don't think it is right to penalize these users with a blackout. We need to think of our users and stick with a banner at most. Also, SOPA is a U.S. issue and impacting the rest of the world is narcissistic.--Rpclod (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. Madalino (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. This is the only 'action' item that makes any sense. This bill a) only affects the US, b) hasn't actually been passed yet and c) is no worse than censorship regimes in other countries (including English-speaking countries) which have no attracted any protest from Wikipedia. Any protest at all is a bad idea, because it brings Wikipedia into local politics, rather than remaining neutral. But if any protest at all is made, it should be no more than a banner, to avoid punishing users who have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Extending any protest whatsoever beyond US users is stupid and will only serve to tarnish the reputation of both Wikipedia and Wikimedia, whilst re-enforcing the impression that both are dominated by Americo-centricism and pro-US bias. Modest Genius ^talk 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support Oh, the blackout will only be in the US anyway. Go to town with it, I really don't care. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox and get involved in politics. You want to hassle your fellow Americans, go for it. The rest of the world moves on. Honestly, what can an non-US resident do to stop the bill? There is also a bill in India where they can sue websites such as facebook that are critical of the government there, but we don't seem to care about it here... And Wikipedia is licensed under the CC-by-sa, so if worse comes to worse, we just mirror it elsewhere. Problem solved, SOPA or no SOPA. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Put in a banner which parses at a user's IP and links to their likely Senators, for instance my California Senators so that people have an easy link to send a message to their Senators. (House reps would be too difficult to match with IP's.) Banaticus (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. ClarkF1 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. I'd include links, with explanation for non-editors, to the great SOPA article and to this page. I can probably live with the stronger proposals, and am impressed -- from a scan -- with the strong support for them expressed on this page; but think they do risk alienating support more than they gather. Have felt parallels -- perhaps it's superficial, coincidental; I'm not deep in either -- to the recent Section 1031/-21 fight: prep for war? Occupy crackdown? .... How viciously to fight? I've said my piece as it applies here. Agree with general "contact your representatives if you concur" encouragement but don't like IP-link idea #14 just above. What share of hit-count overall in US comes from editors, would be a statistic of some relevance to discussion here I'd think. Swliv (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Is this even that big of an issue to non-American users? The web will live on without the googles or wikipedias of the world. The average American is more worried about the economy in general and perhaps the lingering anti-terror wars that some vague idea that his internet won't allow him to access certain sites... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. Besh (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(6) No blackout and no banner

1. Support Any blackout as not being in the long-term best interest of Wikipedia and related projects. Collect (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - at this time. Youreallycan 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Keep out of politics, WP:SOAP. --Pgallert (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Ditto PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - for now. --Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support - let us be the 'bigger man' by not flinching to this. May we keep always a neutral point of view. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. There are many worthy causes in the world, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Taking this action would permanently politicize Wikipedia, and others and I have endeavored to explain in the previous discussions of this issue. Lagrange613 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Although I strongly feel about this topic, we should not choose side in political debates, NPOV should not only be a guideline in our articles. Teun Spaans (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Flies in the face of WP:NPOV even though it's not technically in the article namespace, there is an article on the bill that looks less neutral if there's a blackout. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong support Damages our much coveted neutrality, and frankly I'm not sure if I want to continue volunteering for a project overseen by a group which role seems to have changed over the years from it's formation - starting out as a means to handle press enquiries, manage funds and the technical side of things, to the one that now seems to be acting as some sort of political advocacy group. Harms our public image as well - keep Wikipedia out of politics! Acather96 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Let's stick to the Foundation's mission and continue sharing information while remaining apolitical. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political action group. We will be unable to claim with good faith that we are an objective source of information if we tie ourselves to specific positions, and especially ones that are mere stunts with no practical purpose. Most of the claims made about SOPA are simply misinformed to begin with. Save whatever point-making gestures we have up our sleeves for something that has a real point to it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support I object to any organization that solicits contributions and donations for one purpose and then uses its resources and influences to promote one side of a political issue. The Wikipedia SOPA article should present the facts in a neutral manner as is the goal with any other topic. Beyond that and perhaps a passing in-the-news reference, that should be the limit to coverage on Wikipedia proper. A press release by the foundation in the expected or likely effects of SOPA on Wikipedia may be appropriate, but I would hope that even that would not attempt to use fear mongering tactics. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support WP is a non-profit organization, it should not be making political statements, there is enough activism on WP the way it is already. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Very strong support - While I am not personally against the WMF taking a political stand on this issue and even recruiting or hiring lobbyists that would represent them before the U.S. Congress, and certainly organizing volunteers and editors to petition their local representatives in America or elsewhere to take a stand on this issue, I think a blackout sends the wrong message. There are better ways to get this accomplished without trying to make the WMF look like a bunch of political nut cases. Maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia is important, even on an issue like this. If anything, it was unfortunate that it.wikipedia pulled this stunt, and I'm not convinced that it is time yet to do a similar action here for en.wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Strong support - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation should be neutral in any and all political matters. Neutrality is very much valued on here and if either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation takes a stand on political issues, it loses its platform on which to be a legitimate and trustworthy source of unbiased, encyclopedic information. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support - Absolutely not the right thing to do. I have absolutely no belief that this will make a difference, and honestly, it goes against all the neutrality policies. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Strongly support. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. We need to hold constant the values of neutrality that Wikipedia preaches.552Industries (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Strongly Support - Wikipedia has not and should not participate in the game of politics. WP:NOTADVOCATE. While I do feel SOPA is an absolutely horrible idea that will be of little benefit, by getting involved we only hurt ourselves. There is little to gain through any participation across the Wikimedia projects. If anything, it will only hurt the users of Wikipedia while having little to no impact on the decision making in regards to SOPA. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support with enormous reluctance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not anyone's personal army. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia; is Britannica organizing a protest on its American site? We have articles to write, and edits to make, and ignorance to battle...which transcends politics. Finally, this reads like an enormous piece of groupthink, which creates an anti-intellectualism all its own.....and that's the last thing we need. Everyone, put down the Kool-Aid. A blackout of any sort is an escalation; save the nuclear options, please. Once the blackout genie is out of the bottle, there will be more demands for blackouts....and if I wanted to join an army, I would. I also reserve the right to change my opinion. Ezratrumpet (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support I do not believe Wikipedia should take political sides. Also it appears that SOPA may be less of a concern, today Saturday than it was yesterday Friday as the President's office has come out opposed to it, Mr. Lamar Alexander has backed down from some of the most controversial aspects, and the cosponsor of the bill from Vermont says it needs more study.Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong support. It is not Wikipedia's place to be playing politics, and this is, by definition, a political issue. If the fundamental freedoms of Americans are being harmed by this legislation then it is a matter for the courts to revoke, just like any other issue. While the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate does include the promotion of open source (thus opposition to this bill might be within that mandate), that is not the mandate of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia should never be used as a tool for any political purpose, including as directed by the Wikimedia Foundation. -M.Nelson (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Strongest Possible Support - SOPA is pretty poor policy, and I've written my Congressman about it, but any action would threaten our neutrality; I can't support the Project, the Community, or the Foundation to be involved in a political discussion. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, start and end. Achowat (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Strong Support. Wikipedia should keep out of political issues. I don't see how denying the service to uninvolved third parties for a day will help here. I believe it is right to make a stand in defence of Wikipedia's neutrality. I would like to make this stand here and now on the discussion of this very first potential blackout incident. I would not like see the reputation of this project to be tarnished, which could happen particularly if further blackouts are organised. We have to look at the bigger picture here and to me this is the start of a very slippery slope. Wikipedia has become very powerful, perhaps too powerful. It is tempting to use this power for political ends, but really this does conflict with the core goals of the project. In any case, it is more noble to keep the service up and running, come what may. Rept0n1x (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Strong Support. Many users who encounter a blackout or a banner are going to conclude that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and that particular form of liberal bias which is more concerned about "western" governments than regimes elsewhere that have been far less friendly to freedom of information. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox or suspending it is... suspending Wikipedia. It's "We had to destroy the village to save it" logic and what's especially headshaking about it is that supposed friends of the village want to do REAL damage in order to battle HYPOTHETICAL enemy damage. If, with no small indulgence, we granted that WP:NPOV could potentially be suspended by engaging in advocacy, it'd be when an authority has specially ordered Wikipedia to do something explicitly contrary to one of Wikipedia's pillar policies. This is not remotely close to such a case. You let someone hoist a flag on Wikipedia this time and soon there will be someone else proposing another day of advocacy about some other real or imagined legislation in some jurisdiction that maybe by some chance could constrain Wikipedia more than it would constrain itself anyway. You're going to deal with all those calls to political action by asking for another show of hands? Let Jimbo Wales and the WMF do their advocacy in the media as Wikimedia representatives. It is an entirely different thing to find advocacy where neutrality should be (i.e. on wikipedia.org).--Brian Dell (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Strong Support per comment number 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 22, 25 and 26. --G(x) (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.wadsworth (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 January 2012
29. Support Wikipedia probably isn't the right place for political activism. It will make people think that Wikipedia is biased. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - as I've already commented elsewhere, I don't think Wikipedia should be engaging in political advocacy, and I think doing so undermines our core value of neutrality. Taking any kind of action on SOPA would be the beginning of a dangerous slippery slope. Robofish (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Strong Support Wikipedia is for unbiased information, not to take political stances. Furthermore the world doesn't revolve around the US so nobody outside of the US should be remotely affected, especially not through Wikipedia. Nevertheless any form of protest will go against everything Wikipedia stands for. EquestrianAlex (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Strong Support As others have said, Wikipedia is not a political platform, and it especially must not be dominated by a domestic US political issue. Do not let misguided radicalism cause more harm to Wikipedia than SOPA ever could. vttoth (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support. Any action of this sort from Wikipedia's side will undermine the public's perception of Wikipedia as a politically neutral website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support It's our job, while on Wikipedia, to remain neutral. This means we don't get politically active or protest here. People should protest, but not on Wikipedia.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Firstly this is US centric and secondly it's political. I haven't seen anything that shows that this affects Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Why wouldn't we wish to stamp out illegal activity on the Internet? It's about time governments acted responsibly and well done the US for taking a lead! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Out of scope. It seems someone uses Wikipedia as instrument against that law. Organizers of this nonsense should read and learn What Wikipedia is not.--Bouron (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. We may as well start endorsing candidates. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support This would no doubt be "aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group", also known as "propaganda", which we have a policy stating Wikipedia does not do. We also have a policy stating "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides". This sounds reasonable to me. How can we be expected to host a neutral article on the bill if we take a stand against it? Will we be expected to take a stand on other issues? Demand relieve of the famine in Africa? Demand release of prisoners of conscience? Take a stand in elections? How will that affect our credibility? The passing of SOPA would by all means be nothing but sad, but if it is, we should just move the servers. I am also a little curious as to how many users supporting Wikimedia involvement actually made an effort themselves to contact their elected members in this matter. --Bensin (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
42. VERY Strong Support If SOPA where passed, many Companies and other websites like google and gameguides would go out of business, or just not be able to operate in the US, causing the internet to virtually become pointless in the US (like only the official webs. for some thing), put many people out of a job (that make a living through something like YouTube, etc.), and make the US in even worse economic (and social) situations. It would also cut profits to companies that operate outside the us (like gaming websites including Minecraft). Overall, SOPA is too obviously a bad idea, and likely intentioned to help big US businesses get more profit (causing the ACTUAL US citizens- in other words not businessmen and not bankers- to suffer). --BryanCB
43. Support. I must object on legal grounds. This is strictly my opinion, and what I say here does not represent any policy or that of the United States Federal Government, as I am not officially any of their spokespeople. This opinion is based strictly on my observations alone. That said, I must point out that your "neutral point of view" is what your non-profit status (governed under Internal Revenue Code Section 503(c)) is based upon. If you go with the blackout and/or banner in any form, your neutral point-of-view is compromised. Newspapers are full of articles in which the Internal Revenue Service revoked an organization's non-profit status for taking actions that have clearly shown a bias and have surrendered their neutrality. I am not saying that it will happen, but I do say that this is the risk you take. While I might or might not agree with the actions of the United States Congress, I must point out the inherent danger of your proposed actions and therefore must oppose them. If you want to make your voice heard, you must not do this through this non-profit organization. You can, however, give your opinions individually to your local congressman (and, in fact, should do so). Rapierman (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. Henry 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support One of Wikipedia's five pillars is to remain neutral. Dabbing with US politics will harm Wikipedia as we'll be perceived as a politicized, which will severely hurt people's perception of us as a neutral source of information. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support I am saddened and aggrieved that some people want to use Wikipedia as a political tool. If people have objections to legislations they should make their protests known by acting as individuals, not by utilising the work that I and thousands of others have done. I am not contributing to Wikipedia to provide anyone with a means to add weight to their opposition to legislation. If you're not happy, write to Congress - you can use OpenCongress, or some other means. A handful of vocal editors should not be able to force the closure of a website used by millions. Most users of the site, editors and readers, would not even be aware this discusion is taking place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Prodego ^talk 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
48. I do not support SOPA. However, I believe that Wikipedia should only take sides in political fights that impact it directly. To do otherwise compromises our objectivity. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Wikipedia should never take political positions. Whatever we feel about the proposal, the project should not be used as an instrument for activism. 23:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support, per my comments above. Modest Genius ^talk 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support, Wikipedia should NEVER take a political side. Yes, I disagree with SOPA, but the entirety of Wikipedia's reputation and work do not exist to add any weight to a political view (even to support my own political view). Joe Seemiller (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support, Wikipedia should NEVER take a political side. This is a major breach of NPOV! --Amckern (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support. And I ask users to take action agaisnt WP turning into a political party-like organization: I have resigned my admin status and stopped editing - Nabla (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support No. Wikipedia did almost nothing (not to mention blackout) when Chinese government blocked it unreasonably. It is ridiculous enough for Wikipedia to get involved with politics. I can't imagine people would want the rest of the world to protest against it. No politics, period.--Aetherlur (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Aetherlur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
55. I hope I'm entering this in the right place-- no to ANYTHING related to SOPA. We get enough politics and harassment and crap and BS "in here", and some of us are here to write articles without copyvio, not engage in politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support, Wikipedia should not enter the political fray in any fashion. It represents a slippery slope that erodes the trust and reputation the project has worked hard to establish. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. Hate the bill, love the neutrality of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Decafdyke (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Hot Stop^UTC 04:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support This is a dumb idea. Wikipedia doesn't need to follow Tumblr. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Strong Support - Keep NPOV in mind please Princess Derpy (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Very Strong Support: Wikipedia needs to be non-political, as politics is ALWAYS biased. This will drive users from us. Please don't get us involved.GenQuest (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Very Strong Support: Always stay neutral in politics, even if the proposed law affects Wikipedia.Nico (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
63. This Should be Obvious Support There's nothing wrong with the Foundation supporting the Encyclopedia taking a stand. And there's nothing wrong with individual editors taking a stand. The Encyclopedia itself, however, should always remain neutral. Taking a political stance would violate two of Wikipedia's Five Pillars and should be avoided at all costs. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
64. +1. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Wikipedia should not take sides like this. --a3_nm (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Strongly Support. Wikimedia should by no means get involved in politics - it compromises our neutrality so greatly that it cannot be countenanced. SOPA may be a bad idea, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to take sides in a political discussion. Our articles are NPOV, and so should we be as a community. If individual beliefs are allowed to be promoted, who knows where that would lead. Also, I find it very interesting that the Chinese block on wiki resulted in no action, but an American law is worth action. This protest may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Pascal (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Strongly Support. Pascal explained it better that I can. DGtal (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support This is a minor bill that will not pass Congress, unless someone can prove otherwise. Shii (tock) 12:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
69. "Support" I concur with Pascal. To demand a neutral perspective from all users and then have the site itself choose sides is not only incongruent with its mission, but it sets a bad precedent. Stay out of politics. P.s. (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Sebleouf (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support --Kormin (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. 98.218.127.49 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support No action. This will be the thin end of the wedge. What shall we protest about next, free Bradley Manning anyone? Wikipedia ought to stay out of politics and if in doing so it signs its own death warrant, so be it.--Ykraps (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support. I will no longer support Wikipedia financially if they step out of their role of providing free public resources and into political action. No matter what the issue of SOPA is, Wikipedia should not be involved. It is like a actor somehow thinking they must share their opinion about any particular issue as though their popularity in their profession compels them to do so, thinking that they are somehow also entitled to. STOP THIS NONSENSE!
75. Support. As much as I would like to support the blackout, I do not find it it fitting for Wikipedia to engage at this time and possibly damage its NPOV philosophyJ.Dong820 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - Stupid, stupid idea to blackout Wikipedia. Has anyone here considered that some people might be alienated by such action? It is absurd to turn Wikipedia into a propoganda machine instead of a resource of information. All it will do is empower detractors of Wikipedia to slander us - how can we claim neutrality when we are taking sides? Quite frankly, I'm not sure if I want to edit an encyclopedia that pushes political activism as well. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout (deprecated)

This question has been superseded by the two below. It can still be viewed at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action/BlackoutSection. If you voted in this section, please clarify your opinion by voting again in one of the sections below. Your choices are Full blackout or Soft blackout.

• could we get some clarification, please about how & why & by whom the above discussion was "deprecated"? AFTER so many people have voted... i can't seem to find any information about how this decision was reached? Lx 121 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Full blackout

Not only present an information click-through page, but close off editing and reading of the entire site. A message explaining Wikipedia's participation in the blackout protest will be displayed instead. The goal to achieve by a full, temporary blackout is to demonstrate to users what it is like to not have information available. Such a strong, immediate response may also have the effect of setting an example to warn politicians worldwide that they could be setting themselves up for humiliating defeat if they suggest similar laws in the future.

Note: Most comments in this section seem to mean a global disabling of the site, but it isn't entirely clear. You may wish to specify your preference (US only or global)

* so, great; in other words, when they (whoever they were?) "deprecated" the original voting question, the new/replacement ballot-question was insufficiently-DaB'd? nice one. don't we need to "deprecate" this vote now too? & draft a properly disambiguated question. Lx 121 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you just remove all those votes? I don't know if that's necessary or even allowed! --yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW! 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Read above; the old votes are still preserved at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action/BlackoutSection. A bot came around to talk pages to get these people to clarify their positions under the new divisions. --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support full blackout. I support any opposition to more excuses for America to rob, imprison, torture, murder, rape, infect, etc. Let Godzilla off his leash and give him a truckload of adrenaline - no response is too harsh, it is literally going to save lives. (As long as we're not physically hurting anybody, nor advocating it, nor calling for overthrow of the government, nor expressing irreconcilable hatred. I am opposed to hate speech and revolutions in general.) Badon (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   For all those who think a full blackout is premature, I disagree strongly. The time for action is long before this law is a serious threat and we become desperate. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The gladiator makes his plan in the arena. The best defense is a good offense. All cultures worldwide have proverbs indicating that waiting to take action until the threat is imminent is a poor strategy. We are educated people because of Wikipedia. We have the power to show the world how strongly we reject SOPA and any other law like it. It is a bad time to go limp and be the softspoken diplomat. We carry a big stick. Wave it around threateningly before you actually need to use it, and we will not only come out victorious, we will do it without a battle. Badon (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I believe taking a somewhat extreme hard-line as early as possible for only a maximum of 24 hours, or less, will be maximally effective while at the same time minimizing the amount of disruption it causes. I think the normal fund-raising done every year with banners everywhere is cumulatively more disruptive than an isolated, planned, and coordinated blackout for only 1 day. Badon (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

   If you wait until the noose is around your neck, protesting about it will only make it tighter. The time to win this is NOW, not later when we're begging for the mercy of murderers and thieves in government. Badon (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Support full global blackout. If you allow click-through, you are wasting your energy. People need to sit for a day and be truly inconvenienced if you really want to generate media attention, and if you really want people to stop and think about what a free Internet means to them. If they merely see a black screen and click through, most of them will forget about it five minutes later. The choice is yours: it's either click-through: "Huh? Wikipedia's whining about something. Who cares...." or full blackout: "Man, when I can't use the Internet the way I want to, it really messes things up for me." Let's actually make a statement that will be heard. Full blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skieffer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. 63.152.72.79 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Global blackout. Samuel Tarling (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. jmeeter (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Strongly support full global blackout Liderian (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support full global blackout - This is a big deal, and it warrants a big reaction InternetMeme (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support full blackout - It's now or never. We are protecting the internet for our great grand children right now. Thank you for making a stand.. --Erasmosis (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support full blackout - We need to rise up against the government who think they can do whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.67.41 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Strongly Support, I'm glad to see the wikipedia community is taking this threat seriously, I hope enough of us take it seriously enough to make this black-out happen. --Keithonearth (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Strongly Support, This major threat to the Web cannot be ignored. Mr. Paramecium (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Strongly Support Questionkiddo (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support full blackout--Limojoe (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Strongly Support Let's keep the internet free and open. Wikipedia represents the highest form of these ideals. Teque5 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Strongly Support. Strongly supporting full blackout. KenEdSmith (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2012 (PST)— Kenedsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
16. Strongly Support. Full blackout so that the absence of such a strong force on the Internet can be felt throughout the world. Otherwise it will just pass unnoticed. This is the most important issue that we are facing in the world right now, if we give them this, they will take it and take everything along with it. Strongly supporting full blackout.— Odaym (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
17. Support US-only, we need to raise awareness among US-citizens of what their government is doing and contact their legislators to stop it.
18. Support Strong, Re-affirming my vote above that this should be a full-blackout, not US-only. Agvulpine (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Strongly, How is this not the most important issue facing the world right now? EVERYTHING is under threat. Go full nuclear to reflect our rage! Genjix (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Strongly. DanWiki2011 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support Strongly SLWatson (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Show solidarity & make the stand now before it's too late to be able to. Halfabeet
23. Support A bill that has global ramifications should be seen globally. rjhancock (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support We need a global blackout, as SOPA will affect websites all over the world. --NimbleJack (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support full blackout. A global issue and must be addressed globally. These greedy guys are mind-police.
26. Support. Pigman5 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. I support full blackout. starfarmer∗talk 02:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support, A full blown global blackout is the best way to raise awareness of an issue that most definitely affects the entire world. IMO, one day without wikipedia is a necessary sacrifice. --Pianoman148
29. Support, Wikipedia's full support would ensure that a large proportion of the internet community will be informed of the SOPA act, and how it would affect the freedom of speech allowed by the internet. --Asdfftw
30. Support Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Take action right now! Jonathansuh (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support full blackout - No sense going half way, if going to take action, then throttle up and do it right. Buthsop
33. Support full blackout - Italy Wikipedia did it to protest a law, so can we. Phearson (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support full blackout. We are a movement dedicated to the ideal of knowledge for all; it is blatantly obvious this bill seeks not only to limit that ideal, it seems to me it is a step towards another country suffering under a great firewall. We live in an age where our fundamental right of dissent is limited; an age where peaceful assembly is too often made violent by the authorities sworn to protect us. As of now they cannot do that here, and thus we must ensure the internet remains the one place we can stay free. Sovereignlance (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    Fully disable the site. Place a link up with information not only for congressional information that way users from the United States can contact their representatives, but a link to the state department may be useful for international users as well. This is a global issue. Sovereignlance (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

35. Support as first choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support as first choice This is the only way to really get readers' attention. Although I don't know how I will survive WIkipedia-free for a whole 24 hours! Grover cleveland (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support as second choice. First choice: Reddit Option. I also would note that the other options have had a longer time to gather votes, and that some editors, having voted for the best choice available at the time they voted, will not come back and discover that a new option for a full blackout has been added. This may bias the vote totals. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support No half-measure, plz. Tevildoii (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support We need to ensure that everyone hears us. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I agree, no half measures. This has to be defeated.
42. Preferred option. I know this won't be implemented on this occasion, but it certainly should be used next time around if Wednesday's action does not help bring about the necessary changes. —WFC— 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Needs to be done, ***. --Sje46 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)— Sje46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
44. Support. True blackout including restricted access to content is the only way to get real attention. If it has to be merely a splash that can be clicked through, I hope it will be visible to people who follow search engine links to Wikipedia articles and not just those who visit the Wikipedia main page. Gzabers (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support. Only a full blackout would force the mainstream media to mention it (TV, radio, etc.,). Or force the user to close a full page banner on each and every page view. If the banner is only as annoying as normal ads on sites, then people won't care. Jdm64 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    I agree. Anything less than full blackout will at best be ignored like common advertising, or at worst be rejected like irritating spam. Middle-of-the-road options are too ineffective to be worth the trouble, and may backfire. Badon (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

46. Support full blackout This is the only way to truly capture peoples attention. Splash-screens and banners will be clicked through and ignored. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Strong support The whole point is to demonstrate the importance of WP being available. Anything less than a full blackout, at a time when passage of the bill is still uncertain, would be useless. Concur with dkonstantinos, Mabuse, etc. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Suppoer This will maximize the impact of this action. --Wonderstruck (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support full blackout --Rschen7754 06:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support full blackout Dkriegls (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Make an impact to the maximum extent possible --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support full blackout - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support full blackout Alyeska (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support full blackout Ironlion45 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support full global blackout Robin klein (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support full blackout, worldwide Lets not underestimate the stakes, ladies and gentlemen. This is the goddamn free internet were talking about here, and this SOPA business is a worldwide issue seeing as similar laws have already been passed in countries around the world at the United States' "encouragement". Make no mistake, this SOPA bill is the thin end of a very thick wedge that we will never be able to shake off if this goes ahead. This is it, cyberspace is the last truly free space left for the people, there is no more land left to run to and start anew a la founding fathers. There has already been too much incursion by the establishment into this domain, DMCA, PRO IP, ICE seizure shenanigans. We need to draw the line and say "this far, and no further". We should make a BIG impact and get news media buzzing worldwide, Wikipedia had become so integral to how people learn and discover that turning it off for a day would dominate worldwide media the whole time, and for a significant time after probably. This could very well be the killing blow to the beleaguered SOPA, and PIPA and whatever form the legislation comes back as in the future, because it will, and when that happens people will still remember the great wikipedia blackout.......and so will legislators.
59. Support TotientDragooned (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support full blackout as first choice. -- A.M. (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support full blackout, worldwide Here are my reasons:

    (1) Worldwide, because US citizens abroad can vote in US elections.

    (2) Worldwide, because if citizens of other countries are inconvenienced by the (threat of) laws passed by the US government, then those citizens can put pressure on their countries' diplomats to in turn put pressure on the US government.

    (3) Worldwide, because this will alert people outside the US to the likely effects if their own governments attempt to pass legislation like SOPA.

    (4) A full blackout because I'm not convinced a mere click-through banner will sufficiently demonstrate to users just how much they would be inconvenienced if SOPA/etc are passed and sites based upon user contributions really do have to go dark.

    zazpot (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

63. ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. -jkb- (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC) +1 (:DE)
65. support -- southgeist (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support --YMS (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Strong support as preferred choice. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Strong Support It needs to be drastic so it can be effective. -- Orionist ★ talk 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support full blackout. The entire point of a blackout is to disrupt people's normal internet use. That's what SOPA would do permanently. We shouldn't have a click-through that allows users to get to Wikipedia with minimal disruption. That's not what a site taken down by the attorney general for alleged copyright infringement will look like! An option might be to host Wikipedia through a proxy IP address that isn't attached to a any nameserver, and post the IP address to various newsgroups that can be found with a bit of googling. That might more accurately resemble the internet of the future if SOPA is passed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. strong support: as we did for it.wiki.--Nickanc (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. strong support 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Strong support full blackout What does it help, if people can still read Wikipedia during "blackout"? If SOPA is enacted, we might never read Wikipedia again! --Raphael1 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Strong support This approach has my strongest support, as I think this approach brings the most forceful punch, to make people see very clearly what the stakes are, which is potentially "Bye Bye Wikipedia". The inconvenience of not being able to access articles is the point! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support Full blackout, no access for at least 24 hours. DNForever (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Strong Support Lets shut down the internet. The world can survive for 12 hours. Skeletonboy (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Strong support I believe shutting down Wikipedia globally will get the most attention. If people can click through, people will ignore the message.User:Ente75 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Strong support Everyone around the world will be affected by SOPA/PIPA by virtue of the size of the Internet in the United States. Everyone needs to know. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support. I assume that this would be for the English Wikipedia worldwide, as allowing only non-US editors to edit would be a rather strange experiment. (Partial blackout is also fine, but this is better. We should be fully solidarious with the other big sites in this matter.) Hans Adler 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Strongly support full global blackout. 212.247.249.162 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support. Before reading Geoff's note I thought SOPA wasn't something that could actually concern Wikipedia. But the federal lawsuit as a first step for removing a link to some pirate site is ridiculous. Heck, someone added one of those in thier /Evidence in a recent ArbCom case, and it was probably by accident. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. As first choice. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support. This proposed law would make Wikipedia as it currently stands untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support. Full blackout is necessary to raise awareness across entire spectrum of internet users. Mabuse (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Very, very strong support - this will make a solid reason for voting against SOPA in the houses, and will show what will happen if SOPA passes. SiPlus (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Strong support - Vaccines are always useful. A small dose of what would happen, in order to help prevent the full blown disease from occurring. - SudoGhost 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support bcartolo (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Full please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 14, 2012; 16:37 (UTC)
89. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
92. Strong Support Full Global Blackout. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. Although I agree with points that have been made that we need to be sure that information about SOPA and PIPA is available to users. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 16:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support - There is no impact if it's something that is easily dismissed. Will it make a lot of people angry that one of their favorite websites is gone for a day? Yes, excellent, then they can consider how pissed off they would be if it was shut down for good. DavidSSabb (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
94. "Support" I believe nothing short of a full global blackout will get this issue the attention it needs. Brandorr (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support per User:Mr.98. Carlsmith (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
96. All of the Support. I will miss my dear Wiki, but if we can spread a message this way and reach the majority of the web, then so be it. Lucasoutloud (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
97. Support --J (t) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
98. Support and Applaud - Leave . A . Welt JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Support -- The only way to educate the common public is to shut down Wikipedia. In 2012, most people ignore banners and advertisements, but they can't ignore a site that is shutdown. Hopefully this will be enough to motivate people to contact their congressman. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Support --Wvk (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
101. Support --Barronitaly (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
102. Support --Kangaroopowah 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Strong support If we want to get the message across, we need to give people a real taste of what this bill could do; this is the best way to do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
104. Support --The only method to completely express the destruction this bill will cause. Action needs to be taken. Saffy21 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
105. Support Full Blackout, Worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8am–8pm EST --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
106. Support Full blackout, worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8 am-10pm EST— 66.26.225.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
107. Support Full Blackout, Worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8am–8pm EST Designer1993 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
108. Support ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:31, 19 Tevet 5772 / 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
109. "Strong support" -- SOPA is an existential threat to Wikipedia and the Internet itself. This vicious attack on the Internet from America threatens the global Internet and must be treated in the same manner as other attacks on global resources by rogue nations. Only full blackout responds adequately. I apologize for any formatting errors because I am an amateur editor at best who mainly corrects typos. Muldrake (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
110. Support --Blood sliver (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
111. Support -- If the law(s) are passed, there would be much worse than one day of unavailability. Snackwell (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
112. Support -- This is the best way to raise awareness and give the public a taste of what censorship feels like. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
113. Support full blackout implemented globally as first choice, soft blackout globally second choice. I hope that's specific enough and in the right place. I already voted yesterday, am back due to the bot notification, and find navigating this page anything but intuitive. Rivertorch (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
114. Support. If we're not going to pull out all the stops for a threat like SOPA, for what exactly would we? There is no sense in going halfway here. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
115. Support This bill is incredibly dangerous to the continued operation of Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. The systems that would have to be installed to monitor changes before they go live would be extremely cost-ineffective and the alternative could bring down Wikipedia altogether. Thus, this stark action is necessary to bring attention to what things would be like if SOPA (or PIPA) passes, and pooling our collective effort into educating Congress on responsible legislation of the Internet. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
116. Support -- The average American will begin to understand just how bad this bill is, and then we will be able to effectively combat these bills by getting more people to call representatives. I mean, just think about how many people who visit Wikipedia each day will be able to feel how it could possibly be in the future if we don't take action. I think we should follow reddit. Goat999 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
117. Support If we do a full blackout for 24 hours, that'll show what SOPA could do for years. Also, no vandals! Pilif12p 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
118. Support — people need to understand how dependent they've become on resources like this, which would be devastatingly affected by SOPA. They need a preview of what a broken Internet looks like. Congresspeople may not use Wikipedia, but I can guarantee that their staffers — the people who actually help them determine their position on issues — do daily (I know a few of them). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
119. Support --Jesant13 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
120. Support, soft is fine too but I think this is much more appropriate. Users will actually touch what the effect of SOPA on the internet might be. ~GT~ (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
121. Support. James F. (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
122. Support – Danmichaelo (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
123. Support Clear message: Full blackout for 24h. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
124. Support This will be the most effective option on people around the world, and people will truly see the harm that this bill causes. I think this is a great idea. Alexroller (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
125. Support Wendin (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
126. Support upstateNYer 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
127. Support I support a full blackout for up to 24 hours. Constant314 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
128. Support Blackout für vier Tage bis zum Sonntag. Das bleibt im Gedächtnis! Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
129. Support - the "free knowledge" arguments against have some weight with me, but this option makes the strongest statement in a critical situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
130. Strong Support jfeise (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
131. Support full blackout - We might as well show the actual results of internet censorship, no compromises with some banner click-through. Haku8645 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
132. Support full blackout - If SOPA is passed, freedom of speech is violated. What is Wikipedia? Okeekobee (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
133. Strong Support Perlit (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
134. Support - but I could also live with the soft option.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
135. Strong support -- L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
136. Support Full, Global Blackout. SOPA appears to represent the movement of old, past mechanisms of suppression into the publicly-accessible Internet, to keep doing onto us the same game played so effectively in the past. This is an issue that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Gzuufy (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
137. Support full blackout --Wikinaut (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
138. Strong Support A full blackout would express our abhorrence of such a bill and express that the Wikipedia community will not allow such a bill through pass through the United States Congress. --Kylalak (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
139. Support - I feel like if this were up temporarily, followed by a message that said like "This is what will happen if...", etc. Or just have that up the whole time. Regardless, this will grab people's attention. Lordvader99 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
140. Support - even though it would be drastic, a real wake-up call that shows people that this is not just yet another tempest in a teapot is necessary. The upside of a splash screen is that it only takes one click to get to the actual content as before; the downside is that, well, it only takes one click to get to the actual content as before. People need to take note, and a temporary closure of the English Wikipedia would accomplish that without really causing a lot of disruption in the long run. (In the grand scheme of things, it'd still just be one day.) -- Schneelocke (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
141. Support. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
142. Very Strong Support - A full blackout is the least we can do. People say it's an inconvenience, but that's the whole point. People aren't going to pay attention to this unless it's an inconvenience. If it's some click-through page they're just gonna click right through it. It's an Internet routine. Do you not think it's inconvenient for protesters to stand out in the rain holding signs all day and night? This is nothing in comparison. You don't have to do anything, except forego Wikipedia for one single day! And that's too hard for you? That is the worst kind of cowardice. People say we shouldn't keep people from information because then they wouldn't be able to learn about SOPA, but the blackout page would contain information about SOPA. People say we should save the full blackout for later, but that could be too late. Procrastination will get us nowhere. People say Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in politics. Give me a break! That's like the government passing legislation that puts your wife in prison without trial and you not saying anything because "you don't wanna get involved in politics." SOPA affects and hurts Wikipedia directly. Of course it should get involved. TharosTheDragon (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
143. Very Strong Support - 100% agree with previous speaker --Niklas 555 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
144. Support - This will send the strongest message, and will more effectively demonstrate the consequences of SOPA. Drive the point home I say! Jessemv (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
145. Support - A strong message needs to be sent. Focus (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
146. I strongly prefer a full blackout to a soft blackout, but a soft blackout is acceptable as an alternative. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
147. Support A full blackout shows what the world would be if SOPA and Protect IP pass. Even though Wikipedia is against copyright infringement, SOPA and Protect IP could hold Wikipedia liable if some user unknowingly uploads one copyrighted file. Also, turning Wikipedia off for one day will not hurt ad-revenue (there is none), it will not hurt the user base (5th largest in the world), and it will have maximum effect in rallying supporters. Drivec (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
148. 'Full support for a full blackout, global! Me and my wife will promise to donate if Wikipedia will go on a full blackout. Jurjenb (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
149. Support full blackout, global preferred. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
150. Support - I hate the idea of not being able to access Wikipedia for a bit... Maybe that same sentiment will get people to think about what's going on. --Talvieno (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
151. Support - A strong message is key. a13ean (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
152. Support full blackout, no to sopa— Catinark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
153. Strong Support per TharosTheDragon Aleichem (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
154. Support full blackout Hello32020 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - update, yes global Hello32020 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
155. Support with a few reservations. A simple click-through banner would be ineffective as almost all readers would not bother to read it before they closed it. It might even be counter-productive as a good few, not reading it would take it for advertising and think wikipedia had either succumbed to the desire to generate more revenue or had extended those ghastly 'Personal appeal from an author of 50 Billion wikipedia article banners. The blackout should only be applied in the presence of overwhelming community consensus as, if it as seen to be anything else we'll lose a lot of editors over the controversy. It's inevitable that a few will be disillusioned and leave, claiming that WP has abandoned NPOV but should it be seen to be rammed through by the WMF and Jimbo then the backlash could do serious harm to the 'pedia. Now We Try It My Way (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
156. Support A full blackout is the only way "normal" people will understand the possible effects of SOPA/PIPA. TEG (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
157. Support full blackout. Cathartica (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
158. Support --Delfort (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
159. Support full blackout Purity is great, but we are not telling people which presidential candidate to support, we are pointing out likely consequences of law-by-lobbyists—that is our responsibility as all readers need to know what may occur. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
160. Support. Most commentators are saying that anything less than full commitment will be ineffective. Marcus Qwertyus 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
161. Support --Sargoth (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
162. Support. I support full blackout. Von Restorff (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
163. Support It's the most effective message we can deliver. The date and wording may be moved around a bit, but the bill still isn't in our favor.Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
164. Support. I think that it's important that Wikipedia shut down totally so that it's a newsworthy event rather than just another banner ad. .froth. (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
165. Support Make it the last US blackout we need -attack with overwhelming force. --Indolering (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
166. Support. Although it would be inconvenient for a day, it would definitely show a message. And, if SOPA passes, then it could be a possibility that wikipedia gets shut down completely, so people could see what the horrendous almost-reality SOPA is. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
167. Support. Small sacrifice for what could come in the future.  Marlith (Talk)  22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
168. Support. I support full blackout. It would raise awareness even to the laymen among us. Django the Duke (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Django the Duke— Django the Duke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
169. Support. I support the fullest blackout possible to raise complete awareness. Fendue (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
170. Support. This bill is not so much about Wikipedia as the future of the internet as a whole. The fact Wikipedia is so frequently visited means people worldwide will see what SOPA truly could unleash. I thus support a blackout for the global site, not just the US portions. Captain Gamma (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
171. Support. (Preference: US-only) This sends a strong message. How is the world affected if laws and governments censor free speech similar to and including Wikipedia? Geoff (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
172. Support. This bill will basically turn the Internet into the playtoy of censors everywhere who don't like something for any reason. The US government needs to see that SOPA will ruin the Internet in the strongest possible way. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
173. Support I won't like the blackout, no one will like the blackout; however, i believe this is a necessary action to raise awareness over such an important issue.--Stujames (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)stuartjames
174. Strong Support. Please support a full blackout. Protest is inconvenient. Action is much more powerful than a kind word of support. A click through is little more than an advertisement, which I thought Wikipedia was against.StevenPine (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
175. Support full blackout. Shubinator (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
176. Support. Better one day without WP than jeopardizing the future of the internet as we know it. --Dschwen 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
177. Support. I support full blackout. I believe that this will throw it into the faces of the masses and make sure they know what is going on with their internet. I think it should be active during 8am - 8pm like Reddit and possibly continue a soft blackout longer than that with a click-through page. A full blackout will be sure to get true attention to such an important cause. Hopefully I don't have research to do that day :LJosh (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
178. Support. Given this issue directly affects Wikipedia's ability to educate the world a world blackout seems appropriate. PeRshGo (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
179. Support. I support full blackout. Kavi96 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
180. Support. I strongly support full blackout - we need to send a strong message. Drops in sente (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)— Drops in sente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
181. Support. I support full blackout. ODonnellCiaran (ODonnellCiaran) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)— ODonnellCiaran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
182. Stongly Support. I support full blackout. Allowing a click-through can hardly even be called an inconvenience, as junk splash screens are nothing new, and the message will be ignored and go largely un-heeded. 75.244.112.66 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012(UTC)— 75.244.112.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
183. Support. Don't suppose it would be possible to allow people to log-in to access Wikipedia normally, which would give the side-benefit for the community to have the first ever day to clean out backlogs. Wittylama 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
184. Full and Total Support. I support full blackout. Mike44456 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
185. Support. This is too critical of an issue to half-ass. I support full blackout. Riphamilton (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
186. Support. People may be temporarily frustrated by the action, but if SOPA passes, the implications could be much worse. The only way SOPA passes is if people are unaware of the potential implications beyond it's seemingly innocuous name. A full blackout goes a long way towards raising awareness. Since Wikipedia has a massive userbase that extends far beyond the userbase typical of Reddit and other sites, it is absolutely critical that this blackout occurs in order to raise awareness to a much larger audience. Jason Smith (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
187. Support. I support full blackout. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
188. Support. I support full blackout. Chitown03 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
189. Support. I support full blackout. Steamfire (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
190. Support.You dont realize what you have until its gone. This is the way to go
191. Support. This action is analogous to a labor strike or a rent strike, and the strategy is the same. Circumspice 00:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
192. Support. I support full blackout. §Ariel (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
193. Support. I support full blackout. However, there should be substantial information about SOPA available for visitors (not just one paragraph). ypnypn (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
194. Support. I support full blackout. Orashmatash (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
195. Support. I support a full blackout. Dkreisst (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
196. Support. full blackout seems best. It needs to draw attention. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
197. Support. I support full blackout.  — Quicksilver^{T @} 01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
198. Support If we are going to stand against SOPA, we need to stand strong. While having a click through option with banners can be effective, nothing would be more impacting than completely shutting off the site, showing our readers and editors what internet censorship is truly like and what could happen if SOPA is to pass. The downside of not having Wikipedia available for day is minuscule to the downside of SOPA passing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
199. Support. I support full blackout. Actually, I Strong Support full blackout. People need to know that this can kill the internet, and they must be shown WHY, and they must be shown it strong enough to actually call their senator. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) -- I would like to clarify that I support a global blackout of 1 day, and if this is not acceptable to wikipedia, then a US blackout of 1 day, and if this is not acceptable, then a clickthrough of as many days as it takes (MORE than 1 day). Fieari (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
200. Very Strong Support. The Internet is dead without Wiki. People need to understand this. musicGUYGUY 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
201. Support as first option. In fact, I believe this is the only option worth committing to. A banner won't do the job; we need to make it clear the kind of danger SOPA poses to all websites. We can do without Wikipedia for a single day, but if SOPA passes, we just might have to do without it forever. Lunaibis 01:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
202. Support. I support full blackout. Salicaceae (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
203. Support - this will have the greatest impact and deliver the strongest message, unequivocally. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
204. Support. I support full blackout. WHPratt (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
205. Support. I support full blackout. 3M3RY (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
206. Support. I support full blackout, but there should be a virtual link or frontpage explaining the reasoning behind the full blackout . el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
207. Support. I support full blackout. I doubt that a simple click through page will even be glanced at by most users, and will be ultimately ignored. Thatguy0900 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
208. Support. I support full blackout. Tea Serpent (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I think only a full black out can draw enough media attention and illustrate the effects of the bill. Anything else will be ineffective.
209. Support. I support full blackout. What is one day without wikipedia, compared to a lifetime without wikipedia? My recommendation for the static splash would be a simple box that lets users enter their email address. On the 19th, we can email the users a link to the SOPA page. Andy17null (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
210. Support If SOPA passes wikipedia will be shut down anyway. --Gary123 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
211. Support. I support full blackout, with the caveat that explanation of why it's happening is important. Gus andrews (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
212. Support. I support full blackout. Allicat323 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
213. Support, anything less than full blackout is meaningless. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
214. Support, Axem Titanium said it best. ~Crazytales (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
215. Support. I support full blackout. This is NOT a political issue. We're defending the fundamental freedom that makes Wikipedia possible. All or nothing. BDS2006 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
216. Support. I support full blackout. noeckel (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
217. Support. I support full blackout. Tgeairn (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
218. Support. I support full blackout. Nut up or Shut up! Habodek (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)‎
219. Support. I support full blackout. -- I support a full blackout of Wikipedia with no room for compromise about the subject. Going at it half-way gets nothing across. As the saying goes, "Go big or go home". Either you come at something with full support or you don't in my opinion. I am of the opinion that if a full blackout is not implemented and someone can get around it with a simple SOCKS proxy, that takes all of 10 seconds to configure, or a web-based proxy, then the entire action is pointless. No... Wikipedia need to deliver the point that this form of legislation is dangerous to anyone and everyone regardless of whether they live in the USA or not (considering that the internet effectively, for all intents and purposes, knows no borders or boundaries). It's time to draw the line in the sand. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
220. Support. I support full blackout. Lonewolf9196 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
221. Support jkv (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
222. Support. I support the full blackout. I may not like the idea of the full blackout because it might affect editors and such, but it might be the only to get awareness to the people who use the internet everyday. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
223. Support -- People who do not take Wikipedia for granted will understand that it is only temporary. Those who do take it for granted will hopefully become more educated about WMF's position and ideals. Ahp378 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
224. Support. I support full blackout. Copyright expansionists can go to hell. This is the only way to show we are serious. ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
225. Support. I support full blackout. Chiekken (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
226. Support. I support full blackout. 68.146.175.39 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
227. Support. I support full blackout. Mikewarren (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
228. Support. I support full blackout. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 05:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
229. Support. I support a full global blackout. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 05:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
230. Support full blackout. We can all live without Wikipedia for a day. We can't pretend to be immune from the forces of the world, sometimes we have to lobby for a free Internet. Many other sites will be down by executive decision. It means something different, and will likely spark a lot of public discussion, that we the users are also taking a stand. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
231. Support as first choice My second choice would be a US-targeted blackout with banners for the rest of the world; if noxious legislation like this passes in the US, it then becomes more likely it will be foisted on other countries. As for the argument that people depend on Wikipedia & would be offended by this action, there are these institutions which provide buildings full of printed materials & free access to online databases known as public libraries. If a user is bent out of shape because she/he is forced to go to one of these because Wikipedia is unavailable.... Well, I can't think of a way to express my utter & complete contempt for those people succinctly without resorting to saying something nasty. -- llywrch (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
232. Support. Full blackout. --Hu12 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
233. Support I support a full blackout for the message it sends. A click through banner basically says "Hey, we have a message you may or may not read in terms of the internet as we know it being under attack". A full blackout sends the message that this is not a public service announcement, this IS a protest in response to a dangerous piece of legislation, and this is how one of the most important sites on the internet feels about it. The world will not collapse if wikipedia is offline for a tad bit. However, hundreds of thousands can be informed not only by not being able to just click through a banner ad but through the inevitable media it will generate. Congress needs to be shown we are not screwing around and no amount of lobbyist money can compete with people being made fully aware of the fact their internet is in dangereditI support a full global blackout as this is a global issueTheMadcapSyd (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
234. Support Mbroderick271 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
235. Support, second choice. --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
236. Support. I support full blackout. indy_muaddib (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
237. Support. I think a full blackout is necessary. luficerian22 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
238. Support. I think that only a blackout will truly demonstrate to the politicians, the public, and anybody who uses wikipedia on a regular basis, the real threat that loss of content poses. Furthermore, I think that the temporary loss of information is well worth the cause. To begin with, the effect of a total wikipedia blackout lasting only one day is minor, and even if it were not, I would think we should be willing to go much farther than this if need be. The treat posed is too dangerous to let petty, transient concerns distract us even for a moment. Do the ends justify the means? Yes. In this case, they absolutely do. Jalaska13 (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
239. Support. I support full blackout. To get someone's attention (incl. media and Congressional staffers) you have to inconvenience them Solicitr (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
240. Support- Reyk _YO! 06:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
241. Support - This will have the greatest effect, as it will fully demonstrate what it would be like without Wikipedia. I think that we should aim for as great of an effect as possible. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
242. Strong support - The best way to show people what it will be like without sites like Wikipedia is to take away sites like Wikipedia. We've all been to sites where content is delayed by a 15 second ad; how many of you remember what those ads are about? A click-through will not be effective enough. Benscripps (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
243. Support. OttoMäkelä (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
244. Support. --Asdf01 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
245. Support. We need a strong gesture. InverseHypercube 07:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
246. Support. Machchunk | make some noise at me 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
247. Support, provided that there are ways for non-US citizens to help support the US citizens too, because some feel strong about the issue. --Marianian^(talk) 07:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
248. Support. Content policies aside, what's the point of them if Wikipedia ceases to exist due to this bill? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
249. I'll take this as an alternative to a soft blackout if the community agrees. Besides, it's likely to have more of an effect if people are actually denied the ability to access Wikipedia (among other sites). It would give them a taste of the reality they might live if SOPA were to pass. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
250. Support If we,re going to do something, we might as well do something big. Circéus (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (Unbsp;TC)
251. Support - Clockbox (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
252. Support --minhhuy ^(talk) (WMF) 07:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
253. Support. MinervaK (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
254. Support full blackout. SWH ^talk 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
255. Support. These days, action must be drastic in order to be effective. SidShakal (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
256. Support full blackout. We have to declare war and we have to use the strongest weapon available. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
257. Support Ayup. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
258. Support - We are all a team here at Wikipedia. We are strong, and we can make it through this. We will survive without using the project for a while, but I'd rather do that, than it be forever under SOPA. I live in Australia, but I don't want to see fellow Wikipedians suffer under this terrible act. Full Blackout, to send accross the full message. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
259. Support. We can't go out with a whimper.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
260. Support full blackout JJ Harrison (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
261. Support ^what these 232 people said. Mchcopl (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)!
262. Support. Anyone can click through a page and think nothing of it. The only way to reach people is through a full blackout. Yes, it will prevent access to the world's collection of information... but that's the point: SOPA and PIPA threaten this access to information permanently, and people need to see for themselves just how drastically this will affect everything. Emmy Altava 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
263. Support full blackout maybe later on or as second choice to soft blackout. Edit/Update: I support a blackout for several hours, perhaps for a handful of hours when traffic tends to be highest. US blackout with message asking to contact gov reps; world intro-message asking to sign petition in support of American citizens. Hozelda (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
264. Support This will bring a lot more attention to the issue since most people won't just click through it like the donation banners. Even if it is a bit extreme, doing something this drastic will definitely make people pay attention to the issue. I just wish we could get Google involved as well. No Google for a day would make every internet user in the western hemisphere shit a brick. Farlo (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
265. Support. This will bring a lot more attention to the issue since most people won't just click through it like the donation banners. Alexgs (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
266. Support Someone has probably already suggested this but: I think a temporary full blackout, followed by the click-through blackout screen would be best (Lexandalf (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
267. Strongly Support: SOPA is not just an inconvenience; it represents a set of values and goals that are incompatible with the values and goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community. Therefore, I strongly support the blackout. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
268. Support — SpikeToronto 08:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
269. Support Don't stop there. Believe and use the threat of moving Wiki offshore where the legislators can't touch it. It's the world's Wiki, not just American L-Bit (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
270. Support full blackout globally. --Juusohe (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Juusohe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
271. Support (US-only blackout) Nobody reads a click-through. People need to be directly affected by what will happen when that nonsense passes. Otherwise they'll take no action. We need people to take action. Q.E.D. smurfix (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
272. Support. Ditto for basically every comment above me. I♦A 08:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
273. Support --La Corona (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
274. Support (I support both options ;) ) Kameraad Pjotr (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
275. Strong Support This demonstration to the politicians can prove to them about the current trend and not the old times. However I'm not disregarding our historical events. I'm saying that life can change from time to time and right now everyone wants to know about things they do not know.--Bumblezellio (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
276. Strong Support The web's most popular source of information should be doing all it can to fight attempts to restrict it. Crusoe (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
277. 'Support'Kusma (t·c) 09:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
278. Support There is no "slippery slope" to be worried about here, it's a narrowly targeted bill that presents a direct threat to the operation of this site. It would be inconceivable to me for a thoughtful Wikipedian to support this poorly written(and ultimately ineffectual at stopping real crime due to its gaping loopholes) bill.-- Alyas Grey : talk 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
279. Support per most of the people above me. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
280. Support. I support a global blackout; this is a global problem Luna Ariya (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
281. Support, and I mean blacking out globally. Don't know why it should be only in US. It's also a problem elsewhere in the world. --MrEskola (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
282. Support. totally disabled except for a SOPA bannerAndrew (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
283. Support a full global blackout is the only effective way to raise awareness and have our voice heard. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, not just US. --Sk4170 (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
284. Support. A full blackout is the only way to properly catch the attention of passive users. Bring it on.
285. Support I'm supporting a global blackout. KaragouniS :  Chat  09:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
286. Support. I am confident that enough politicians and voters do read Wikipedia to make this course of action effective. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
287. Support. Worldwide, unable to access anything. Nikthestoned 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
288. Support If it is going to happen, do it properly. AIRcorn (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
289. Support I support a full global blackout. Hom sepanta (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
290. Support. Xjmos (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
291. Support. --Cary (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
292. Support. Edoderoo (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I say no to piracy/copyvio, and no to the way they want to fight it right now.
293. Support I'm a UK user and support a global blackout tompagenet (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
294. Support Full Blackout Globally. RaunakR (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
295. Support. please. thinsmek 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
296. Support Yes you can. Do it please. --Octra Bond (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
297. Support. Follow Reddit! Tinithraviel 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
298. —S Marshall T/C 11:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
299. Support. In the blink of an eye. --bender235 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
300. Support As an act of free speech in the interests of the Wikipedia community and in protest of censorship worldwide. --Xaliqen (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
301. Support. wpoely86 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
302. Support Full blackout globally. --Amendola90 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
303. Support Full global blackout. Unfortunately, this is an issue that will affect the whole world. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
304. Support Full global blackout. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
305. Support The Wikimedia Foundation needs to protest against SOPA (Wiktionary explanation: a piece of trash) and this looks like the most efficient option. I don't think it matters too much if countries apart from the United States are affected, so I don't think that it is important to block globally -- only blocking in the United States would be sufficient. Any other option which means taking some kind of option is better than not taking any action at all, of course. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
306. Support Full Global Blackout - An example of what lack of information will be like. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 12:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
307. Support. Full Global Blackout. --Davidpar (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
308. Support. It would seriously inconvenience a lot of people (myself included), but that's the point. And, as Phearson said, Italy did it... — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
309. Support Full Blackout, Worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8am–8pm EST (computerkidt) 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
310. Support. Oneiros (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
311. Support full blackout Mecanismo | Talk 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
312. Very Strongly Support I am from the UK and think a global blackout should happen, SOPA will affect everyone, we must do what we can to stop it, 1 Day of not having wikipedia vs potentially never having wikipedia, youtube and hundreds of other sites, PLEASE wikipedia, GLOBAL BLACKOUTGuyb123321 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
313. Support Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
314. Support. Ratboy366 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Ratboy366
315. Support full blackout, even non english wikis, as all users worldwide could be affected. --FoeNyx (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
316. Support. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
317. Support full global blackout. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
318. Support planetwide blackout - SOPA is a global threat that needs global awareness and action. All wikis, all languages. Tom walker (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
319. Support. User:Gothmogxx SOPA must be fought to the bitter end...
320. Support as first choice. Prolog (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
321. Support full blackout I have no problem with Wikipedia, which aims to unite the world in knowledge, uniting the world in protest too doktorb _words^deeds 13:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
322. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (re-added on 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
323. Support Roget000 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
324. Support global. Silver hr (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
325. Support Full global blackout Andrewmc123 13:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
326. Fully support full global blackout for twenty-four hours (presumably the most objective is 0:00–24:00 GMT?) Anything less will not generate the required publicity. If we're going to do something, better do it properly. DBD 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
327. Support global blackout of en wikipedia, weak support for options 2 and 1 (global or US-only splash screens), in that order. I'd also support a blackout of other wikimedia wikis, after suitable discussion on meta or on those individual wikis (but not just here). --Avenue (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
328. SupportMost Of SOPA relates to foreign sites.-- Willdude 132
329. Support Olsi (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
330. Support. Amazeroth (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
331. Support a full global blackout. That will get people talking. —Saric (Talk) 14:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
332. Support Globally take down Wikipedia and make it unavailable for the duration of the blackout. Have up, instead, a screen explaining why it is down. If SOPA were successful, it would have a world-wide effect, so it should be global. A simple banner or splash screen would probably not draw enough attention from average users. Maybe leave available SOPA, PIPA other similar pages. --Sauronjim (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
333. Support. LouriePieterse 14:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
334. Support. People should realise what does SOPA really mean. Amunak (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
335. Support. Lukys (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
336. Support. Full global blackout. Haruth (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
337. Support full global blackout. As I said above in the other poll, censorship is a growing global issue. How many of us read all of the fundraising banners, let alone donated? How many more would have read them if we couldn't access Wikipedia for a day? Drive the point home. --Quintucket (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
338. Support global blackout all over the world. --→ Airon 14:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
339. Support. Boud (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
340. Support--Milad A380 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
341. Support - and global is fine by me too (speaking as a UK reader). Even if non-US readers might not care about US issues, the point can be made that the English Wikipedia is (I believe) hosted in Florida, so all users will be affected if the website is affected by the law. Mdwh (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
342. Support - fully support global blackout and welcome additional measures. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
343. Support full global blackout. The issue is a global threat since a large fraction of websites is at least partially dependent on US services, and therefore SOPA could possible give US rights holders the power of an at least partial worldwide censorship. Therefore, a global act is needed to raise global awareness to this issue.--SiriusB (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
344. Support. Jcaraballo 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
345. Support, though this might be construed as interference in a sovereign nation's right by non-citizens , the nature of globalization necessitates this action to precipitate.and NO , this is not precedent setting.This does impinge on wiki foundational principle ,May knowledge be free and unhindered in flow.nuff said.GD2all RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
346. Support. Global Full Blackout. One day's inconvenience is nothing compared to the effects laws like this can have on individuals lives if they're caught up trying to defend themselves against The State. Innocent until proven Guilty, etc. 24 Hr Blackout timing based on Washington time. The Yeti (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
347. Support We need to make the biggest noise possible. - Al Lemos (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
348. Support. Global Full Blackout Full blackout will be much more effective than just a banner. This should be done Globally because US laws also have a huge impact to world wide web in general due to the nature of the ip/dns infrastructure. Phobetoras (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
349. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
350. Support, but US only. -- kh80 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
351. Support block out the whole thing send a full message about what the affects might be. (BTW it isn't censorship, it is a statement. Anyways, Laws protecting from censorship only protect us against govenmental censorship.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
352. Support, Global. The problem is not a US only one - Spain has proposed a similar legislation, there has been some banter in India as well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
353. Support. Fritzelblitz (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
354. Support. It is needed that an worldwide outcry is heard and noticed by the congress, so criticism everywhere has to be raised. Matthiasb (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
355. SupportEshade (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
356. Support. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
357. Support full global blackout Quibus (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
358. Support globally Curtiswwe (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
359. Support. A global, full blackout. This will truly show what it would be like without Wikipedia. - benzband (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
360. Support globally, it's a flawed american law but it might have global influence BeŻet (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
361. Support. This is a major threat to Wikipedia worldwide, it needs to get the attention. Maybe some people who don't care about SOPA will learn to respect the matter. Pitke (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
362. Support. Anything other than a total blackout sends a message that is too weak and less of a newsworthy event (although I am sure a "brownout" would also get coverage). I think this should be US only because if a blackout was requested by Wikipedians in a smaller English-speaking country, they would not get consensus to make it global. Non-US users should be encouraged not to edit, though. --FormerIP (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
363. Support. That is what it means to Blackout. Otherwise it would be known as a "click through" or "pop up", not blackout. Ne0Freedom 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
364. Support. Global and full blackout. This is serious! -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
365. Support. This is such an important issue that we need to take drastic steps Rrrr5 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
366. Support. Atu (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC) This is not only a protest to the US government, this is an act to inform people in the the word who knows nothing (or very little) about SOPA. A global blackout sends the stronger message, and I'm afraid it may be not big enough for the guys upstairs.
367. Support full blackout, U.S. only. ... discospinster _talk 16:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
368. Support. full blackout. Philtime (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
369. Support. Half-handed measures are just that. Let's shake the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
370. Support. Onecallednick (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
371. Support (applicable only to US, see my vote in 1.1). Bk1 168 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
372. Strong Support. (Except for pages about SOPA, PIPA, et al.) When I donated to WP this past donation drive, I knew I was not buying share in it. But I think it's still relevant. In any case, as many people have said, we internet users are so very accustomed to and trained by click-through screens and banner ads. I support a global, full blackout. If SOPA passes, won't it propagate through the entire world? I envision it as a one-day teaser of what could happen if SOPA and similar laws start passing in the United States. The vast majority of computer users don't know what an IP is, let alone how they would discover WP's. We need to make everyone see how important user-submitted content is, and WP is absolutely an example of this! The articles on SOPA, PIPA, et al should remain open, however. — chirographa diverbia cognatō 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
373. Support. Global and full. Rm1271 ^talk_contribs 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
374. Support. The purpose of this action is to give people a taste of what censorship is really like, and to make sure that this hits every major news organization. Half-measures won't cut it. Wonderstruck (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
375. Support. I support a full blackout (meaning black screen and info text on a global scale) to really raise public awareness, a click through banner is not an option in my opinion as people using computers are trained to click such things away (pop ups, warning/error messages, you name it ... ). About 10 years ago, there was a time where people were able to live without Wikipedia and noones live should depend on Wikipedia. As an alternative I'd suggest to just block out the "G8" nations, as I think that they're the ones who are affected, but not beeing consequently means that some people still can access wikipedia (via proxy) and others can't ... Mirrakor (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
376. A.Savin (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
377. Support. Coleopterist (talk) I support a full blackout of wikipedia and as many other services as possible; let people realise the value of the resources being threatened by legislation like this 16:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
378. Support full blackout worldwide We should show the world what is SOPA and what it can be. The blackout page must be easily understood, informative and contrasting compared to Wikipedia's usual design style and color scheme. Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
379. Support Full Global blackout. Wikien2009 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
380. Support. Facta non verba. —Michael Z. 2012-01-15 16:54 z
381. Support Full blackout is the only thing that is likely to have significant impact. --Daniel 16:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
382. Support. Gabi83tm (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
383. Support. The blackout must be global and it must close off the entire site for the duration - no editing, searching or viewing of anything other than the blackout information page. Tiller54 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
384. Support full global blackout. I think people in other countries need to know how this can affect wikipedia and raise awarness JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
385. Support. Full blackout, I'd support both US-only or Global. In any case, full, and not just a banner. It's the feeling of not having a Wikipedia the strong message, not a random banner that will just be quickly skipped with no further effect. --Samer.hc (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
386. Support Idealy world wide but also U.S. only. Victory thorugh action and sacrifice. Urholygod (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
387. Support --Saehrimnir (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
388. Support. Global.--Cattus ^talk 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
389. Support prefer full global blackout, sends a strong message that Wikipedia is against SOPA--Wikigold96 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
390. Support. Full blackout to show what it would be like if SOPA was passed. Someguy432 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
391. Support full blackout--Neon97 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
392. Support. Full global blackout. Haukur (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
393. Support. I support a full-blackout. In my opinion, although it affects primarily the US, due to its global hegemony, many other countries - like mine (Romania) - will follow through (willingly or not). The Internet must remain free! Marko 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
394. Support. Full global blackout, but with access to Wikipedia's SOPA and PIPA pages. MusicaleCA (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
395. Support. Because of the ramifications this bill will have on Wikipedia and the potential chilling affects we must make a strong stand as a community before it is too late. I support a full global blackout. --BHC (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
396. Support -- full global blackout. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
397. Support. I think that not having Wikipedia for one day, while it has its repercussions, greatly outweighs the possibility of never having Wikipedia again. And I think this is something its global audience should be informed of. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
398. Strongly Support Full Worldwide Blackout Zamadatix (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
399. Strongly Support Full Worldwide Blackout. Mavromatis (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
400. Support Full Worldwide Blackout --Mlorer (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
401. Support Full Worldwide Blackout. RobleQuieto (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
402. Support If you take a step back and look at the full picture, globally, most of the world does not even know SOPA is on the table. Global support is critical.Thisandthem (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
403. Support full global blackout.--Ragesoss (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
404. Support. LeedsHK16 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
405. Support. The internet is global, the protest should be global. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
406. Support. Full Global Blackout. CaseyBurkhardt 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
407. Support US only full blackout. It is a US law and shouldn't affect others. --Konero26 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
408. Support. danielkueh (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
409. Support. Full global blackout. We need it. CPnieuws (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
410. Support global blackout as first choice, global click-through if not. Although it will be extremely devastating and inconvenient for people around the world, everyone needs to be aware of this, otherwise they will just click the "Continue" link and not bother about it; plus, it gives people a taste of what it's like not to have free information available to them with a few clicks. 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
411. Support global blackout. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
412. Support global blackout. The core architecture of the Internet is located in the United States; the proposed laws affect the world even though they only directly govern U.S. possessions. Rogue 9 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
413. Support-- Go big or go home. We have one big card, if we're going to play it, let's play it. Blacking out globally is a huge step, but this is a time for huge steps, while there's still time for huge steps to affect things. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
414. Support. Arno Matthias (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
415. Support full blackout (US-only or global - that's a different question, above), if that's how we want to do this. I think it makes a stronger statement. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
416. Support global blackout as first choice, global click-through if not. Although it will be extremely devastating and inconvenient for people around the world, everyone needs to be aware of this, otherwise they will just click the "Continue" link and not bother about it; plus, it gives people a taste of what it's like not to have free information available to them with a few clicks.  ajmint  (talk •edits) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
417. Strong support global black-out --Chmee2 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
418. Support. Osric (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
419. Support full global blackout Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
420. Support. A global blackout is needed. Angelikfire (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
421. Support full blackout. User:Pym1507 19:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
422. Strong support (global). If you're going to make a statement, might as well make a bold one. -ryand 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
423. Support (global) Waldir ^talk 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
424. Support (US-only) We shouln't merely have a banner when other sites are going dark completely. However, we've no right to bring the whole world into this. --hacky (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
425. Support (global), the impact this US legislation could have on all users of Wikipedia makes it clear a global blackout is the best way stand firm on this issue. –TheIguana (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
426. Support full global blackout - ctzmsc3|talk 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
427. Support - This will affect the entire world.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
428. Support - --Midasminus (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
429. Strong Support. While Wikipedia will likely get off easy compared to other sites, we shouldn't hesitate to show the full scale of what SOPA can do across the rest of the web. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
430. Support full and global blackout. Enchilado (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
431. Support global blackout One day is a small price to pay. Xero Xenith (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
432. Support global blackout --Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
433. Support. Global. - Dave Crosby (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
434. Support Global. --Kizar (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
435. Support-- This is the option that would clearly result in the widest public attention, and so I support this strongest option if consensus of editors agrees. I support all options for a high-profile public statement against SOPA, although I understand the concerns of those editors who oppose the protest. I believe that this threat goes to the core of Wikipedia's mission, and that opposition to Wikipedia becoming a general political advocate ought not to prevent opposition to particular measures, such as SOPA, that might make it impossible for Wikipedia to exist in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
436. Support full global blackout. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
437. Support global blackout. gobonobo ^{T C} 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
438. Support and redirect to website warning of the dangers of SOPA. - NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
439. Support full global blackout, to make the strongest possible statement in solidarity with other protesting websites. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
440. Support full worldwide blackout For all the great reasons given here.--Matt D (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
441. Support. J. Finkelstein (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
442. support full global blackout.—[[User:pumkinjuice]] (talk 17:08, 15 January 2012 (GMT)
443. Support Strongly. Pratstercs^{Talk to me} 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
444. Support. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
445. Support. full global blackout Coryboy6 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
446. Strong support. Just add a link to some petition/advocate group to divert people to take action Chiefmartinez (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
447. Support I support the harshest global action (for 12-24 hours). People who have urgent need of information will still be able to access it through filtered/ad-filled mirrors (which will perhaps strengthen the effect). "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
448. Support. We need to show our devotion to the opposition of this bill, so I say full blackout --GeekofGames51 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
449. Support full global blackout. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
450. Support full global blackout for wide public perception. Rathgemz (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
451. Support. JohnWilliams (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
452. Support Full global blackout - this is about generating the maximum world wide media pressure. Embarassing congress is the best weapon WP has. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
453. Support Do it right the first time: Full site blackout for a period of 24 hours, leaving only some information about SOPA. Yoenit (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
454. Support. Let's take our bat and ball. Josh Parris 22:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
455. Support. Global. The only page that should be unblocked should be the page for SOPA, so people can still use wikipedia for information about the blackout. 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
456. Support all the way! NeuroE (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
457. Support; as an awareness-raising method, the best thing would be for every incoming link being caught. (Think search results and you'll see why). — Coren ^(talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
458. Support full global blackout. cmbook2
459. Support. Global. As someone said before: 'The only page that should be unblocked should be the page for SOPA, so people can still use wikipedia for information about the blackout.' Furthermore, I feel that whenever freedom of expression/civil liberties are threatened wikipedia must take a stand! The future of the site depends of it. The NDAA should've never passed. Open information and protests can prevent a Tyrannical government, I urge you to protest the NDAA as well- ethanwashere Ethanwashere (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC)
460. Support global full blackout of the site. Also OK with options 1 and 2, but strongly prefer this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
461. Support. Slow Riot (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
462. Support. Global. Bunnyboi (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
463. Support Full global blackout. Pol430 talk to me 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
464. Support. Strongly support. US only. Ruxda (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
465. Support global blackout. Mlm42 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
466. Support global blackout People from all over the world could benefit from learning about SOPA because eventually they may have to face similar legislation too. To raise awareness, I don't see anything like informative banners to be enough. A full blackout would do, I think. Not for a few minutes or even a day either. Start with a full week. Saveur (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
467. Support Nubzor (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
468. Support --JetBlast (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
469. Support US only full blackout. Owencm (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
470. Support. This would be an unequivocal statement. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
471. Support. Global full blackout Busha5a5a5 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
472. Support. Global, SOPA will unfortunately affect a global audience, the message should be global as well, and not just something people ignore and click through. - cohesion 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
473. Support. Any political action—which make no mistake, this is what this protest boils down to—is the equivalent of swinging the big stick for us. Doing a half-assed swing of the stick removes the power inherent in the Wikipedia community taking a stance on anything. As such, swing the stick all the way, with a full global blackout. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
474. Very Strongly Support. - EmJayCrawford (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
475. Support. Any political action—which make no mistake, this is what this protest boils down to—is the equivalent of swinging the big stick for us. Doing a half-assed swing of the stick removes the power inherent in the Wikipedia community taking a stance on anything. As such, swing the stick all the way, with a full global blackout. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
476. Support. I suggest a full blackout of most regular content with a clickthrough to substantial amount of info on SOPA as well as related issues as selected by an empowered panel of respected editors. Give frustrated ppl a chance to learn some things. Full blackout makes the strongest possible statement & will be a wakeup call to the people of the world in what looks to be a historic year of global activism and global debate. Praghmatic (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
477. Support. Full global blackout and banner. Julianhall (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
478. Support. Full blackout, maximize impact. ZoneSeek (talk)
479. Support. Global full blackout - and give visitors information about SOPA, including ways to help.
480. Support. Jandalhandler (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
481. Support Global full blackout. Wikipedia is one of the few websites that won't be preaching to the choir. While the impacts of such legislation are global, there's little the rest of the world can do about it. On a second thought, a global blackout would be a good way to illustrate the need for a decentralized control of the internet so things like this can't happen to it. — Kieff | Talk 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
482. Support Worldwide blackout. Devil Master (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
483. Support full global blackout --Rumba y Son (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
484. Support US-only blackout except for the SOPA and PIPA pages. I'd also argue that those pages should be semiprotected to prevent tons of vandalism. Fred (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
485. Support --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
486. Support. Phaux'' (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
487. Support --Vestonian (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Vestonian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
488. Support global: global total blackout, but with targeted explanation per country and/or language (SOPA for US, HADOPI/LOPPSI for France, and so on) —Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Jérémie Bouillon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
489. Support worldwide blackout. Politicians need to learn this lesson. Thparkth (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
490. Support international, countries look to one another for abilities to push this type of legislation - and an international push-back is the best way to let all governments know that we do not support this type of legislation in any country. Skier Dude (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
491. Support global blackout. NereusAJ (T | C) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
492. Support – Smyth\^talk 00:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
493. Support – Walliver\^talk 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
494. Support. Tr1290 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
495. Support. I support a global blackout of the site. Jesant13 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
496. Support. Flexxx (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
497. Strongly Support full blackout, or failing that, an English-language blackout. 82.8.212.40 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— 82.8.212.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
498. Support. Let's go all in, full global blackout, all users. This will generate the most publicity and press. First Light (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
499. Support One total global blackout to go, please. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
500. Support I go with the consensus on this Trev M  ~  00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
501. Strongly Support. Full blackout is the best option here ExplorerPlus (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
502. Support. SOPA will effect the entire internet, even outside of the US - a global blackout is necessary to show just how terrible it would be. NessSnorlax (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
503. Support full global blackout People have to realize the repercussions of the passing of such a bill. The bill could eventually lead to a blackout of content anyway for users accessing from certain countries. Anything that would make it more difficult for wikipedia to have its servers located in the USA is bad wikipedia and English speaking users since I don't think there's a better host nation.Grmike (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)grmike
504. Strong Support. atomic7732 01:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
505. Support A soft blackout is pointless.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
506. Support full, global blackout. If we're going to send a message about SOPA, we should go all in on it. The free and open Internet must be preserved. –Grondemar 01:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
507. Support. Ltr,ftw (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
508. Support. Styko (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Styko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
509. Strongly support. Afamberry (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
510. Support-- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 01:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
511. Support full blackout. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
512. Strong Support for a full, unilateral, and unconditional blackout. As to why, I'll let Mario Savio answer that question: "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." TomStar81 (Talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
513. Support Full Blackout would be the most effective. Omegastar (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
514. Support A worldwide full blackout I think will be the best option. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
515. Support --Hubertl-AT (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Hubertl-AT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
516. Support. Needs to be substantial. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
517. Support »NMajdan·talk 02:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
518. Support --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
519. Support. Global blackout. SOPA will have global effects, and thus should be brought to the attention of people around the globe. EvilHom3r (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
520. Strong Support This will be the most effective way of demonstrating the potential impacts SOPA could have on Wikipedia and the WWW as a whole. We must get tough on protesting this bill in order for our actions to be recognized. Kinaro^{(say hello) (what's been done)} 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
521. Support full global blackout for a global issue. Starship.paint (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
522. Support Ultimate77 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
523. Support full, global blackout We need to blackout fully so we can make sure people in the U.S. know about SOPA and don't just try and find ways around the blackout. In addition, it may also show other nations to not be this idiotic, and not to adopt any similar legislation (if they already haven't). Gthib14 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
524. Support full blackout, worldwide It's for the best, it's one of the most important issues we have faced. Poydflink (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Poydflink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
525. Support. Full black out is needed! people need to know what it's like living in a world where censorship is the norm. Even if it's just for a moment.Cabal2122 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Cabal2122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
526. Support If we're going to do a blackout, we should go all the way Gee totes (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
527. Support – Sapphire Dragon777 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
528. Support. Nessman (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
529. Strong support - Nothing short of our duty as a community. Swarm ^X 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
530. Support Full, Global Blackout Accountingkid (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
531. Strongly Support Full Global Blackout - This is the best way to get the information out to the world
532. Strongly Support Global Blackout Will make people realize how serious this is. Henri Watson (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
533. Support. Gryllida 03:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
534. Strong support - This issue affects all Wikipedia's worldwide so it should be a global blackout. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
535. Strongest Support of them All Agree with all of the supporters --yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW! 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
536. Most effective way. Timeu (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
537. Extreme Strong Support Global shut down for a day of Wikipedia site replaced with "protest message" against Congressman Lamar Smith, the RIAA and the MPAA. This issue is for the survival of the Internet which overrides any neutrality concerns. The United States Does not own the Internet. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
538. Support --Revelian (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
539. Support – The founding of Wikipedia was a political statement. Each time a user contributes, he or she makes a political statement: "This information should be freely available." To me, blacking out Wikipedia is a continuation of the political statement that its founders made in creating it and that each of its users have made by contributing. Maxterpiece (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
540. Strongly Support Full Global Blackout - Would it be NPOV if IP holders had the right to stop payment processing to Wikipedia? We are not writing an article. This is real life, and a matter that affects not only Wikipedia and the United States, but the entire world. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
541. Strong support - Most powerful method to practically demonstrate the full consequence that SOPA would have. EryZ (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
542. Strong Support of Global Blackout. Someonesmask (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
543. Strong support (global). --Chris5858 04:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
544. Support(global). Benjaih (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
545. Strong Support of Global Blackout. Twang (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
546. Full Support of Global Blackout. Nosrepa (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
547. Support (Global) While the SOPA bill needs to be defeated, it is also important to raise global awareness regarding this type of legislation. un☯mi 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
548. Support. CheShA (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
549. Strong Support for full global blackout. Spookiewon (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
550. Support, with the option mentioned in the section #Access to SOPA and a handful of directly-related articles. While I know doing a hard blackout would be violatingWP:SOAPBOX, this is a case where we can (and very well should) use WP:IAR. SOPA is a serious threat to Wikipedia. Since WP:SOAPBOX stands in the way of us protesting against that threat, we should ignore the !@#$% out of that rule That said, we should provide curious users with access to the articleSOPA, as well as some other related ones, to provide them with more in-depth and informative (and hope/font> fully neutral) material on SOPA, etc., in article form and with relatedELs. — Preceding signed comment added byCymru.lass (talk •contribs) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

     +1 for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! When the USA government wants to violate the Constitution, and the courts are asked to rule on it, they frequently state that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We can, and should, respond in kind. Playing the hero who is straight as an arrow and never bends his principles is what Superman does on TV, and what sour losers do in real life. Badon (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

551. Support Laxrippe (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2012‎ (UTC)
552. Strong Support of Global Blackout. All possible pressure must be brought, including international.glorytothehypnotoad (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Glorytothehypnotoad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
553. Support full global blackout--Taylornate (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
554. Support full global blackout-- Very strongly support! While it is a US issue, it will have many repercussions globally and we can't let this fall by the wayside until it is too late!
555. Support full global blackout-- Canadian here, and I support a full blackout. --Slokunshialgo (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
556. Support A global blackout! (Tigerghost (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC))
557. Support global blackout. Xerographica (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
558. Support The best way to send a strong message is to let folks see first-hand how much of an impact the passage of this legislation might have. --Paincess (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
559. Support full global blackout. I agree with the main reasons for a full blackout. The message must be clear and strong. --Bloody Rose (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
560. Strongly Support global blackout. User:Blackchaos93 04:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
561. Support. --ESP (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
562. Support A US-only full blackout, though a possible soft blackout to garner international attention and support. JamesL1618 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
563. Super Hella Strong Support Corporations are global entities. They need to know that SOPA-like legislation is unacceptable everywhere. Our global comrades need to be made aware what we are up against. Saudade7 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
564. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
565. Very Strong Support Qasaur (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
566. Support. Unary (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
567. Support full global blackout to make a very clear, strong point! Toastedonions (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
568. Support full global blackout, but have a message explaining the blackout. This is our time to learn to overcome real adversity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.42.9 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
569. Support Global blackout. Not an American, and I feel this issue needs to be raised here and now before the US tries to impose this entirely unsound internet regulation on the world. I agree that the page must have an explaination for the blackout and link to resources for those who want to learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4nmur101 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
570. Support. Jovian Eye _storm 05:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
571. 100% Support for a full, global blackout on that date. The ramifications of SOPA will be international, not just domestic. Therefore pressure against it should also be on an international scale. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
572. Support full blackout. Doubtless, the propaganda machine of the American far-right will accuse Wikipedians of being evil communist subversives for even having this debate. What else is new?! Screw them, screw their disinformation, it's time to say "enough is enough". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
573. Strong support--ot (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
574. Support. We can go without Wikipedia for a day; we can't go on with SOPA in effect. Let's throw our weight around. The Frederick (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
575. Support for full global blackout. SOPA will have international consequences, not just domestic. Idreamincode (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
576. Strong support I'm Canadian and I strongly support a full blackout on January 18th. We have to take actions against SOPA and I'm glad Wikipedia take part of those. I'll miss you for a day, but people need to know. In the hope of not seeing you next wednesday :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.59.169 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
577. Support. I am a global citizen and I see SOPA affecting all internet users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pezaad (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
578. Strongly Support. Shimmshaw (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
579. Support full global blackout. 160.39.166.43 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
580. Total Support. Only a full, global total blackout will force people to sit up and take notice. It's easy to click through a link, and SOPA will affect users worldwide. Datapolitical (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
581. Strong Support Only way to have a significant importance in the SOPA debate --Wagaf-d (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
582. Strong Support Great way to spread awareness of SOPA to people who have no idea what it is (more than you would expect) Bramson (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
583. Strong support The public needs to understand the ramifications of what would happen if SOPA/PIPA passed. A full-blown blackout will send a very strong wake-up call to those who aren't fully aware yet of the dangers these bills have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surging Chaos (talk • contribs) 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
584. Strong support It won't mean anything unless Google, Facebook and Wikipedia all jump on board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.232.72 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
585. Strongly Support I do not think that a half-hearted splash page would effectively communicate the message. Harlequin (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
586. Strong Support for full blackout, internet legislation does not threaten to "take an extra click with an ad", it threatens to remove information....let's get a taste of how draconian that is Al-Fozail ibn Iyaz (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
587. Support. Cakedamber (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
588. Support. UK resident here. Fully support total blackout to raise awareness of SOPA. If America enacts it, the UK is soon to follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.65.24 (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
589. Support. This blackout has my full support, I think more websites and organizations need to use this option as well, to help further raise awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.132.47 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
590. Support. Any effect that SOPA has on any web page will affect the rest of the world. This includes Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
591. Support full global blackout. WHLfan (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
592. Support. I support a US blackout to spread awareness. A soft-blackout is far too weak and will appear as another annoying message that users are trained to click though without reading.—DMCer™ 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
593. Suport. I wavered quite a bit between a full blackout and a soft "click-through" one, but I eventually settled on full. I feel it will be a far more effective demonstration of the direness of the situation. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
594. Support. Dtyger (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
595. Support We need to stop this bill. Everyone uses wikipedia needs to be awoken to how dangerous this bill is. EDITOR (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
596. Support full blackout in United States. As I stated above, "It's essential that Americans be made aware of what their lawmakers are doing, and for them to experience inconveniences and frustrations that are at least a shadow of the genuine losses that SOPA/PIPA will create. A banner won't do that; a click-through won't do that. Only a full blackout will. There are too few things that non-Americans can do to affect our political process to make it worthwhile to inconvenience them, however." jSarek (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
597. Support. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
598. Support global. SOPA and PIPA would effect the whole world, so a global blackout would be appropriate. Obviously, information about SOPA and PIPA should still be available. Phlexonance (User talk:Phlexonance) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
599. Support. GLOBAL BLACKOUT! It must be clear to all people both foreign and domestic that the U.S. will not censor the internet. That this is the U.S. not China Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
600. Support. Anything less will not catch the attention of senators and others supporting the SOPA. Having a little banner for discussion is definitely not enough, and even a soft blackout isn't enough. Having a full blackout is the only way to ensure that more of our liberties aren't taken away. Kolrok | ^{Msgs ©} 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
601. Support full blackout - SOPA also has influences on other countries - everyone should realize what the US is just about to do --Takayama812 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
602. Support. Support fully. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
603. Strongly Support Fnurl (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
604. Support. Full, global blackout. We want the impact to be as wide as possible, and impossible to ignore. EhSeuss (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
605. Support. Given the US are already extraditing Englishmen for copyright infringement, I feel that their draconian and idiotic laws should be protested on these shores too. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
606. Strongly Support. Full and global with an Anti-SOPA/PIPA message. This is important. It's vital to show people what could happen. This is ridiculous we need to spread that. We complain about Chinese censorship--at least that doesn't affect the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridyi (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
607. Strongly Support. If we want to get the point across, it needs to be noticed. notwist (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
608. Support. Global, as stated, the effect needs to be real, not able to bypass. - L33tCh (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
609. Support. Eric119 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
610. Support Global Blackout. Thereen (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
611. Support total blackout for all US (at least). Won't it be great when the Congresspeople's aides can't get any research done! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
612. Support full global blackout. Threatening freedom on the internet affects the whole world. Therefore, the whole world must respond accordingly. Cheers from Italy.--Insilvis (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
613. Support full global blackout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.75.235 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
614. Support US full blackout. US citizens must be made aware of this issue en masse, and quickly. A full blackout hinders them from the luxury of clicking their way past the issue. Kpengboy (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
615. Global support Originally I was going to go with the soft blackout, but really, this is obvious when you think about it. Show people what life would be like if SOPA was put into practice. Plus, this way, it won't just be clicked through. --Stealthy (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
616. Support full blackout worldwide. It's got to have impact for it to be worth anything. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
617. Support US Blackout. It's very important that we do this. I fully support it. --redjuggler2012 4:01, 16 January 2012
618. Support either US blackout and world banner or world blackout. Antrikshy (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
619. Support I support a full global blackout, and any lesser actions should this one fail to pass. PatternSpider (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
620. Support full blackout  Jackol  ๏̯͡๏﴿ 10:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
621. Support full global blackout, or, if that fails to pass, US blackout and world banner -- Smial (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
622. Support full global blackout --Retaggio (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
623. Support full global blackout This is the best way for medias to talk about this issue. TedTed (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
624. Support full global blackout from Norway. – Danmichaelo (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
625. Support full global blackout SongO (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
626. Support full global blackout. Since internet has no country borders, whatever action is taken should be global. Dimtsit (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
627. Support full global blackout from New Zealand - high visibility, and not just an "American issue" Ingolfson (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
628. Support full global blackout. Let everyone know what governments can do to its people. Even if the bill doesn't pass, let it be warning for things to come. On a sidenote, I think it's great Wikipedianse come together for this cause (even if we don't agree on the way it should be handled). Just by glancing over the page I've come across more than ten Wikipedians I've noticed editing and talked through over the 5 years I've been here. Makes me proud to edit Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 11:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
629. Strongly support global blackout from North Carolina. PRENN (talk) 8:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.56.26 (talk)
630. Strongly support global blackout from Vietnam. PRENN (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
631. Support full global blackout for as long as possible because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this proposed wild bill is an ugly, real, slippery slope, that would leave only drivel content online and corporations running the web. In this case WP practices what it preaches that WP:NOTCENSORED. This bill is obviously being pushed by powerful lobbies that would make the Chinese commissars and the Iranian Ayatollahs very proud and, if enacted, will end with the web being censored for "good" i.e. selfish commercial and political reasons in America and Western democracies as it is censored in China for ideological "good reasons" and censored in Iran for theological "good reasons" etc etc etc, see the madness of trying to "control" the Internet at Category:Internet censorship. There's no end to the censorship madness. The putative censors should play more golf or jog and leave the web alone. The Internet must remain as free and as open as humanly possible. It is 100% true what the opponents of this so-called "Stop Online Piracy Act" say: 1 It violates the First Amendment (Tribe, Laurence H. (December 6, 2011). "THE “STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT” (SOPA) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT".) 2 It's Internet censorship (Chloe Albanesius (November 16, 2011). "SOPA: Is Congress Pushing Web Censorship?" PCMag.com.) 3 It will cripple the Internet (Chloe Albanesius (November 1, 2011). "Will Online Piracy Bill Combat 'Rogue' Web Sites or Cripple the Internet?".) 4 It will threaten whistle-blowing and 5 free speech (Tribe, Laurence H. (December 6, 2011). "THE “STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT” (SOPA) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT"; Trevor Timm (November 2, 2011). "Proposed Copyright Bill Threatens Whistleblowing and Human Rights". Electronic Frontier Foundation.) IZAK (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
632. Support full global blackout.--BozMo talk 12:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
633. Support full global blackout. GGShinobi (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
634. Support full global blackout. Zaijaj (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
635. Support full global blackout. stop the hitlers of the modern day.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
636. Support full US blackout, world banner - it's politicians in the US that want this: a strong statement is needed, imo. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
637. Support full global blackout.Raboe001 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
638. Strongly support full global blackout HorseloverFat (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
639. Support full global blackout Only way to make the point. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
640. Support full global blackout. People all around the world must realise how serious this problem is. Petru Dimitriu (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
641. Support - Yup. Normandie 13:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
642. Support full global blackout. It concerns everyone GaterRaider (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
643. Strongly support full global blackout Jellevc (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
644. Annabel (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
645. Support. 174.67.214.168 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
646. Support full global blackout --Barbaking (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
647. Support full global blackout Any disruption would still be small in comparison to the potential disruption if this passes. -- makomk (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
648. Support full global blackout. -- Karthik Nadar 13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
649. Support full global blackout. NPOV is important for articles, but the Wikipedia site itself can't be neutral about its own existence and freedom. Open4D (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
650. Support - JMiall₰ 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
651. Support full global blackout. ZorbaTHut (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
652. Support full global blackout. —FireFly~ 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
653. Support full global blackout. A full blackout would be much more effective. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
654. Support. I strongly support a full global blackout since it will undoubtedly be a far stronger message with far greater implications. An informative page explaining what is happening and helping people contact their representatives / spread the word further should be put up instead. I also support leaving a small number of related articles (articles on SOPA, PROTECT-IP, copyright, intellectual property, etc) accessible. Denis Kasak (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
655. Support full global blackout. If it's just a splash screen, everyone will click through and be done with it. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
656. Support full global blackout Pgoergen (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
657. Support full global blackout --Olei (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
658. Support full blackout at least for US. Saiarcot895 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
659. Support. Tanzania (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
660. Support full blackout for US. Either full or soft blackout for non-US is fine with me. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
661. Support either US or global. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
662. Strongly Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.34.219 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
663. STRONLGY Support. Once it passes in the US, there are many more chances that other countries follow the path. I don't want this to happen, for the sake of freedom of speech and information. Lewis82 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
664. Support. Zinnmann (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
665. Support. Modi mode (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
666. Support full global blackout. The only way to stop this is to raise awareness. Civgamer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
667. Support full global blackout Migdejong (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
668. Support. Total Blackout! 613 The Evil (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
669. Support full blackout for US. --Govtrust (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
670. Strong support In Italy a full blackout was effective in forcing the government to reconsider a law which would have allowed anyone to force their own POV in a Wikipedia page. A full blackout (for users geolocated in the US only) is better in my opinion. Treat users located in the US differently would give them a taste of what SOPA will entail. US users could use proxies to access wikipedia, thus developing useful skills for the day SOPA will be law. --Lou Crazy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

     "Developing useful skills..." I like that. --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

671. Support. Full global blackout. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
672. Support full global blackout. Leastfixedpoint (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
673. Support. Full global blackout with link to explanation of issues with SOPA and PIPA (and any other similar international initiatives). Rakerman (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
674. Support. Full global blackout TiloWiki (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
675. Support. Full global blackout with link to explanation of SOPA and PIPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.161.240 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
676. Support. Manydeer (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Full global blackout & banner
677. Strong support. Full global blackout. Archaios (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
678. Strong Support. Sfaugue1 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) This blackout should include a easy to read but detailed explanation of both SOPA and PIPA. Also, it should include a way for users to reach their Senators (in the United States).
679. Support full global blackout. Jacek FH (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
680. Support. 70.131.63.143 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
681. Support full global blackout --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
682. Support full global blackout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.143.99 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
683. Support full global blackout --Azoreg (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
684. Support full global blackout SOPA could prevent those of us outside the USA from accessing information and resources, including Wikipedia. As such, the protest is best-made as a global blackout. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
685. Support full global blackout --Wolbo (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
686. Support. 74.196.201.204 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
687. Support full global blackout EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
688. Support. 188.26.138.83 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)#Support full global blackout.
689. Support. Serpiente1991 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
690. 217.43.60.178 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
691. Support, with provisions. We need to make sure people can still find good information about SOPA/PIPA themselves. Lock those pages from editing, sure, but I don't think a strictly 100% blackout is desirable. --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
692. Support 16 jan 2012 I also strongle supported to fully blacout america --Anon
693. Support If SOPA would go in action, it would be a full take down. Only this option would give the right impression. --Niabot (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
694. Support. Mixxster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
695. Support. IvanTortuga (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
696. Support. This would demonstrate to everyone what it's like to have free access to unrestricted information, resources and content taken away from you. To be clear, I am supporting a full global (Not just US) blackout of Wikipedia, without the ability to click through and access anything.--Frogging101 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
697. Support full global blackout People need to understand the contents of SOPA, and not just US citizens. The Internet is worldwide, this is a global problem. And a simple banner won't do a thing, since people either won't notice it or will just ignore it. Tchernomush (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
698. Support full global blackout. --Jtbates (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
699. Support full global blackout. Lgladdy (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
700. Support full global blackout. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Stop knowledge containment. Human species must progress not companies or individuals. When people see every intenet site closed, they will understand how void will seem internet after this law passes.
701. Support. The purpose of this action is to give people a taste of what censorship is really like, and to make sure that this hits every major news organization. Half-measures won't cut it. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 18:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
702. Support. Internet must remain free.
703. Support full global blackout This form of idiocy should have been strangled in its crib, and if this is what it takes to get the attention of the short-sighted greedheads, that's what it takes. --Calton | Talk 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
704. Support. Neozoon 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
705. Support full global blackout
706. Support full global blackout --Neozoon 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
707. Support full global blackout OriumX (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
708. Strong support full global blackout. I am actually surprised Wikipedia hasn't ruled this out, but the fact that such a large and important website would consider it just underlines how important action against SOPA is. For the record, I'll be blacking out all my websites for the day too. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
709. Support. We need to make ourselves heard. Given that this is going to be limited to 24 hours, I feel that a complete blackout including editing, reading and everything (to the extent possible) would be wholly appropriate. The more people take notice, and the more they realize what a world without projects like Wikipedia would actually be like, the better.
710. Support --Aleksander Sestak (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
711. Support full global blackout It is simply necessary. TschonDoe
712. Support full global blackout. Nite-Sirk (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
713. SupportImaringa (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Full blackout and banner
714. Support. X5ga (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
715. Support. I hope to see most sites participating in a full blackout. To be honest, it will be the only way to get a clear and undisturbed message to the people. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
716. Support. It is important that people realise how serious the threat to the freedom of the internet is. A global blackout will inevitably lead to greater awareness of this danger, which is essential to preserve the freedom and opportunity the internet currently provides and which is sorely lacking in the real world - TheLeftGlove^{Talk To Me} 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
717. Support. 217.224.224.240 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
718. Support Maplebed (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
719. Support full global blackout. --Outa (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
720. Support. A blackout of this magnitude would certainly draw much needed attention to this destructive bill. Donatrip (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
721. Support full blackout - We have to show them we mean it! - Warddr (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
722. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qscgy256 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
723. Support. It's the only way that the average citizen will even know what PIPA/SOPA are about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.188.204 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
724. Support. I fully support a full blackout, thats the only way we can protest.. It is now or never! --Vrysxy! (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
725. Support, second to a soft-blackout. Something needs to be done; I think both could work well. — gogobera (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
726. Support full global blackout D.M.N. (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
727. Support full US blackout: polls seem to indicate most people don't know what SOPA/PIPA even are -- blacking out Wikipedia would go far to change that. » K i G O E | talk 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
728. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourminus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
729. Support enwiki lockout, interstitial/banner for other language wikis. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
730. Support. 76.105.74.95 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
731. Support. Full Global blackout 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.151.191 (talk)
732. Support.--Andres arg (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
733. Support Glad to see this happening.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
734. Support. RyanGerbil10(Mac Miller stole my style!) 21:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
735. Support. Danieljaycho (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
736. Support GiantSnowman 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
737. Support --vacio 21:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
738. Support Only a full blackout will show that the Internet community mean business. Fork me (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
739. Fully Support. Temporarily coming out of my "retirement" to support the cause! Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
740. Support full global blackout Explodenow (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
741. Support Full global blackout Snielsen (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
742. Support full local blackout (that's cynical, I know) vvv^t 21:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
743. Support. — Aldaron • T/C 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
744. Support If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right. --Dynaflow babble 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
745. Support If it's just a clickthrough,then people will just ignore and go by without reading. This way, it's much more likely that people will read it and learn. 146.115.21.211 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
746. Support Dysrhythmia (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
747. Support full global blackout. Paul1337 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
748. Support full global blackout No half-measures in essential agitprop. kencf0618 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
749. Support full global blackout One day of silence to preserve the future of the internet. That's a small sacrifice, and if it helps even a few people become aware of what is going on with SOPA, then it was worthwhile. Ironlion45 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
750. Support full global blackout We need as many big sites as possible to take full action and inform a wider, global audience of the imminent threat the internet now faces, with the oncoming of SOPA. Now's your time to shine Wikipedia. Ronayne94 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
751. Strongly support. This is necessary. —Entropy (T/C) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
752. Support Seric2 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
753. Support for full, global blackout -- RichiH (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
754. Support full global blackout While my first impulse was to restrict it to the US, the reality is that SOPA will have vast international consequences for the entire Internet, no matter where you are geolocated. Make no mistake, it is not a US-only issue, it is a coordinated international assault by the RIAA/MPAA against the entire power structure of the Internet. It is a naked mission of conquest against what Wikipedia stands for and, honestly, a global blackout will drive home the point that if you love Wikipedia and aren't mad, you aren't paying attention. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
755. Strong support. About time that we make a stand. Artem Karimov (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
756. Support full global blackout The American people and the international community have now had it up to their noses with those corporate whores who call themselves the American govt. They can blow their corporate financiers all they want, but they better keep their filthy hands off the internet. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
757. Support full global blackout The English Wikipedia should be closed entirely for the day to raise awareness about what could happen if the US censors different websites, as they can under SOPA. In this day and age, a clickthrough will do nothing more than "okay whatever, moving on," whereas if they know they can't get the information they're looking for, and we tell them why, they'll be more likely to voice their opinion. Jpech95 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
758. Support full global blackout. We in Europe feel that SOPA is dangerous for all the world. Solidarity! --Kychot (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
759. Support full global blackout, with a localised freedom of information message localised to each language, and customised if necessary. I am happy to help with translating for Arabic Wikipedia. Regards from an Egyptian in Britain | Moemin05 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
760. Support ThemFromSpace 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
761. Support full global blackout. Shut it down completely. Lara 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
762. Support Amoe (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
763. Support full global blackout. Close it for a day now, so they don't close it forever later. Erik Carson (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, lots of internet users don't know what SOPA is, and even don't care!! A full blackout will harm the flow of knowledge, and also some people use Wikipedia as a source for info. Some people might not care about the editing, but blocking the ability to read is a bit harsh and might even drive some people away from the cause & Wikipedia. --Abderrahman (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   That's the point, lots of internet users don't know what SOPA is, but they should. Something like this would surely raise awareness about it. Theon144 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   Theon144 is right. Additionally, Wikipedia is terrible as a source for information. Blacking it out for a day can only improve the flow of knowledge by inducing them to seek out actual sources for it, rather than one that any random vandal can get at. Rogue 9 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   Eh, I strongly disagree with that sentiment, but let's not get into that here. Theon144 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   Rogue, I hope you are not one of the vandals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manydeer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose full blackout. This will only affect Wikipedia readers and editors, and inconvenience them. Do you really think that Congress even reads Wikipedia?? If they did, they wouldn't be writing up these ridiculous bills. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   The goal isn't to get Senators to see it, but to raise awareness of SOPA among the general population so they can urge senators.--Sje46 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Congress people and their staffs do use wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   • What includes editing (with POV pushing and vandalism) - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress Bulwersator (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Wow, thank you for that information. I had often wondered what was going on. Badon (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, thanks for the link to the POV problems with US staffers, etc. I didn't realize the situation. However, I was being somewhat facetious in my comment above. I still do not think a full blackout is wise, because as stated by others below, then the important information about the situation will not be out there, and easily found. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose Have to say I would oppose a full blackout. We want to protest censorship with censorship? I understand the sentiment that it could show what might be in store (direct action can be effective), but purposefully depriving people of information would make us no better than them. If there is any blackout type event, I would favor partial over full and prefer just good, eye-catching banners. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose full blackout. This would prevent readers from reading articles about SOPA, DNSSEC, DMCA, etc. our protest will be more effective if we get their attention, then suggest articles to read on the topic. Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Additional Comment. Perhaps it is appropriate then to do a full blackout, besides giving access to one or two pages explaining the purposes for the blackout. No one would come up with that conclusion on their own. I strongly support the full blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msheets1 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Msheets1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
6. It's completely inappropriate for one group of editors to tell all the other editors that they can or can't edit on a given day. Where I come from that's called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lagrange613 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose: This defeats the purpose of making information freely to all, and we do not know who will need it that very day. The partial blackout is more than enough to make our point. Kansan (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   "we do not know who will need it that very day" - My suggestion is to make the user unable to access anything on the site unless their referrer is the SOPA article. If the user starts from the SOPA article, then they should be able to get to philosophy. Or, the homepage, search, etc. As long as they have to view the SOPA article page first, I think that is a poignant enough blackout. With that said, I still support complete, utter blackout for as long as it takes to defeat SOPA. Badon (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   There's enough Wikipedia mirrors available through Google so that if anyone really wants the info, they can get it. --Rschen7754 08:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   As I wrote above, there are these places called public libraries; I'm informed they even exist beyond the borders of the US. If someone needs information on that day, they'll be open for business & very eager to help answer questions & assist in research -- as well as every day. This is not a good argument against a blackout. -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose Violates our core mission; due to mirror sites will not be an annoyance to the reader, but will encourage him to click elsewhere in future. Additionally, SOPA seems unlikely to escape the House unscathed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose. I think a click-through information campaign will galvanize enough people to oppose the proposed legislation. I prefer to reserve disruptive protest for cases of actual, rather than proposed, injustice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I am advised by a 'bot, acting on behalf of a consensus of administrators, that my responses to this RfC are inapplicable or unclear. Whereas my response to the above captioned proposition represents my best effort to communicate my position on that specific proposition, and whereas it has been deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking it and withdrawing from this RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose I'm very strongly opposed it it affects non US users, but although I've indicated I would let US users decide, I feel this is a bad enough idea I'm mildly opposed even if it affects US users only Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Keeping in mind that a decision must be made by the sixteenth, we are talking about a complete shutdown of Wikipedia based on two days of gathering consensus. Not a good idea. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose. If you're going gonna do a blackout, don't do this. Totally contradicts the mission of Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose this is an encyclopedia; cutting off access to information would be ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Not likely to raise awareness much more than a click-through blackout screen, but much more inconvenient. --Zinger0 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose — Ched :  ?  16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose full blackout - click through screen should be just as effective. --Torchflame (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose - A full blackout intentionally hurts people without drawing significantly more attention to what can already be achieved with a soft blackout. A possible compromize could be raising the bar for accessing the acutal Wikipedia again, such as a tick box or a confirmation that the user has already called his congressperson before proceeding. As we all know, everybody reads the full EULA when installing software :) -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose; we need to save the full blackout option for later if it's decided to do this again. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose - save it for if it passes. Selery (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Do we really need people to be irritated at what they will perceive as Wikipedian political activism? Schools and universities aren't going to black themselves out on January 18th; neither should we. AUN4 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    Professors do walk out and students stage sit-ins when an issue is severe enough to warrant it. This is such an issue.--Circumspice (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

20. Oppose - Will cause significant disruption and won't raise awareness any more than a soft black out. Perhaps this should be kept in reserve in case SOPA makes significant progress. CT Cooper · talk 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose - SOPA gives the Attorney General the right to seek an injunction to block foreign websites which (i) host a substantial proportion of infringing material (ii) refuse to acknowledge and/or take appropriate measures once they have been informed of its existence on the site. It is not for copyright holders to gauge the strength of evidence. It is a matter for the court. A judge needs to see compelling evidence that a site is operating illegally before an injunction is granted. You cannot divorce these two elements and pretend SOPA gives people the power to block websites willy-nilly. There are thousands of rogue websites that purposely host infringing material. DMCA is useless against them. I support people in the creative industries who choose to receive fair payment for their work. They need protection. — ThePowerofX 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Draconian action not commensurate with the minimal threat of SOPA as currently amended. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I was willing to support a soft blackout because it educates people about SOPA but doesn't cut off access to Wikipedia. I had some qualms about Wikipedia becoming political, but a soft blackout seemed like a good compromise. Denying people access to information goes against the central purpose of Wikipedia. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose - save for passage of the bill. for now, a soft blackout will be enough, i think.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Very Strong Oppose - It would undermine what Wikipedia is all about. Let's not initiate this, as we don't need to go to such a urgent matter right now. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose - I think a click through combined with some visible changes to the pages ( border etc. ) once clicked through should be enough. PaleAqua (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose - What kind of example does this set exactly? Editors are not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, not use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and not present just one side of the issue. I am pretty sure this is suggesting we do all of those things on a site-wide scale.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Someone might really need the info we provide that day. (Especially info on SOPA itself). And SOPA has been revised to be less odious than it was. Reserve the full blackout option for more dire circumstances. Sonicsuns (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose any blackout - let us keep a neutral point of view in all things. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
30. (edit conflict x3) Strong Oppose – While we may be temporarily using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and I think in this situation it is warranted, there is no need to disrupt our service. If necessary, it could be read-only, but I'd be concerned about BLP concerns and vandalism remaining in effect, getting in right before "close of business". — madman 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Strong oppose as per User:Arbitrarily0. Teun Spaans (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Oppose - While a full blackout of Wikipedia would be the most powerful tool in our arsenal (you can't click through a full blackout), it's not what we should be using here. Wikipedia is an important source of information for millions, and a full blackout would deny them access to both general knowledge and knowledge on SOPA/PIPA as well, while going against the idea of free information. The time that it would be right to use a full blackout is when SOPA/PIPA poses an immediate danger to Wikipedia (i.e. going for a vote to pass the bill), and we aren't at that point yet. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    1. Let's have only the pages about SOPA, PIPA and OPEN accessible. We need to attract people's attention to get government attention. SiPlus (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose This kind of a harsh action is an extremely bad idea as it hurts Wikipedia probably more than SOPA would. It's like a man hearing that he may have a serious disease and because of that, commits suicide.ML (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    1. This idea hurts temporarily, SOPA hurts permanently. It's more like a sleep than a suicide. SiPlus (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

       I agree. We need to be ruthless in stomping this out of existence so no politician will ever again risk humiliating himself by suggesting another law like it. Support. Badon (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

34. Oppose a full blackout. Our mission is to inform; besides, we should not risk coming off as petulant. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I think a full blackout is premature. Wikipedia is too valuable a resource to be shut off on a whim. If it comes to a vote in the full House and Senate, then we should consider more drastic measures. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    I 100% Agree with that statement. We shouldn't go to such measures like this anytime soon. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

36. Oppose, with passion. The Wikipedia is a critical, world-wide public service. Perhaps the first of such magnitude. A full blackout would leave me rather disgruntled. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Oppose. This goes too far for a free encyclopedia and a first protest. Wait until a bill passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How much influence do you think we will still have when someone besides us shuts down Wikipedia? The time to use the big guns is before you're desperate, not after. Badon (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    Well, I would agree that we shouldn't wait until someone else shuts us down, but the stage at which Congress sends a bill to the White House is before that would happen. We're still the free encyclopedia, and shouting isn't always the best way to win an argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    If you wait until the noose is around your neck, arguing would only make it tighter. The time to win this is NOW, not later when we're begging for the mercy of murderers and thieves in government. Badon (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    You forgot to mention child molesters. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

38. Oppose. This is not a desperate enough situation to warrant a full blackout. We should not risk angering people who rely Wikipedia as a service. At some point, this goes too far as a protest. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Strongly oppose. Two wrongs do not make a right. Cutting off access to Wikipedia is called having a tantrum, in my opinion. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Oppose a full blackout right now. It hasn't come to that. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Strongest possible oppose. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not to be disrupted to make a point. These apply to the WMF just as much as its editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Oppose. SOPA has not passed yet. If it does, it will merit drastic measures, aka a full blackout. -SharonT (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    The time to protest is before SOPA is passed - afterwards is too late. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

43. Oppose. Gw2010-11
44. Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Oppose. A full blackout will hinder wikipedia users more than anything. Ajihood (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Oppose. A full blackout is too drastic and will cause Wikipedia to lose users, as its more an annoyance to users than a propellant for them to become activists. I think this should be avoided this unless SOPA passes 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Oppose - Do not think we need to go this far to address issue, a banner is fine. Dough4872 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia has not and should not participate in the game of politics. WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. While I do feel SOPA is an absolutely horrible idea that will be of little benefit, by getting involved we only hurt ourselves. There is little to gain through any participation across the Wikimedia projects. If anything, it will only hurt the users of Wikipedia while having little to no impact on the decision making in regards to SOPA. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Oppose Completely disabling the site is against the stated goal of the Wikimedia foundation - "encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge". Choosing to withhold the content of the project when there is not an imminent threat to Wikipedia itself (SOPA does not directly endanger Wikipedia) is entirely disproportionate. Even worse would be a US only shutdown of the site. This suffers the same problems as the completely disabling the site, while simultaneously discriminating against a large portion of the userbase. Obviously that would be contrary to the founding principles ("the ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration"), as well as the non discrimination policy ("discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of... national origin,..."). Click through banners (the so called soft blackout) would not suffer this problem. Prodego ^talk 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
50. I oppose a full blackout. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Oppose full blackout.
52. Oppose per Prodego.--JayJasper (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Strong oppose—I feel that this conflicts directly with Wikipedia's mission. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 06:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Strong oppose. It is not Wikipedia's place to be playing politics, and this is, by definition, a political issue. If the fundamental freedoms of Americans are being harmed by this legislation then it is a matter for the courts to revoke, just like any other issue. While the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate does include the promotion of open source (thus opposition to this bill might be within that mandate), that is clearly not the mandate of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia should never be used as a tool for any political purpose, including as directed by the Wikimedia Foundation. -M.Nelson (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Strong oppose. This is effectively censorship in itself, and censoring more things is not a good reaction to the threat of other people censoring things. To deny people access to a valuable tool to make a point is not the right way to handle this. --scgtrp (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Strong oppose. Save our bullets: ramp it up one step further next time if it's absolutely necessary. Tony (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
57. I oppose a full blackout since it would be a loss of knowledge for an hour or a day or so. We never know who would be requiring immediate reference to Wikipedia for any given article may be, at any given moment, urgently. Refer Wikipedia foundation stated goals - " ... development and distribution of free .... providing the full content .... free of charge". A neutral point of view should be observed. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. .... Patience is indeed a virtue. We should be calm and should not over-react & provide access to all the stuff to the best as we always did. Soft Blackout is more than enough, is more than preferable. Ninney (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    So winning the battle of 99.999% uptime is fine even when it increases the chances of losing the war and going down permanently or becoming much less useful? I don't think so. Sometimes you have to take the time to do preventive maintenance in order to head off a serious problem. A blackout for a short period of time can be very healthy preventive maintenance in this situation. Many users want to be made aware of serious risks to resources they rely on before a failure occurs. They forgive a small loss if that is what might be necessary. It's also called paying an insurance premium. Hozelda (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

58. Strong oppose. Please see the quote of Brandon Haris, which we used for fundraising. The site is not and should never be a propaganda tool. These kind of actions will ruin Wikipedia. --Vssun (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Strong oppose - besides the fact that Wikipedia should not be engaged in political advocacy, I suspect a full global blackout, however brief, will cause more damage to the encyclopaedia than SOPA ever concievably could. Robofish (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The point of the blackout is not just to draw attention, it's to simulate a possible outcome of SOPA when it passes. Rather a temporary blackout now to avert the act, then a permanent one that might pass if we don't raise attention under Wikipedians. Jurjenb (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Oppose any blackout. I will reiterate what I said above: Any action of this sort from Wikipedia's side will undermine the public's perception of Wikipedia as a politically neutral website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Strongly oppose - why inconvenience thousands of editors and millions of users for a political gesture that I sincerely doubt Congress will even notice? I'm against SOPA, but Wikipedia is a reference work, not a soapbox. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
62. VERY STRONG OPPOSE As a user above says, it's ridiculous to oppose censorship with censorship. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 15:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Oppose Full Blackout. A full blackout (global or US only) isn't the best decision. Also the period of full blackout isn't clear. We should remember that it is the people around the world who contribute to Wikipedia the most. There are so many edits/contributions made, so much information shared everyday. A full blackout would certainly hamper that. It would certainly block access to people who contribute to it the most and/or are benefited the most from its (Wikipedia) existence. The banners/blackouts suggested above will achieve the same results as the full blackout but without hampering the progress and processes of Wikipedia. Personally, I support (1) Blackout US only, global banner. trunks_ishida (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Oppose per Kaldari. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Oppose. Jamface1 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Real mature guys. Juliancolton (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Strong oppose any blackout whatsoever. I've expanded upon my opinion above, but a blackout would punish users for something which a) wasn't done by them and b) hasn't even been passed yet. This would also bring Wikipedia into local politics, rather than remaining neutral Modest Genius ^talk 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Oppose - All blackout measures. By all means use Wikipedia as a platform to protest against blacklist legislation, but do so in a way that does not impede users abilities to use the site. - hahnchen 17:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Absolute nonsense. Would completely undermine our steps taken to get more new users to this website, and is all in all a very stupid idea. — Joseph Fox 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Oppose- Wikipedia is a charitable organization. It should do the job it does best (of giving information), not engaging in this type of activity.
71. Oppose: If a full block is needed, real change needs to be made with WMF moving its incorporation overseas and moving its servers overseas. Any international action is unfairly punishing the global community and sends a message that international contributors have less value than Americans. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Oppose: the Comunity of the en:WP can't and don't have to decide about a global Blackout! Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    It's all about blacking out the English Wikipedia for a global scale, as opposed to blocking it in the United States only using geolocalisation. odder (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

73. Oppose I am saddened and aggrieved that some people want to use Wikipedia as a political tool. If people have objections to legislations they should make their protests known by acting as individuals, not by utilising the work that I and thousands of others have done. I am not contributing to Wikipedia to provide anyone with a means to add weight to their opposition to legislation. If you're not happy, write to Congress - you can use OpenCongress, or some other means. A handful of vocal editors should not be able to force the closure of a website used by millions. Most users of the site, editors and readers, would not even be aware this discusion is taking place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    450 users is hardly a handful. The fact is that, as much as we may try to be neutral in our articles, the very nature of Wikipedia is a political statement. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation "is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." It can't do this if it sits idly by while the very things which made this mission feasible, the Internet, is made hostile to that goal. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    This is also the tyranny of the majority and simply mob rule as well, one of the reasons why a basic reasons why Wikipedia uses consensus rather than simply majority votes on almost all content decisions. Having 450/500/1000 people supporting a position doesn't necessarily make it right, and there are some profound and IMHO irreconcilable issues being raised by the opposition where far more harm will be done to Wikipedia if this blackout happens than if some hot headed and rash youngsters decide to go along with this blackout. I personally think the opposition here is providing some very strong justification for why this blackout should never happen, where the logical thing, as well as the most "reversible" action is to simply not act. Acting here and doing the blackout is irreversible so far as it makes Wikipedia a political tool in other areas as well, and significantly impacts the neutrality of the project in the future in profound and irreparable ways. Once it is done, it can't be undone. That is not the wiki way, and anything which is permanent is something that should be generally avoided. That there is not just one voice of opposition should speak volumes in itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    Although I am sympathetic to most of the reasons for opposing a full blackout, I think you and many other opposers are overstating the negative consequences of a full blackout. I believe taking a somewhat extreme hard-line as early as possible for only a maximum of 24 hours, or less, will be maximally effective while at the same time minimizing the amount of disruption it causes. I think the normal fund-raising done every year with banners everywhere is cumulatively more disruptive than an isolated, planned blackout for only 1 day. Badon (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    The fact is that Wikipedia does not actually use consensus. It's not a simply matter of counting votes, certainly, but Wikipedia has never required total agreement to take an action. The fact that more than one editor opposes an action does nothing to convince me that it shouldn't be taken. As you said, it's about the strength of the arguments. I have seen 3 arguments that I don't think have merit, and one that, while it does have weight, does not overcome the need to act. (1) I don't find your permanency argument to be a strong one. You say this is a permanent action, but it is certainly limited in the time it takes. After this, Wikipedia will be an entity that has taken a stand on a specific piece of legislation that would harm it. Any action Wikipedia takes is permanent in the same way, no matter what it does, it can't undo the fact that it has taken an action, but that doesn't mean that the action shouldn't be taken. (2) Another argument that I don't find persuasive is the hypocrisy argument I've seen repeated. There's a massive difference between the government shutting down content on Wikipedia and Wikipedia doing it to itself. Separate from the very strong philosophical differences, this is a shut down for a day, for an important purpose, as opposed to permanently. (3) Finally, I do not think that those who say wait until something passes before acting are appreciating the nature of how laws are passed, at least in the United States. Once a bill becomes a law, attempts to undo that action are incredibly more difficult than attempts to stop its passage for a host of reasons, including momentum and the fact that legislators have taken a stand on one side and do not want to be seen as changing sides. That being said, there is one argument that weighs heavily on me. That is the impact this can have on Wikipedia and its users. It's not something I take lightly. But I do thing the reasons to do this are strong enough to merit risking that harm. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

74. Oppose: a full blackout will cause some apolitical users to believe that Wikipedia is unreliable, and is contrary to our mission to provide free information to everyone on a nondiscriminatory basis. Warren Dew (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Users should feel that we are unreliable. Our servers are in the US and the US is about to pass laws that would make what we do here impossible, at least within the US and its sphere of influence. If the United States goes down this path, it places our existing infrastructure in jeopardy. Don't think of it as a 'political' step, though-- think of it as an emergency alert system. Most people have never even heard of SOPA-- we may be the only people in a position to change that. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

75. Oppose if we try to fight a potential attempt at blackout with a blackout, how are we better then? punishing users can never be a form of appealing to them Sayan rc (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Oppose So because some domestic legislation is being discussed in the US, people want to pull the plug on people outside the US in order to gain their support. Yeh right.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Oppose - There are only so many ways I can explain myself here, but if you are going to "count votes", I might as well make my "vote" count too even if it is a "minority" opinion. There are numerous strong reasons to oppose this blackout, and I find that this is going to be a misguided exercise if it happens. It also seems like any effort for reason or even attempting to gain consensus on this issue is over, and that the principle of things like WP:VOTE or why voting in general is a bad thing on a project like this is being completely missed. Minority opinions are being trampled to death here by an unruly mob that doesn't seem to care about the very real consequences of their rash actions. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Oppose, an action of this nature involves Wikipedia, a project that strives to be both global and neutral, in local politics. The project has worked very hard to establish its reputation for neutrality and trustworthiness against academic hostility; taking any political action will have a direct undermining effect on that effort. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Oppose - A complete blackout will not spread knowledge, only confusion. Shatteredshards (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Oppose Wikipedia is a vital global resource. Though its future is threatened by the bill, I don't believe the gain of shutting out readers and editors is worth the increase in confusion and frustration which many would feel. A click-through blackout strikes the right balance between efficacy and disruption. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Oppose 04:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Oppose This does more harm than good. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Strongly Oppose This will definitely harm Wikipedia's reputation. I support a soft blackout, but in a way that forces the reader to at least glance at the message. But preventing Wikipedia users from accessing its content altogether completely undermines our mission. haha169 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Oppose If we do this now, we'll have to do it again if the bill passes. Then we'll look like a bunch of schmucks. Let's save it for the bitter end. Braincricket (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Oppose: Always stay neutral in politics, even if the proposed law affects Wikipedia.Nico (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Oppose to emphasise Wikipedia's neutrality, and because confusion is a much more likely consequence than is awareness. Veracon.net (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Oppose - WP:NPOV. wikipedia should not take sides in local politics; as much as the US thinks it runs the world, last time i looked i don't have a 'congressman' or 'representative in the house' who i could contact. and this is a slippery slope - does wikipedia go down if say south africa brings in a new censorship law? further, SOPA would be great news for european hosts. the US a few years back enacted the same SOPA-style laws against online gambling; now a multi-billion euro business, providing for the US and european gambler, largely hosted in europe. if the US wishes to enact local laws to the detriment of its economy, that is not the problem of a (supposedly) global website like wikipedia Jw2036 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    if the US wishes to enact local laws to the detriment of its economy... - Well said. You, sir, are a genius. Badon (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

88. Oppose This bill will not pass Congress, despite the fears of uneducated Internet users, and even if it would it would not impact Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 12:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Oppose. NO full blackout pls! ShotmanMaslo (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Oppose. Diferently from organizations that started the initiative in the first place, Wikipedia users may officially have a non uniform set of oppinions. There are at least people who don't care, and people who agree with the bill. --hdante (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Oppose. NPOV should apply to decisions like these as well. zellin t / c 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
92. Oppose. let's start soft. --CatMan61 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Oppose NPOV blackout. Sebleouf (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Oppose. Per Seblouf. Suprememangaka (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Oppose. Per Seblouf. And why suffer a blackout in France without being consulted? --Coyote du 86 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Strong oppose supporting Modest Genius arguments. Schlum (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
97. Strong oppose The EN community can block its website if it want, but they have no right to decide for others languages. --Kormin (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    This vote is only about blacking out the English Wikipedia. The proposal is to black it out globally, as opposed to blocking the access to US-based users only. Other Wikipedias (and Wikimedia wikis overall) will not be affected by this vote. odder (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

98. Strong oppose like Kormin. Just put a banner, put no global blackout without vote on each concerned wiki --Pic-Sou (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Oppose: Political actions like the proposed one will inevitably affect the credibility of Wikipedia. NPOV? Apparently not when Wikipedia's own interests are involved. Fransvannes (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Strong Oppose Any blackout is a pure political move, anybody supporting a blackout are admitting that they love censorship and I did not see you supporting a blackout when China or Iran (among others) censored parts of the Internet or Wikipedia. I will help support all permanent boycotts of Wikipedia and all other sites that do any blackout. We will send a message that people should not be affected because of a political move like stopping people from using a encyclopedia. TJ Spyke 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
101. Oppose - soft blackout addresses most concerns I've seen regarding the blackout, and provides information that is needed to general public. --Trödel 20:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
102. Very Strongly Oppose a full global blackout (but support splash screen idea). As desperate as things might be, we shouldn't be removing access to Wikipedia. This will not only confuse/alienate some users and cause inconvenience for many but it also gives the wrong impression. "Playing dead" might lead many to realise how important Wikipedia is in their lives however this could give the impression that we are desperate - as if this is the only action that can be taken. In addition to this, were a more outrageous and objectable bill ever to come about, what effect would the blackout have on people? Such an act will be remembered for generations to come so it's always important to keep such options open. JTG.Turbo (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Strongly oppose. Wikipedia absolutely should not be taking sides in a political fight. It completely undermines Wikipedia's credibility as a non-political entity. --173.167.239.109 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
104. Oppose essentially per Prodego (#49). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Whether congress reads Wikipedia or not, voters certainly do. ---Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Same goes for the "US only" blackout. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some practical issues that come to mind here— how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down? The Wikipedia articles are some of the best starting points currently available, better than most of the anti-sopa sites. Likewise, to write a compelling letter I'm going to need to do some research, — again— Wikipedia. I'm very concerned that a "splash page" style 'blackout' is insufficient because people are so well trained by internet advertising, — but a full blackout might be counter-productive. A really hard to dismiss splash (I'd suggest making the user solve a captcha, except for accessibility issues) might be a reasonable compromise (esp in the case of this option ending up with strong mixed support/opposition). --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Make the user leave feedback for their Congress critter to dismiss the blackout screen. Jehochman ^Talk 07:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down" - I think this is a valid concern. My suggestion is to make the user unable to access anything on the site unless their referrer is the SOPA article. If the user starts from the SOPA article, then they should be able to get to philosophy. Badon (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the very statement "how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down" tells us something about the degree to which Wikipedia has become pervasive in our society. Everybody I know who wants to quickly check a factoid goes to Wikipedia. Many academics I know use Wikipedia as a starting point for preparing lectures or seminars, or even for getting background knowledge when they seriously start working on a new topic themselves. Anyways, I think the idea of allowing access via SOPA is charming on first sight, but will rightfully alienate users. We are not their mommies who tell them to first do their homework, however sloppy, before they can go play. It will also be perceived as ineffective - it's equivalent to making people tick a box on a 20 page service agreement before allowing access. HumancentiPad aside, few of us read those, much less in detail. A simple splash screen will have the same effect without the inconvenience. A real black-out would demonstrate how critical Wikipedia has become and how serious we are about this. Either is preferable to the the "click through SOPA" option, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I support full blackout, over any other option, for the same reasons you mentioned. Badon (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When transport workers strike, it's still possible to travel by other means (foot, bicycle, for town travel, or train instead of aeroplane, etc.), when bakers strike, you can still bake your own bread. No information in Wikipedia is original research, so you can still get the information from the original research sources or from third-party sources with reputations for fact-checking and known biases. And there are still going to be fresh google cache copies of probably almost every Wikipedia page. There are also many mirror sites that more or less reproduce Wikipedia content. Duckduckgo and other search engines will still get you to information about SOPA during the blackout. But you won't be able to edit it. Boud (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down": it's probably extreme difficult technically to allow access to just the SOPA-page, but that would make people even more conscious how much they occupy a free information source to understand their reality. --GENtLe (talk)

It isn't difficult at all. Just move the page onto meta and link it. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make two points. First, recognizing that Wikipedia searching is a reactionary impulse executed immediately and swiftly by a very large number of people when they encounter something they do not know or understand. As mentioned above, if Wikipedia is completely blacked out, accurate and unbiased understanding of SOPA may be difficult to find, which could easily result in either dismissal of concern, or, perhaps worse, propagation of more accessible but biased or inaccurate information. Second; food for thought: I feel that the debate over whether or not Wikipedia ought to take action on this topic is fundamentally a discussion over whether Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopeida for people, or a people's encyclopedia. Happy voting. Commander Ziltiod ^Speak! 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If the blackout does occur, what about sending a message banner out it's users and tell them to help stop the SOPA and PIPA bills from passing when they try to use Wikipedia? BattleshipMan (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Salutations, everybody! I am in favor of a global blackout of Wikipedia except for articles about the »Stop Online Piracy« and »PROTECT IP« Acts detailing the damage that both laws will cause if passed along with a dossier of all the US legislators responsible for the creation of those two bills. The message explaining this is that this is the most that Wikipedia will be unless the »Stop Online Piracy« and »PROTECT IP« Acts are extinguished absolutely, immediately, and forever. The United States seriously needs to stop manufacturing criminals from its citizens.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) #Support global blackout as first choice, global click-through if not. Although it will be extremely devastating and inconvenient for people around the world, everyone needs to be aware of this, otherwise they will just click the "Continue" link and not bother about it; plus, it gives people a taste of what it's like not to have free information available to them with a few clicks.  ajmint  (talk •edits) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please vote in the appropriate section, not in the comment section. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, if we're going to do a full blackout, Can We PLEASE Make It Fair and NEUTRAL for everyone?? It seems like we may be taking things just a little over the top by actually shutting down the entire website for a whole day to protest over politics. Now, I don't want to get into rules, but I feel like the guidelines are clearly being violated here, and no one is getting an equal and fair share in these protests. I mean, we have to make a fair compromise so that everyone, not just some people, but everyone, is happy. Plus, it doesn't seem like everyone is being informed of the lastest news that the SOPA and PIPA hearings which were originally scheduled over the next two weeks have been pushed back (I may be wrong). The point I'm trying to make is let's not go out of hand with this. There are lots of other ways of getting our voices heard, and I just feel that a full blackout isn't the best idea for every single person in here, not just the people who support it, but those who both support and oppose. PLEASE, let's make things fair and neutral for everyone here. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Soft blackout

(click-through option cont'd from Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action/BlackoutSection)

A significant portion of the community advised blacking-out the site using a click-through process, which would present the following work-flow: when a user attempts to access the English Wikipedia for the first time on the designated date(s), they are presented with a notice describing the SOPA threat and suggesting that they take action (see below, section “What action should users take?”). They then have the option to “click-through” the screen. Once they’ve clicked through, everything is normal: no content is removed or obscured, and normal editing applies. In addition, all users of the English Wikipedia would see banners at the top of each page with informational text that will include a call to action: links to locate contact information for local congressional delegations (if the user is in the United States) or U.S. embassies (if the user is outside the United States). The banners should be dismissable, as with the fundraising banners. Geo-located banners will continue to run for two weeks after the blackout period. The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this.

Support

1. Support Globally. Awhiteaker (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— 173.76.128.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2. Support. Nithinmanne (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Nithinmanne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3. Support WillSmith (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support, I support a soft blackout globally. --Abderrahman (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Save the full blackout for if it passes. Selery (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support - Better as a first resort and will raise awareness just as effectively without completing cutting off access to the encyclopedia. CT Cooper · talk 17:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - A full blackout denies people the access to information, something that goes against Wikipedia's purpose. A soft blackout educates people about the bill without denying access, and is the best option. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. /Support, but use full blackout if it passes (assuming passage w/o major alterations)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Weak Support, last choice. Better than nothing but prefer full blackout. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support I think a soft blackout is enough. PaleAqua (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support — This is was what I was supporting above. Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers (and even then, the encyclopedia should be readable, if perhaps read-only). — madman 18:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - I'm not convinced this is as effective as a full blackout, but it also is less disruptive. And it's much better than nothing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. I don't think the Foundation taking a political action on an issue with such direct relevance to its mission compromises the NPOV of Wikipedia's articles. I think the click-through is appropriate; I fear a full blackout might do too much harm to people who need information urgently. And I think selecting certain articles to make available would blur the line between a Foundation action and articlespace POV. --Allen (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. A full blackout is necessary only in case it passes. -SharonT (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support a soft blackout. We should raise people's awareness without stopping them from getting the information they need. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Save the full blackout for if it gets to the full House and Senate for voting. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. I don't like the idea of denying our users access to make a political point. An inconvenience, yes, but not a complete denial of service. User:Kaldari also makes a good point that things can get worse, and it would be helpful to have a way to up the ante. -- Gaurav (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support at this stage. Consider a full blackout only if it passes Congress and is on the President's desk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support per Tryptofish. --Narayan89 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support per Madman et al. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support per Allen hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support click-through blackout as a first choice, with limited support for a full blackout as well. Ojchase (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support I don't think we should deny access to the site. We should have a screen to click through but not a denial of service. What if someone needs some information on that day are we really going to stop them from using Wikipedia just because some congressmen want to censor the internet? Remember the users of Wikipedia can complain to congressmen as much as they want but the congressmen are going to have the final call and we have no control. Punish congress not the general public. When you e-mail a congressmen who doesn't agree with you they basically tell you to go fly a kite. I know this from when I was fighting The Freedom of Choice Act both of my senators supported it, and they told me many times that they really didn't care that I opposed it. Etineskid(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support, but only if content of the blackout screen is made NPOV, no lobbying. Clicking through an extra screen is no major inconvenience. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. I also support this option, mostly because of other parts of the web will be blacked out at the same time and the internet community will likely turn to us to get information about SOPA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support a firm blackout. Access is still possible, but every page will have some sort of splash screen or large banner that makes the wiki clunky to use. Also, link to related articles within the messages. I agree with Kaldari that a step by step approach would be prudent, but think that a middle ground approach should be adopted rather than the relatively weak "soft blackout" Hamtechperson 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. The blackout should take up the whole screen (at least on the first visit), but you should still be able to click through to the site. It should encourage people to contact their senators and rep, but it should not be required to see the site. Per Tryptofish, we should consider escalating to a true full blackout if it passes Congress. Superm401 - Talk 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - although I understand the appeal of a full blackout, i feel that might disrupt wikipedia users that have no control over the outcome of SOPA/PIPA (non- US residents) (see WP:POINT). -TinGrin 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support. An effective way to raise the issue of the bill without inconveniencing wikipedia users. Ajihood (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. Support soft blackout. I'm not fully opposed to a full blackout, but I feel that a soft one is adequate to get the message across. Then again, I am one who typically ignores the "personal appeal" banners, so... Spiffulent (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support. --Aschmidt (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. I support a soft blackout, because a full blackout is much more likely to inconvenience viewers than it is likely to create more activism. Many viewers use Wikipedia as an impulse search, notably for last minute research reports and a quick but detailed summary of someone/something. These people will likely stray from Wikipedia if it starts to delay content at any time, as they will instead find another source of information that doesn't delay information... if you get what I mean. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support A full blackout would have the perverse effect of preventing users from reading our articles on SOPA and related topics. Short of putting together a complete list of articles to save from the blackout (which would be difficult IMO), this is the best option. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Fylbecatulous (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
41. I support a soft blackout. A full blackout is the sort of thing we would consider if SOPA passed, and we felt that was preferable to operating under such a regime. While I understand the point of protesting before a law is passed, there also needs to be a way to "escalate" if it comes to that. I believe a soft blackout is the most proportionate response in terms of the perceived threat and what we are trying to accomplish. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Full support to a soft blackout. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support We can raise awareness without inconveniencing WP readers & editors.--JayJasper (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support, first choice. --Carnildo (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support; raises the issue prominently without compromising our mission in the meantime. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support. As SOPA begins to fundamentally challenge the openness of the internet that Wikipedia depends upon and exemplifies, and is relevant to the mission of free flowing information, I support taking a stance with a soft but firm blackout now --reserving a full blackout for future escalation should it occur. Evolauxia (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Strong Support — I disagree with a full blackout because it would serve as an inconvenience for readers seeking information. But this is fine and gets the point across. Wikipedia has been making the internet not suck since 2001; SOPA is a major threat to everything we've worked so hard to build. It could very well make the internet suck, not just for the U.S., but for the world (for reasons of disclosure, I am from that country to the north where people play hockey, eat poutine, and suffix their sentences with "eh"). Master&Expert (Talk) 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Best option. Clegs (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support --Tobias (Talk) 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support soft/mixed blackout. Set up the click through with the following 3 options (where the middle option is actually a full blackout):

    • [pass-button-smileyface] Yes, I have contacted my representatives in Congress and the President in the past 7 days or will try to do so soon after using this website. Give me wikipedia!
    • [leave-button-sadface] No, I don't find this website that useful. Bye.
    • [pass-button] I appreciate wikipedia's urgency and gain from your share-alike copyright policy. Now, please just let me through. Hozelda (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

51. Support a click-through landing page. It gets the message out without interfering with Wikipedia's operation. --scgtrp (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support. Good balance between varying interests, no actual denial of access, message is unavoidable and will reach large number of people. Littledman (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support but I prefer full blackout. --Juusohe (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Juusohe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
54. Support. Wikipedia is an important service, a prominent banner or all-black theme would also draw attention Rohan nog (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - I thought I already supported but my comment disappeared... in any case... support a soft-blackout. Some action needs to be taken. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Weak support. As I mentioned above, a full blackout is my preferred option. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. Sole Soul (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support People aren't just going to ignore it because they can click through it. When they first go on WP, they'll see something different and read it. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 15:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Evalowyn (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Jamface1 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support. But only for US, banners elsewhere. Petropetro (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support globally. Vegangel (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I agree with the comments that a hard blackout would leave many people confused and without access to good information. I also know that many Internet users globally are very vested in what happens with SOPA, and the opportunity to take action will be a welcome one. I also understand the objection to the "politicization of Wikipedia"; however, in light of the potential destruction of the site, I believe it's necessary for self-preservation. (Even Switzerland maintains an army should it be invaded.)
65. Support. I feel that a "full" blackout without any access to information at all other than about SOPA would be bothersome to some users and would just ignore Wikipedia completely for that date. I agree with what Michael Snow said above. Xxcom9a (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support as second choice Wiki going dark would make things clearer, but this is a good second-best. Xero Xenith (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support as second choice full blackout is better, but a soft blackout will do as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support as it should do the job (it's effectively a nag screen) without being too hard on the user collective (whose fault SOPA really isn't). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. CristoperB (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support. Powergate92Talk 22:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. A Dirty Watermelon
72. Support a global soft blackout. This will notify all users that would be affected by SOPA/PIPA without making wikipedia useless for those who need information for unrelated reasons. Warren Dew (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. as a starting point this should be enough to create awareness among users Sayan rc (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support for the same reasons as Warren Dew JB82 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Strongly Support We must take a stand, for the future of Wikipedia is at stake. However, we mustn't harm the flow of knowledge. Global soft-blackout please. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support Katana (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support, I support a soft blackout globally. There must be better ways to protect copyright holders than to alter how the Internet works. --Joe2832
79. Support global soft blackout. A full blackout, even a temporary one, seems contrary to Wikipeida's stated goal of full, unencumbered access to information. 3.14 (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support global soft blackout. haha169 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support outside US Brings needed attention to this issue, but doesn't fully hinder users outside US, who are outside US jurisdiction --Kpengboy (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support a soft global blackout, as what happens with this legislation enactment would affect material Wikipedia accesss worldwide.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support as second option, either US or global. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support --Veyneru (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support gajeam (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Support. US only --CatMan61 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support.--IIVeaa (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
89. support -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support least intrusive way to reach the goals of having the blackout. --Trödel 20:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Although I'd hesitantly support a full blockout, instead, this seems more in line with the goals of Wikipedia while sufficient to get the point across.  — gogobera (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
92. Support. Bitoffish (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support Soft blackout seems like the more reasonable course at this time. Awareness-raising is the goal here. In fact, it seems a bit ironic to protest censorship with censorship, which a full blackout would essentially be. But I understand the desire to increase the impact by increasing the inconvenience. Is there perhaps a middle course where users couldn't click through the SOPA/PIPA info links for a substantial amount of time (e.g. 1-2 min)? Perhaps we can reserve full blackout as a tool of last resort, like if the bill is passed and is awaiting the President's signature. Anazem (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Support A full blackout is a bit extreme. 68.193.82.154 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - if Wikipedia institutes this blackout that really isn't a blackout at all, there will be multiple news reports that we did not join in the blackout but rather chose to add a banner without blacking out the site. This will only encourage congress to press forward with SOPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   How would that encourage Congress? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   A Wikipedia blackout will discourage congress. therefor doing this (not having a blackout) will encourage them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Meh. I think I've seen enough banners on Wikipedia that I'd mentally zoom out and not read it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   The soft-blackout option doesn't describe just a banner. As stated above, it'd be a landing page with an explanation of why this is being done and links to information about SOPA, which the user would have to click through to reach Wikipedia. (There would also be banners, once the user proceeds to the main site.) Some people will still tune out and not read it, certainly, but it wouldn't be presented as "just another banner", in the same form as the ones most of us subconsciously tune out by now. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose. Juxtaposed against a hard blackout, I oppose this as weaksauce. The inconvenience of a hard blackout makes the point we need to make better than anything else. But if this option is what the community decides, it's far better than nothing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry, I think Wikipedia should stay out of politics for the stated reason in my above votes. Think we should call our Congressman and members of the Judiciary Committee that drafted the bill. Mugginsx (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Very Strong Oppose - Wikipedia must shut down temporarily in order to threat the Houses and attract people attention. SiPlus (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose in the way that I think that Wikipedia should not go in soft-blackout, but in full blackout! Jurjenb (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Do not need soft or full blackout, rather have simply a banner describing issue. Dough4872 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia has not and should not participate in the game of politics. WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. While I do feel SOPA is an absolutely horrible idea that will be of little benefit, by getting involved we only hurt ourselves. There is little to gain through any participation across the Wikimedia projects. If anything, it will only hurt the users of Wikipedia while having little to no impact on the decision making in regards to SOPA. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 03:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   Wikipedia should always defend itself against threats to its existence and/or to what gives it its power. It would be an injustice to have the ability to educate the users over such an important matter to Wikipedia (while they still have time to act and stop it) yet fail to do so. Many Wikipedia users will have much more to lose by not having been informed than had they been informed of the seriousness of this even if it meant Wikipedia getting a little "unclean". A little "wound" is better than death. Hozelda (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

9. Strong oppose. It is not Wikipedia's place to be playing politics, and this is, by definition, a political issue. If the fundamental freedoms of Americans are being harmed by this legislation then it is a matter for the courts to revoke, just like any other issue. While the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate does include the promotion of open source (thus opposition to this bill might be within that mandate), that is clearly not the mandate of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia should never be used as a tool for any political purpose, including as directed by the Wikimedia Foundation. -M.Nelson (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   I completely disagree that going down with a sinking ship is a better option than warning the captain and guests of impending danger while they still have time to act. Hozelda (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose because we need a full balckout. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Per Urbanus Secundus. —WFC— 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. Please see the quote of Brandon Haris, which we used for fundraising. The site is not and should never be a propaganda tool. These kind of actions will ruin Wikipedia. --Vssun (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Unlikely to make a significant difference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
14. oPPOSEWhat is the purpose of a soft blockout... a screen that nobody notices or cares about?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose. This is a weak proposal which would say "we care, but not a lot". --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose. As many people have said, we internet users are so very accustomed to and trained by click-through screens and banner ads. Also agree with FormerIP's comment above. I support option 1.2.3 (global) If SOPA passes, won't it propagate through the entire world? — chirographa diverbia cognatō 16:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose in favour of a full blackout. This issue needs to hit every major news organization, and that will only happen if Wikipedia is *unavailable*. Wonderstruck (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose. This is slightly better than a full blackout, but only marginally. It's a terrible idea for the exact same reasons. The only advantage is that it doesn't inconvenience users quite as much. Modest Genius ^talk 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lagrange613 18:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Strong oppose We may as well do nothing as use banners. Note banner blindness is a bluelink. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Second choice, a distant second compared to full blackout. We have an alarm bell, if we sound it, we sound it, and we try to get as much attention as possible. SOPA is setting a light to the Internet- you don't call "Fire" in a whispered voice. Still, support over doing nothing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose A click-through is not enough.--hacky (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose People will just click continue as if the "blackout" was some sort of advert. A proper blackout or nothing in my opinion Andrewmc123 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Strongly Oppose When Wikipedia goes down the road of expressing consensus opinions in banners and, worse, attempting to block access to anyone based on politically considerations, at least two things happen: (1) Wikipedia begin to lose whatever claim it has to openness and the balance of a diverse community; and (2) goes down the road of declaring itself a political partisan.
25. Support All the way, or no way. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose A soft blackout is pointless.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose - Only a "true" blackout with make people care! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Strong Oppose --Hubertl-AT (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Strong Oppose. Cabal2122 (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) PLEASE DON'T DO THIS! If a statement is going to be made, it needs to be loud! not something that can just be shrugged off or ignored.
30. Oppose, same rationale as for the full blackout oppose in the section above. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose, People are used to passing advertisement without reading, so they just ignore it (as they love the next button during installation) . But when you really face an obstacle, is the time that you start reading what's wrong. By soft black out, the majority won't learn about SOAPA.Bossudenotredame (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Oppose. This will look like another bunch of advertisements to people and not lead to the same effect as a full blackout would. --Bloody Rose (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose. I initially supported a soft "click-through" blackout, but it occured to me that the average internet user is already quite accustomed to ignoring advertisements and promotions. A banner - or even an entire page - that can be easily bypassed will end up being ignored by far too many readers. This message is too important to be blithely dismissed, which is why I am convinced that the blackout needs to be as disruptive as possible (in the short term) in order for the direness of the situation to be fully communicated. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose. This protest needs to be about the *absence* of information, since that's ultimately what SOPA/PIPA will result in. If visitors can get the information they want with a single click, then we're not making our point. jSarek (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose - simply a useless annoyance Jw2036 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose This bill will not pass Congress, despite the fears of uneducated Internet users, and even if it would it would not impact Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 12:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Oppose because this won't have the impact on people as the full blackout will. Saiarcot895 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Oppose There won't be any click-through option if SOPA/PIPA passes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose NPOV blackout. Sebleouf (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Request: Could those saying that this option is a second choice or last resort please consider changing their vote to "Weak Oppose"? From where I'm sitting, the vote for this option appears to be more lopsided than it really is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What will be shown on the blackout page?

Information given will include a brief description of the issue, with links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation and provide sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill. The Wikimedia Foundation will support the development of the necessary software for this purpose. The purpose of this action is to capture media attention and drive a significant volume of telephone calls from constituents.

Support

1. Support. --Abderrahman (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Sovereignlance (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
8. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Prolog (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. More or less. I think driving personal, heartfelt e-mail, mail, and phone communications should be the main goal. The template should be just a starting point. Dcoetzee 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. --Teukros (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Generally with things like this, numbers are the most important thing, since congressional staff will be far too overwhelmed to read many individual emails. Of course, we want to give people the ability to articulate things for themselves if they want, but a basic template that will appeal to most Wikipedia readers (once they understand the stakes) will probably be most effective for effecting change.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. ---Not every email needs to be read for an influence to be had. A large quantity of emails will likely have much more effect than one or two well-written ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msheets1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Andreas Werle (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support This is an important step in making the effort worth its while. LoriLee (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support, but users should be encouraged to personalize their message. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Yes, please. First Light (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Selery (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. --DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support - Nothing else works. --J (t) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Support Information should relate to both SOPA and PIPA TNL (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Keep only the SOPA and PIPA articles open for people to learn about the issues.  Marlith (Talk)  03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support If a Wikipedia blackout doesn't get their attention, this most likely will. Jessemv (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support, first choice. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support upstateNYer 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Persons from outside the USA should be urged to contact their lawmakers with concerns they might have about how SOPA would effect commerce, freedom, and the internet in their own countries.(Drn8 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
42. Well, um, this makes sense. The message should be different for US and international visitors if a global blackout is implemented though. sonia♫ 07:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support killemall22 (talk) 010:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - If possible. CT Cooper · talk 12:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support, especially as part of a full blackout. Any blackout would be useless without giving people instructions on how to help turn back this horrible legislation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support. Any reasonable text is fine. The most important part for me is an explanation of SOPA. Hans Adler 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support. Obviously informing the public about the issue and helping them easily make their voice heard is integral, and in my view the only reason for having the blackout. --Trödel 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support per Drn8. Carlsmith (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support People should know why WikiPedia blacked out the site. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support The inclusion of information about SOPA (whether it be on the blackout page itself or as a link to the Wikipedia article) is very important, in addition to the take action instructions. Perlit (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support This allows users to know who to contact in opposition to this bill. Etineskid(talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support ofc Von Restorff (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Lonewolf9196 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support jkv (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support--JayJasper (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support. Theadorerex (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. SWH ^talk 07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support. Luna Ariya (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support Xjmos (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. There should definitely be links on how US readers can contact their legislators. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support' Andrewmc123 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
68. support Huon (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support I see no evidence that charities can't take part in any political lobbying or commentary - as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Wikimedia_is_legally_a_charity_-_are_such_political_acts_allowed.3F. Maybe someone info on users for outside the US - whilst I'm fine with a global blackout or banner, it's probably best not to word it assuming all readers are in the US. Mdwh (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support yankhadenuf Too silly for Wiki, but if it were my website, I would first inquire about copyright for popular 1987 PSA "This is your brain on drugs" by Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and then have banner include blackout and text: "This is your brain on SOPA"
71. Support. --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. ... discospinster _talk 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. --User:Pym1507 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC).
74. Support. Powergate92Talk 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support Alyeska (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support. Sayan rc (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support More publicity is better to bring this bill to its knees. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support. Bigturtle (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support--Metallurgist (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support. As mentioned above, international users need to be well catered for too. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support --Noleander (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support --yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW! 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Conditional Support. This seems to be well-suited for a US audience, but I do believe the banner needs to be made relevant to international readers, as the bill would have ramifications for them as well. Care should be taken to illustrate how the bill would affect them, as well as what they can do (if anything) to join the opposition. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support. Dtyger (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support. Kpengboy (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
87. Support SongO (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support. Dimtsit (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Support Miyagawa (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support. Petru Dimitriu (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Annabel (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
92. Support. User:Ente75 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support. Denis Kasak (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Migdejong (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Sebbe xy (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
97. Support. --MaydayPictures
98. Conditional Support. Users outside of the US should be given details on how to contact both their nation's ambassador to the US and the US ambassador to their nation or, in the event such a person does not exist for their nation, the national representative most like an ambassador to the US and the national representative most like a US ambassador to their nation. It would also be nice if we could provide a frozen version of our article on SOPA and a frozen version of all the articles it links to. Perhaps WMF or Jimmy Wales could read over the handful of versions of those articles posted around UTC noon the day before the blackout and select the least vandalized versions. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Support. Users outside of the US should be asked to pay attention on their own legislative situation. The European Union's opinion is unclear, but I assume in many countries there are national laws that are already very SOPA-like. For instance that seems to be the case in Finland, see: http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/finnish-operator-required-to-block-access-to-thepiratebay-among-others --Teemu (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Strongly support. We don't want there to be any doubt about the purpose of this blackout. —Entropy (T/C) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. .. Youreallycan 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2. .. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. .. And not mention the OPEN Act? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Second mentioning the OPEN Act per the rationale I've given previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I'm worried that fighting for something that really doesn't affect us has very different legal implications than fighting against something that could hurt us. Selery (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I'm only advocating allowing visitors to know that the OPEN Act exists as an alternative to SOPA. A mention of it won't hurt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Addendum: It would also be against Wikipedia's principles to hide or exclude information. Not allowing visitors to learn of the OPEN Act's existence would be both non-neutral and manipulative. Our task should be to place all relevant information about SOPA at the fingertips, so that visitors could make complete, informed decisions on their own. Without knowledge of SOPA alternatives, visitors won't have a full picture to base their decisions on. Excluding any mention of the OPEN Act would be the same as Wikipedia manipulating visitors not to mention it in their messages to Congress. Instead, we should allow visitors to chose whether or not to mention the OPEN Act, but they can't make that choice if they don't know about the OPEN Act. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose sample text. This could be interpreted as going against the foundation's charity-status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   It's important to say that the Foundation's general counsel will clear/screen the text. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I was assuming as much; I still do think that it's risky no matter the wording. (btw, it's not the only reason I oppose a sample-text; I do believe people who read wikipedia are literate enough to write their own short rant) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose Can WMF legally advocate for/against legislation in the US? I support the blackout and raising awareness on a coordinated day, but I think "call Congress and tell them what you think" is about as political was WMF can/should get.KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose as written ("sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill"). It seems clear that WMF can legally do minor lobbying, but to do so would destroy the reputation for NPOV that we have worked so hard to maintain. I would support an NPOV blackout screen with links to impartial analysis of how SOPA would affect Wikipedia, and links for contacting congress, with no recommendation as to what people should tell their representatives. Res ipsa loquatur (let it speak for itself). Peter Chastain (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Churches do this all time by telling their people to vote against human rights like same-sex marriage.

1. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia has not and should not participate in the game of politics. WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. While I do feel SOPA is an absolutely horrible idea that will be of little benefit, by getting involved we only hurt ourselves. There is little to gain through any participation across the Wikimedia projects. If anything, it will only hurt the users of Wikipedia while having little to no impact on the decision making in regards to SOPA. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose - I expect our readers would not take kindly to being told to lobby their congresspeople by their encyclopaedia, particularly non-US ones. Asking for donations is one thing (and even that causes controversy every year), asking our readers to take political action on our behalf is quite another. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)`
3. Strong Oppose - per robofish Jake.edu (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose - any blackout page shown outside the US should also include relevant links for the country in which it is shown. Jamface1 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Wikipedia policy is to provide information regarding all sides of a question and to let the user decide what to believe. The blackout page should only describe the effect that SOPA/PIPA would have on Wikipedia, and let the user figure out for himself whether that's a problem and what the appropriate action is. Or to put it another way, I trust our users to be able to figure out that it's a problem, and I don't think we have to ram that down their throats. Warren Dew (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• What does it mean to 'oppose' this? That there should be no information given on the page - that it would just be a blank screen? Or are people opposing certain aspects of it - e.g. opposing the "links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation" but supporting a brief description of the issue? Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• The OPEN Act should really be mentioned as an alternative action. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Make sure that the title and opening paragraph of the page is designed to be large and brief enough to grab any reader's attention. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Explain for international users what SOPA is and why it affects Wikipedia. --Dial (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• If we are to proceed and go through with this, and at this point it appears quite likely that we will, then the Foundation's execution should be reflexive of our core community values to the greatest extent possible. As was once articulated by Karada and subsequently espoused by one of our most fundamental policies: You won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. The same maturity and discretion should be exhibited here if we're going to take this stand. All associated material—including "sample text"—should strive to be candid, concrete, objective, and strictly informative. In the event that we decide to educate readers about alternative legislative proposals, such information should not be presented in a way that implies endorsement. And lastly, drafts should be written up now so that the material can be available for open commentary before and up until the last minute.   — C M B J   09:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This I am fully in agreement with. Though I argued in my Suppport comments for (1) above that WP:NPOV shouldn't restrict the community itself from having a viewpoint, nor prevent our mobilizing on actions such as this, our execution of those actions should exemplify the highest principles of the Wikipedia project. The anti-SOPA information at plenty of other sites is understandable (and justifiably) alarmist and opinionated. Ours should, in contrast, reflect the same neutrality we all (ideally) strive for in each and every article edit. FeRD_NYC (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Why develop new technology? While I do not agree with all postures taken by the EFF, I think that working with them by having a link to [[8]] prevents waste due to redundant Wikipedia technology efforts while it also shows a more unified front to the proponents of SOPA. The EFF also allows non-US citizens to donate money to the EFF. While that money can't even be earmarked for SOPA-only issues, I think that SOPA is a big enough problem that cooperating with an organization such as the EFF is simply the smart thing to do. Isn't there some saying about my enemy's enemy... SOPA is a big deal and we should treat it as such. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is a good idea to place also a link for the Avaaz's "Save the Internet!" campaign for the same purpose. If there are other similar campaigns from other well reputed non-profit organizations, may also have links. That is, instead of links to commercial sites as Facebook or Twitter. Dimtsit (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• My user page describes a situation of how I responded to a temporary Wikipedia outage. Perhaps a collection of quotes from users about what it would mean for the Wikipedia to be down or sufficiently diminished in quality would have a powerful affect on the blackout page or the banner ads. (Whatever you do, no more faces of Wikipedia employees though.) They can be labeled as "From a real user like you" or something. This would allow a wide and disparate range of motivations to be stated, hopefully allowing more users to relate to the motivations. Perhaps this can go in banner ads instead or in addition to the blackout page? Neil Smithline (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Readers in the US should be encouraged to telephone or mail their Congressperson and Senators, not email them - it's known that email is regarded as something it's all too easy to get a campaign to generate, and consequently emails are easy to discount and do not carry nearly the same weight as the volume of physical mail and telephone calls. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would just like to point out the Wikipedia should not lose non-profit status, as I understand it, unless it endorses specific candidates. Issues advocacy is fine. That's why we don't tax the Mormon and Catholic churches for their anti-gay advocacy. --Quintucket (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support. Any political action—which make no mistake, this is what this protest boils down to—is the equivalent of swinging the big stick for us. Doing a half-assed swing of the stick removes the power inherent in the Wikipedia community taking a stance on anything. As such, swing the stick all the way, with a full global blackout. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)0

• I support a full blackout of most regular content, with the caveat that rather than just one screen of "here's what you should do" there be that *plus* a clickthrough to substantial amount of info on SOPA and related issues to be selected by an empowered panel of respected editors. Give frustrated ppl a chance to learn some things. (Full blackout makes the strongest possible statement & will be a wakeup call to the people of the world in what looks to be a historic year of global activism and global debate.) Praghmatic (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support a variety of this where the link to click though is hidden in the description of SOPA & PIPA, forcing people to read this before looking at anything else. Jweisblat (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)— Jweisblat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• SOPA sucks. But years ago, because of firsthand experience with lobbying, I stopped believing that contacting Congresscritters really accomplished anything. The crooks have long since figured out how to make most of the public think their opinion matters, while actually doing whatever Congresscritters' paymasters tell 'em to do. They do a little dance with one chamber pretending to fight with another so that everyone can be seen to be appearing to be in support of popular causes, while actually legislating as they wish. The various black box voting exposes and my own election poll work have left me with the knowledge that we have a system that is fairly easy to rig, and even that some specific elections have been rigged (because the riggers made a mistake, resulting in evidence showing that the elections were rigged). I Support a global blackout, only if the blackout page encourages protest and direct action. Merely contacting Congresscritters is not the action it should push. Thanks to Citizens United, even foreigners can funnel unlimited money into US elections. We need to Fix Congress First --W☯W ^t/c 06:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, I wish there was some way to use this horrible bill as an example to get at the ROOT of the problem, Congressmen getting their info from the lobbyists who fund their campaigns. If we don't mention this then I fear Viacom will just craft another crazy bill and slip it to Congress while we are still weary from this fight. Lansey (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Users outside of the US should be given details on how to contact both their nation's ambassador to the US and the US ambassador to their nation or, in the event such a person does not exist for their nation, the national representative most like an ambassador to the US and the national representative most like a US ambassador to their nation. It would also be nice if we could provide a frozen version of our article on SOPA and a frozen version of all the articles it links to. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimmy Wales could read over the handful of versions of those articles posted around UTC noon the day before the action and select the least vandalized versions. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pages once clicked-through

Added since "click-through" seems to have traction.

In the event that users can click through and read normal pages, shouldn't the border or background of our pages be changed (via css) for the day? This would mean that visibility (separate from the banner) is prominent on every page read. Examples might be, a black background where text is not affected, or a fainter font, perhaps a modified logo or a prominent "Protest SOPA" button under the logo. But something. - FT2

Comment from WMF

This is not currently on the tech roadmap, and is not something we can allocate any resources to. If there's a community decision to do this, that's fine, if there are community resources to do it. But from the WMF side, I can not commit any resources to anything other than what we originally had on this page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support changing the borders, as a form of mourning or notice, and a reminder for people who were too busy to take action when they first saw the banner but just clicked through and went on with their tasks. --Trödel 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   I added Support/Oppose sections here, and moved your response up from Comments since it explicitly states that it's a Support vote. I hope that's OK, my apologies otherwise. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Support a soft blackout, along with any nondestructive changes in the appearance of pages that will not cause layouts to be rearranged (ie., scrambled), aside from possibly moving the content up or down. Dratman (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. This is a good point, assuming a soft blackout. Human nature being what it is, a lot of readers will impatiently click through, then have a "wait a minute, what was that?" moment, so if we do this at all, we should really make it easier for people to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. SupportI like the idea of having something on the page for the day after you click though the blackout. Etineskid(talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a pretty simple site css change that the community could do, or maybe just swap out the background image (the book texture thing in monobook) with a tiled [stop sopa] text that would appear behind the page.--Gmaxwell (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support A border edit seems like a good way of keeping the sustained (but background) attention of a user throughout the particular day whilst not impacting on the usefulness of the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Even though this is admittedly a crappy "vote-only" post, Support --Dial (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support. Support, make the borders or keep the logo changed. Instead of having the picture of the wikipedia founder begging for money, it should be a large "stop sopa" warning that links to the main notice page. Luna Ariya (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. Support changing the borders, background image or logo (all of which should be pretty easy, given WMF did not anticipate this proposal, so resources are severely constrained). I would strongly oppose making the text fainter or messing with fonts — accessibility (specifically colour contrast) should remain an important concern — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong support Not only will it raise awareness for it, but it would be nice to see a makeover of Wikipedia for once. DARK WIKIPEDIA! XD --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 16:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. Jamface1 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support yeah. this keeps the issue at the front. ... aa:talk 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. As suggested above: borders not fonts. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) (if not full blackout is implemented)

Oppose

1. (Soft) Oppose. While not strongly against this, I think the "blackout" page is a powerful gesture, even if click-through, and makes an unmistakable statement which should have a huge impact all on its own. Anything more than that is likely to be of greatly reduced value in terms of raising SOPA awareness (especially given much of the rest of the 'net will also be hammering that point home), and will probably serve only to antagonize — and possibly further alienate — those Wikipedians who are already uncomfortable with what we're discussing. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Soft oppose of modified border, for the reasons that FeRD gave. Strong oppose of faint fonts, colored backgrounds, etc., for the same reasons and because it is inconsiderate toward those of us with visual impairments. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'd support a faint modified border. However, nothing jarring. For the same reasons as Peter Chastain, I'd rather not be inconsiderate towards those with visual impairments. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. Not only would this be inappropriate, it would also look terrible. Besides, caching would ruin any attempt anyway, and leave users with a mish-mash of different CSS for the following month. Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Without explanation of the layout, this might be a very confusing element. Consider the case of a public library, where the Computer/IP might have already 'clicked trough' and the next person might be thoroughly confused about the layout. If implemented, would require to be bound to a banner that is not dismissible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above comments by Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation. No point telling Wikimedia Foundation to do something that they don't have resources to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose. just do blackout! Dtyger (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Annabel (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Far weaker than a blackout. Denis Kasak (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose. This would almost defeat the whole purpose. —Entropy (T/C) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not entirely sure how I feel here. I'm all for a Wikipedia stance against SOPA, and for a visible show of support/solidarity with the greater movement across the Internet, especially on the January 18 action date. However, given that there are a significant number of Wikipedians who are uncomfortable with this action (as the body of responses on this page clearly indicates), I want to be respectful of their views as well. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Date of the action

One suggested date is January 18, 2012, which is the date around which the internet appears to be gelling for action. Other dates are possible. Do you support the January 18, 2012 date?

Comment and explanation from WMF

I was asked why the 18th should be the date. The conventional thinking among those on the Hill who were following SOPA a week ago was that the mark-up hearing would be scheduled for the 18th. However, we should understand that, given how politicians have recently reacted to the converging opposition to the bill (as evidenced in the recent news articles and White House blog), we cannot guarantee that the hearing will take place on that date since all variables seem to be in flux. The recent political maneuvering and statements, as the foundation of SOPA cracks on the Hill, might suggest that politicians may seek to avoid embarrassment and schedule the hearings for a later date. This is a community decision, but we believe that the 18th still represents the date when the tech players will converge to protest this proposed legislation and that our participation on the 18th would be furthering important momentum against the legislation. I will ask that someone from our team post a list of known sites to the talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I support this cause, however, I would like to see us also include PIPA as part of the reason for the blackout. Jamms (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support My site's going down, too. Let's all go together. SLWatson (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Solidarity in the tech community is helpful for the cause. Geoff (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Per other websites. Phearson (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support, to coincide with other sites protest action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support, best to time this with other sites' protests for the greatest impact. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Mass action is better than scattershot actions across the web. Multiple sites going down or taking this action together will have a greater impact on the general public. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Rschen7754 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Rapid action is critical, while we still have an opportunity to influence the bill. The 18th gives just adequate time to assess consensus; it is a happy coincidence that it also matches other sites. Dcoetzee 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
13. This seems to be the date that has a rough consensus among other sites (e.g., Reddit will have a blackout that day).--Ragesoss (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Jan 18th to coincide with other sides including reddit (and minecraft!). Later dates to coincide with specific congressional timeframes will be less effective. The idea is to both mobilize users and push the news cycle. Reddit and friends going black will get the tech press talking but they have been going on about SOPA for months. We want the regular press to take notice and for that we need a coordinated blackout. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Whatever date makes the most sense for coordinated action, but 24 hours should be the maximum if we do a blackout. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
17. We need to show solidarity with Reddit and other protesting websites and businesses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Yes. Best time. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Agree to January 18t. Coinciding with date of other blackouts will increase the overall profile of the action. Ironlion45 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Jan 18. SarahStierch (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support Maplebed (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. --Teukros (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. Sends a message of massive opposition to the bill on the day when experts from the internet/tech community will be testifying to Congress. Amplifies the actions of other websites such as Reddit. Early enough to impact the language of a bill well before an undesirable version comes to a vote. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
25. I support this date, if WMF deems it the most effective (because of the Reddit blackout). But I think the WMF should be empowered to change the date if events on the ground change suddenly. We might need to move quickly in such a case. First Light (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support --Vituzzu (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
29. I would prefer that it runs 17th-19th, because Occupy Congress starts on the 17th. Selery (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support I support this date if other sites who may join are also on board with it. Many internet giants have voiced potential support. Now I don't know how much we can rely on Facebook, Google/youtube, Amazon, Ebay and the such to follow though. However sites like Reddit, Tumblr, Imagur, Photobucket, ect I assume would gladly go along, so a consensus with their leaders should at least try to be reached. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support, but I think banners should be used leading up to the blackout to try and initiate action prior. The 18th may be too little time to achieve the end result of "kicking people into action" otherwise. Veled (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
33. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Support This is the day a lot of sites are doing things as well, so if we're going to act we should do it then. The internet should rally against this in unison, it will make us much stronger. — DfizzleShizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
35. Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support blacking out multiple sites at once has a greater effect --Jon889 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Solidarity w/ other sites will make for greater impact.--JayJasper (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support jfeise (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Sooner is better. --DrCruse (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Blacking out at the same time will have a more profound effect. --Schwern (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support the coordinated date. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
44. Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Sarah 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Orashmatash (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support, Robin klein (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support We're strong, and our project is important, but the internet community is stronger together Gmaxwell (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Support for a coordinated endeavor (18 January 13:00 UTC to 19 January 01:00 UTC), though if the Foundation finds another date would be more effective, that should be done. Banners can (and probably should) last a bit longer than the blackout. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
50. Support --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support January 18 seems like a good, strategic date to get the most attention for this. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
53. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Support --Revelian (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support A coordinated effort is the best shot we have at this raising awareness. -anabus (Talk to me) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Support KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
57. Support haha169 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support TNL (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Support The total blackout will send the strongest message to the public. The date of the 18th is best because it demonstrates a unified front from the internet activist groups. Other groups will be going down on this date. (edit) P4lm0r3 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Sounds like an appropriate day, but it's rather soon considering that we are just now discussing this. Hopefully Wikimedia can get everything in place by that date without any major issues. Still, if you're right it will be very well timed. Jessemv (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Support for at least the first stage of action. Here's hoping it will also be the last. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support TotientDragooned (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Support sontuk96 Sontuk96 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support Same hours as Reddit and the Cheezeburger network. A unified effort among many websites has more impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Steevithak (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
69. Support There's no way we can agree on another date in this forum. It's best to follow reddit's date. .froth. (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
70. —WFC— 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support All websites participating in the strike need to all stick with the same date, making it hit hard for browsers activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support upstateNYer 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Support Most effective when coordinated with other efforts. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
74. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support -- Snackshack100 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - Jan. 18th
76. Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Monowi (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Sonicsuns (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
79. support for maximum impact. sonia♫ 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
80. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
81. Support --Cybercobra (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support - to better build solidarity, which seems to increase effectiveness of action. Dkreisst (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Commander Ziltoid (speak) 09:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support The 18th of January in solidarity with other sites. It will be more powerful if internet users encounter SOPA blackouts multiple times on the same day.
87. Support Solidarity has greater impact. Of course, I would also support further action if the legislation progresses. Kainosnous (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support We take a stand with the rest of the Internet community, or not at all. (Not to say the action can't extend beyond the 18th, in either direction — but that date should be the focus.) Fracturing the opposition in any way does more harm than good. FeRD_NYC (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Support - In line with other sites for maximum impact. CT Cooper · talk 12:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Stand with Reddit! 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
92. ~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk

    Support. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

    I am advised by a 'bot, acting on behalf of a consensus of administrators, that my responses to this RfC are inapplicable or unclear. Whereas my response to the above captioned proposition represents my best effort to communicate my position on that specific proposition, and whereas it has been deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking it and withdrawing from this RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

93. Support and Follow Reddit - Don't miss a golden opportunity to bring about the highest possible impact, given this is really happening Internet-wide. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Support assuming the technical issues can be resolved by then --Trödel 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support. The most effective date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Support For a stronger message. Albacore (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
97. Support This would be essential in allowing everyone to understand about SOPA and PIPA.
98. Support Jujutacular ^talk 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Support. Carlsmith (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Support Absolutely. Solidarity!
101. Support The other geeks are counting on Wikipedia to help make a HUGE statement. 11:23am US Central Time (Nebraska)
102. Support - Symbolic protests work because they concentrate public attention on an issue. This implies a unified moment of newsworthiness — something the anarcholiberals of Occupy [YOUR TOWN HERE] never grasped. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Support --Voyager (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Coordination is the key to success.
104. Support killemall22 (talk)
105. Support – It would be more symbolic on that date than any other. — madman 18:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
106. Support - Taketa (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
107. Support - Okeekobee (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
108. Support January 18th this the best day because it coincides with other blackouts. Imagine what it would be like to go to your computer to open Wikipedia, but it is down. Then you go to Reddit, but that is also down. Then you go to any Cheezburger site like FailBlog or Memebase, but they are down. Drivec (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
109. Support Bearian (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
110. Support The sooner, the better. But... Why just 24h? I don't use wikipedia every day. I would feel okay with going on blackout for a week. Jurjenb (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
111. Support, provided that the other sites continue to use January 18th as well. Ojchase (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
112. Support, I support the date, but to really make an impact, a long-term black should be considered. Perhaps the Week of the 18th, or until the 1st of February would really hit home how bad things would be with SOPA/PIPA. TEG (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
113. Support I agree with this date. Etineskid(talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
114. Support By using the same date as other sites, we can maximize our impact. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
115. Support Everyone else is doing it on that date eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
116. Support. Logical date choice. -SharonT (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
117. Support - Coinciding with other blackouts seems like the best thing to do, to further show the effect that SOPA may bring. - SudoGhost 00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
118. Support If the entire net does this at the same time, there will be a CLEAR message to the population at large. Fieari (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
119. Support Solidarity is best. Whatever date the other websites blackout would be the best, but if that doesn't work, whatever date the hearing occurs, would be my second choice 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
120. Support Supporting January 18th as a date of solidarity and unison with a full blackout starting January 18 at 00:00 +14 and ending January 19 at 00:00 -13 (so every time zone experiences it for a full period rather than it ending, for example, at 1900 -0500 GMT because of Wikipedia's default time settings). I also support an extended Blackout if necessary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
121. Support, considering a crapton of other sites are doing it on the 18th. Lonewolf9196 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
122. Support jkv (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
123. Support Besides solidarity with the tech community, this would give readers a clear date that they would be without Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is such an important resource, giving users some specific notice would be ideal. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
124. Support Jan 18th --Juusohe (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)— Juusohe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
125. Support --La Corona (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
126. Support. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
127. Support Jane (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
128. Support. Keep the momentum going Andrew (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
129. Support. Use the same date as other sites, maximise the effect the protest will have on all of the people that depend on information Luna Ariya (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
130. Support A day of global actions by all the open-source web --Barbaking (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
131. Support Xjmos (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
132. Support. R.D> (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
133. Support. As an English Wikipedia user living outside of the United States, I support this blackout. R.D> (talk) 7:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
134. Support. --Blogotron (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
135. Support The date is fine. The hours don't seem to be clearly defined, though: which time zone is being used? Try to coordinate the time zone with the other protesters, or block it down while it is 18 January 2012 anywhere in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
136. Support Coordinating with other sites that are taking a stand is really important, and increases the news hook across a wider range of media segments. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
137. Support. Oneiros (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
138. Support. --FoeNyx (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
139. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
140. Support. Andrewmc123 13:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
141. Support. The message is stronger if coordinated with others. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
142. Support. Use the same date as other big sites, like Reddit, which is January 18, 8AM to 8PM EST (Eastern USA). http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
143. Support strength in numbers. Huon (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
144. Support conditionally. If indeed other technical sites protest on the 18th, we should join them. If the hearings change, and so does the date of other protests, well, it depends on who and how many. --Quintucket (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
145. Support. Jcaraballo 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
146. Support. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
147. Support This won't just affect Wikipedia. We can't stand apart. Eshade (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
148. Support As someone already said: "best to time this with other sites' protests for the greatest impact".Ne0Freedom 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
149. Support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
150. Support. ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
151. Support. I think it should be at the same time other major sites do this, so 18th is a good idea imho --Mirrakor (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
152. Support. Let's stick with others, and if needed, we can always do it again later :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
153. Support. --Krischan111 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
154. Support. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
155. Support. --Konero26 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
156. Support Concerted action is better than scattershot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
157. Support, Use the consensus date, January 18, 8AM to 8PM EST (Eastern USA) --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
158. Support. Of course there will be negative effects. Those negatives pale in comparison to the chilling effect of this legislation. Tiderolls 19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
159. Support - ctzmsc3|talk 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
160. Support --Tino 032 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
161. Support solidarity with other sites shutting down on the 18th. gobonobo ^{T C} 20:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
162. Support solidarity is the best approach here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
163. Support solidarity, per others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
164. Support. Pratstercs^{Talk to me} 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
165. Support My site's going down, too. Let's all go together. computerkidt 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
166. Support.Is a good date. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
167. Support --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
168. Support Go big or go home. Jan 18 is a fine day to act.
169. Support. CristoperB (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
170. Support. Nubzor (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
171. Support. Support Global downtime in unison with other major sites; reddit is set for January 18, 8AM to 8PM EST. The impact will be most powerful with multi-site collaboration. Cr1632 (talk)— Cr1632 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
172. Support Create the greatest impact. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
173. Support. Ltr,ftw (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
174. Support. It's going to be MUCH more effective when multiple websites/ companies shut down at the same time. SRWikis (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
175. Support big and small websites are going down on this date. Only makes sense to join them then. Swarm ^X 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
176. Solidarity FTW! Master&Expert (Talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
177. Support HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
178. Support Starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
179. Support Always someone wanting to put limits on someone else. Enough is enough! Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
180. Support -- going down on this date will have a HUGE impact, since many other sites are going down too (: — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
181. Support Sounds good to me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
182. Support A unified front seems best to me. Harlequin (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
183. Support. Staging the blackout on the same day as fellow high-volume site Reddit will certainly multiply the protest's effectiveness. I only hope more interested parties (e.g. Facebook, Yahoo) will sign on in time. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
184. Support. Dtyger (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
185. Support. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
186. Support. L33tCh (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
187. Any date is fine. Coordination with the other major sites is better than doing it independently on a different date. In this spirit I support the 18th as I support any other date. Hans Adler 08:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
188. Support. A coordinated blackout with other popular websites will have the maximum impact. Although I think we should also have a one or two more blackout days to act as a reminder. Possibly the initial one is a full blackout, the others only soft blackouts. Maybe a banner up for a week- we should remind users, one way or an other. --Lerikson (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
189. Support. MarlinMr (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
190. Support. Dimtsit (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
191. Support. PoizonMyst (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
192. Yep. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
193. Support. Everyone should go down together for strength of impact. The date is already chosen and there's no reason to change it. Denis Kasak (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
194. Support. My site is already down in support. and will stay down until the 19th. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.219.233 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
195. Support match other sites for maximum impact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
196. Support. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Full day, full black-out. Maybe it can extend to another day.
197. Support. It needs to be coordinated with other websites; I've heard the 23rd as a date floated (in advance of a vote on the 24th). If the 18th can serve as a coordinated date, great - but check with other top-ten Internet sites first. --WBTtheFROG (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
198. Support. Of course -i should have supported here too. A full blackout for 24h, along with many other sites, seems the most effective way to go about it. benzband (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
199. Support. 76.98.132.65 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
200. Support. I think this is a great idea. —Entropy (T/C) 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The long-term political safety of Wikipedia could be endangered. Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy with U.S. public radio, whose effectiveness as an information medium was severely impacted, beginning in the 1980s, by politicians seeking revenge against an organization perceived to oppose certain policies and viewpoints. I am strongly in favor of protest against these terrible bills by individuals and by other organizations which are not constrained to provide a neutral point of view. I am also mindful of the successful policy of political non-involvement adhered to for many decades by Alcoholics Anonymous and related groups, which, like Wikipedia, are non-hierarchical, as a key organizational principal, not because of some theoretical or ideological concept, but because the task of the organization cannot be effectively performed in a top-directed manner. I may be wrong, and I do not take a dogmatic or unyielding position on this question, but I beg those participating in this decision to consider the risk versus the reward. Wikipedia is a global project, which cannot be thwarted by any one country, but its operation could be impeded within one country's borders. Since political advocacy is not the purpose of Wikipedia, why should it become an advocate? Dratman (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
   • Public radio's vulnerability is that it was (and is) very strongly funded by the government (and still is today via the CPB). Wikimedia is not, and avoiding the risk of that kind of influence has been a long term component in the fundraising strategy.

     That is why I pointed out in my original comment that the analogy was imperfect. It was exactly that, an analogy. Your argument shows that Wikipedia is less vulnerable than NPR. However, political foes do not necessarily restrict themselves to de-funding. They might try to pull the nonprofit status.

     We're immune to political pressure-- our nonprofit status isn't going anywhere. If SOPA passes, we'll have to pull servers out of the US anyway (or worse)-- we owe it to our lawmakers to help them understand the gravity of this threat. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Wikipedia is global— but today US law is uniquely compatible with our mission. For example, we would have to be a very different project in the UK (unflattering statements reliably produce successful libel litigation, no protection for ISPs in that area), in Canada and much of Europe (well meaning but poorly constructed anti-hate speech laws prevent writing factually about some opinions). In past analysis, nowhere came as close as the US in terms of public policy that promotes our mission, and we have a large number of common allies here who depend on the same protections under the law. A reduction of those freedoms would not kill Wikipedia, but they would be terrible indeed. Moreover, Wikipedia depends on other sites all over the world having the freedom to publish in order to use those sites as citations. Wikipedia cites Wikileaks in over 1000 articles. If it became unlawful to do so that would terribly degrade the projects, or even if we moved to avoid the law and simply a large portion of our readers/editors lost access to the citations.

     Your paragraph above seems to support my contention that U.S. political interference is a serious potential threat. Possibly I was not clear. I mean to say that, although the U.S. doesn't control everything, nevertheless any sanctions imposed by the U.S. government could be potentially very disruptive, and therefore the organization should refrain from provoking certain elements in the government who can be vengeful without regard for the consequences of their demagoguery.

   • Your argument with respect to WP:NPOV was countered quite thoroughly on Jimmy's talk page discussions: Yes we use NPOV to write our articles, but Wikipedia itself, the idea of people having free access to knowledge of all kinds which is assembled by the same people without officially appointed curators, is a very radial and non-neutral thing. The very idea of NPOV as a goal and golden standard is itself quite radical and more or less incompatible with the ideologies strongly held by many millions of people. This project exists because of many strong principles, strong principles which we must stand up for if the project is to survive. This fact is not diminished in the slightest by our equally strong belief that we should put those principles aside when we write and edit the project's articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

     My use of the term NPOV was intended to be suggestive. I understand that Wikimedia's public positions and actions are not bound by that principal. Preceding unsigned comment was left by Dratman (talk)

     The distinction between articles and a Wikipedia official position, expressed on interstitial pages and banners, will be lost on many, perhaps most, readers. Moreover, if the blackout page links to other pages, will those be articles or more editorial pages? Jimbo can make public statements and highly visible appearances before congress. Wikipedia can tell us how to contact our representatives, but for it to tell us what we should say to them is a violation of NPOV. Let all of the pages linked by the blackout screen be educational, with NPOV analysis of how SOPA will affect Wikipedia. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Additionally, public radio took stands on things that were unrelated to public radio. Taking a stand on an issue that relates directly to wikipedia's continued existence is much different --Trödel 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. .. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. No point in demonstrating during the bill mark-up. It should be done before the date if at all. Kansan (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I believe the mark-up has been postponed til after the 18th now. Kaldari (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as above. This action is contrary to rational self-interest of WMF and Wikipedia
5. I consider 2 days of discussion too little to make a decision of this significance. Most of the other discussion has been fairly fragmented and also mostly of a general nature, and not always well advertised and it seems clear interest died down for a while so I don't think we can read any clear consensus from any older dicussion. (BTW I've been monitoring this discussion on and off. While I never actually mentioned it, I've always felt anyone developing a concrete plan should allow at least 1 month from first proposal to planned implementation.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Strongly Oppose Lovibond (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think it could have negatively repercussions for reasons already stated in above vote. Mugginsx (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Per Nil Einne. Lagrange613 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose As an operator of a Web site that legally provides copyrighted content, I have been quite eager to research SOPA and PIPA. There is little more than hysterical hype coming from the anti-SOPA camp and Wikipedia shouldn't get swept up into it. The Obama Administration has come out against against SOPA and PIPA for rational reasons and if Wikipedia wants to act rationally themselves they will adopt the Administration's stance on the issue, rather than succumb to the hysterical mob filling this page. Besides, Wikipedia would be violating its NPOV policy if it openly advocated a political cause on its site. DJProFusion (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose We should not get involved in political action, and stick to NPOV. Teun Spaans (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not true - see here, for example. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not acting could lead to the end of an impartial Wikipedia, which is far worse then a non-profit status (although I wonder how this status can be lost, worst-case scenario is that tax-cut slips cannot be given anymore). Jurjenb (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia has not and should not participate in the game of politics. WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. While I do feel SOPA is an absolutely horrible idea that will be of little benefit, by getting involved we only hurt ourselves. There is little to gain through any participation across the Wikimedia projects. If anything, it will only hurt the users of Wikipedia while having little to no impact on the decision making in regards to SOPA. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Intelligently oppose - Wikipedians have to deal with political games, especially if they are not in their interest. But the English Wikipedia is neither African, British, Irish, Canadian, or Indian in what sense however, and certainly not US (for political reasons, of course, not because I am denying the participation of US-Americans)!!! We have to protect the interest of all authors here, and I suggest that wikipedia has to work out its own copyright and censorship policy with prudence and not in haste (see my suggestion below).Platonykiss (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You might want to read Info for those who think US policies don't have an effect on other countries before making so-called "intelligent" statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurjenb (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Strong oppose. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to protest on this particular date, rather than the (far more relevant) date of the vote, or (even better) the day the law comes into affect (if it's even passed). Modest Genius ^talk 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The timing is to coincide with other sites doing the same thing at the same time. Coordination will help the media realize the size of the threat. Waiting until after it passes will be waiting too late-- the earlier we protest, the easier it will be to dissuade congress from supporting this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, protesting something after it comes into effect or at around the same time is pretty backwards logic. The point of petitions, protests, ect is to stop something terrible from happening in the first place. If it does happen, then you keep on protesting it.TheMadcapSyd (talk)
    • That would be like... Waiting sure your house is completely burned down before calling the firefighters. We need to act while we can still try to change the outcome! Jurjenb (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I assume by "day" we mean 00:01 EST to 23:59 HAST? James F. (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

By day, they mean from 12:00am Wednesday to 12:00am Thursday Eastern Standard Time. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is perfectly fine. --Konero26 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. All the other sites are going down on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like all the other sites. Wikipedia is a massive, worldwide source of information. Shutting it down for a short period of time-that would only affect readers in a limited range of timezones-is not the way to go. A full, global, 24-hour blackout is. --Stealthy (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. Black out should be felt, not simply read in the news.--Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

• "The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this." - And you've studied how this demand would affect their tax status, I'm sure. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes.  :) Please see Geoff's comments at Wikipedia:SOPA#.22Lobbying.22_and_Government_Affairs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• WMF and Wikipedia should work with the legislative process, and not try to play the martyr. We are not Becket - and the Congress would listen to reasoned positions far better than to posturing here (popular as posturing is with some). I suggest that the obvious change to the legislation would be an exemption for all sites which have a "direct and active anti-copyright-violation process visible within the site" which would take all of ten minutes to get introduced into the legislation, and would avoid the "dramah" currently seen. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • FAQ on this subject here; note that several amendments to lessen the impact of the bill, including one exempting nonprofits, were already proposed by various congresspeople and shot down before the recess. It's a difficult process. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Many of us including myself don't consider this bill salvageable, even in principle. However, if we are forced to compromise, I agree that we should have some ideas about how we would alter the bill. I don't imagine your proposal would be accepted by the bill's proponents, since it offers an out for any site with any degree of legal oversight, no matter how inadequately skilled or staffed. In light of the fact that links to infringing sites are already illegal as contributory infringement, I would seek to exempt Wikipedia (and other sites) from being compelled to remove any content whatsoever, while still supplying a channel to request voluntary review and removal. Dcoetzee 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If all it takes is 10 minutes, why don't you do it? I'll pay you EUR 50 (which would come out at EUR 300/hour) if you achieve this. Not that it would make the law much better, but any improvement is worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • I have absolutely no standing with the WMF - and thus no ability to reasonably expect to be heard. Else I certainly would. I do know, moreover, that not talking will ensure that the bill is not changed. Did you talk to your local legislator about how legislation is written, by the way? At this point, there is almost a 100% likelihood of passage of SOPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My "local legislator", in so far as that concept is applicable to a mixed proportional election system, is Ingo Wellenreuther, possibly the most censorious member of the German Bundestag. I don't know if he has heard about SOPA, but I doubt he can do much about it. Indeed, you have no reasonable expectation of being heard as an individual. But collectively we all will be heard (if not necessarily heeded) if we go through with this protest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Alas for you then - but then SOPA has no actual direct connection with you, in that case. In the US, you will find most Congressmen (and women) handle a great deal of interaction with constituents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• What about timing? How long will we hold this? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Great question. I've added a poll on this above, Radiokid1010, please express your opinion there. Dcoetzee 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The WMF moved this to the talk page. Dcoetzee 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• One question that somewhat bothers me. I can see supporting this if the WMF were the initiating group - since yes, SOPA would affect all WMF projects, and thus is harmful. As I'm reading it, however, the WMF doesn't seem to be necessarily backing the idea but instead saying they'll support en.wiki if there is consensus for this action. From a political nature, this isn't the right message. I think I would be better behind the idea if WMF says "We want to black out en.wiki per SOPA in this manner, but only if there is consensus to do it"; they are sending the message with the support of the WP community (presuming consensus) which is a much stronger impact that us collective editors making the decision. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree more. What is stronger, the voice of millions or a few hundred? It has to come from the community. It's our future and our protest.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Except its not our servers - it's the WMFs. It would be akin to staging a rally in a private business that agrees to let you be there by effectively discouraging people from using that business otherwise. Yes, you the rally-er, are making a statement, but the private business is not. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The WMF is against the bill, and has spoken out against it, and is willing to support a protest; but project-wide action needs to come from the project. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Did any one manage to count how many websites selling counterfeit drugs, watches, and other products wikipedia links to? John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's one article that links to such a website: eBay. Dcoetzee 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • What is wikipedia doing linking to tat bazzar auctions, and why isn't eBay reacting to DMCA takedowns? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• As you can see here: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Initiative_gegen_den_SOPA#Europa_verhindert_SOPA_nicht:_Spanien, the spanish gouvernment passes an anti-piracy law only a few days ago. Perhaps we should coordinate our activities with the wikipedians internationally. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I my view we should do a banner and a blackout. The banner should describe the problem and announce the blackout a few days before the blackout. The blackout will be a few minutes before midnight and at one minute before midnight wikipedia will be switched on, with a new banner. In this way, the blackout won´t harm anybody, but it is something the public will notice. --Goldzahn (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that sentiment, if only because the real danger in SOPA is for international/URL-shortening domains, and the Chilling Effect the passage of a law like SOPA has on their ability to be accessible (both within their own countries and by the US) should other countries follow suit. Because of the nature of the internet, SOPA is everybody's problem. Veled (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• If conditions for Wikipedia become hostile, move the servers to another country. THAT would bring press coverage. If we start protesting one proposed law in one country, we will soon be drawn into all sorts of activism, I think it is better we do not start at all. Besides, how can a consensus emerge after such short time? Much of the wording above is POV. --Pgallert (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Moving the Servers to a country outside the US will make things worse! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Isnt it funny? The Author of SOPA Is a Copyright Violator :) -- Andreas Werle (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The SOPA article needs bringing up to a high and complete standard. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's something I learnt from it.wiki's strike, which I'm proud to bring you in support as a fantastic success we owe to the entire WikiWorld. First and foremost I learnt that Wikipedia is now definitely part of the Society, therefore its rights deserve respect and protection just like anyone else's rights. We have the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits; and we have the right to the protection of our moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which we are the authors. Sometimes it may happen that unexpectedly we need to be protected from laws that could put at severe risk the free exercise of our rights; but we are entitled to this free exercise by something which is undoubtedly more important and longlasting than a local national act. Well, Wikipedia, the first fully-free content provider in the World, cannot be damaged by any local national law. Of course an unsustainable damage occurs when substancially no antagonist human right would ever be equitably protected by the mere imposition of an undue interference on Wikipedia's contents. Furthermore, nowhere on the planet did any dictatorship go beyond a simple censorship of Wikipedia: in some Countries it is forbidden to access wikipedia.org, but even in those Countries there isn't any law issued to influence Wikipedia's contents. In Italy there was an attempt, recently, but Wikipedia is the first fully-free content provider in Italy too, and when its voice was heard, it was the voice of this wonderful Project. No one is sufficiently entitled to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms granted us by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We still are in the Society to participate in the cultural life of the community, it won't be by local national laws that we will stop doing it. We are building together the hugest literary work ever written in history, and we are doing it to give every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
  Be proud of this, be bold for this, be Wikipedian for all those who need free knowledge! ;-) --g (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Everyone has the right to the protection of the … material interests resulting from any … production of which he is the author. Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 27. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This includes Wikipedians - protect our work ;-) --g (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I will completely support any action that our Collegues from the United States will identify as the most effective to protect the Project. In case you think a full blackout would be the most helpful form of protest, I am for the full blackout. Or for whatever might you think is the best for the Project. Personally speaking I would tell you that, should you believe that blanking completely WP, not only en.wiki, you have the right to do it. One is the Net, one is the Project, what happens to en.wiki happens to the whole Project, which is something in the Net. I am asking for indications by our friends in the U.S. because they directly know which could be the best strategies to develop there, and I am not voting for this reason. But from outside, I can only say that I am with you at whatever extent ;-) --g (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely, this should be world-wise. This has directly effect on all of us. So the world pressure = better than just the USA.Pendragon5 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• International users who seem to believe this wouldn't affect them are taking a very narrow view. As the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the USA, any SOPA issues would affect ALL USERS. And contrary to popular belief, outside pressure can be very effective in altering legislation in any country. The threat of action from many of the major sites has already turned quite a few lawmakers off of supporting the bill. Keep it up and force more legislators to closely examine the bill and IT WILL fail. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not blackout, but blacklist (that is, block all SOPA supporters)

As per a section of my user talk page, I would definitely support a protest, but not a full blackout. Instead, it would be nice to use a blacklist (preferably in the MediaWiki namespace to essentially give all SOPA supporters (and organizations of supporters) on the blacklist who try to access Wikipedia a 403 error. Basically, they censor us, we censor them. Hopefully some of us agree. Kenny Strawn (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think this would be possible. How do we identify the SOPA supporters? The corporate supporters of the bill? And when (the ones that have since withdrawn support)? And we block their IP ranges? That could very well be huge swathes of the Internet, collaterally damaging many users who strongly oppose the bill. (e.g. I edit from a GoDaddy IP, but I'm in no way affiliated with GoDaddy and I in no way support the bill.) — madman 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this would constitute irreconcilable hate, which I am against. People can be idiots, but they can stop being idiots too. Punishment provides no reward for becoming sensible, and in fact causes a desperate hard-line defensive to emerge that can be difficult or impossible to crack. No, this suggestion would do more harm than good, however much we dislike the people behind it. They will see the light only if you open the door. Badon (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

- Blackout (limited time) and blacklist (permanently) all SOPA supporters, such as sponsors of the bill, effective immediately, related article would show congressman's name, district, photo, and message "This person is permanently barred from Wikipedia". --SergeM256 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)— SergeM256 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Strongly oppose, since that would be discrimination. Besides, it's hard to identify supporters and opposers (and they'll have their ways to get around it). Besides, this doesn't contribute to creating awareness under all Wikipedia users. I support full blackout. Jurjenb (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Strongly disagree. Blacklisting specific users from accessing the wiki by IP address? That just spells disaster. False positives abound. And how could you tell? Even if you could identify SOPA supporters, I must disagree. --Stevoisiake (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. A blacklist is a bad idea, both because it goes against our core mission, and because there will be a backlash. Wikipedia is a resource for all, not those whose opinions we agree with. Superm401 - Talk 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Blackout will show people what censorship is. But for a day, or two. This is another thing to ban every SOPA supporter. Even if I strongly condemn this act anyone can have its own opinion. We must not resort to means that we fight against, else we impose them without knowing it.
5. Strong Oppose I have never hear a worse idea in my life. Blocking companies and people because you disagree with their political stance? Sounds like something that happens in China and Iran. TJ Spyke 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why bother?

I honestly don't have the energy to spell out, again, all the reasons this is a bad idea. It's pretty clear from the way this idea is being shopped between Jimbo's talk page, the (still open) RFC at the village pump, and WP:SOPA and its subpages that the proponents are determined to tire out the opponents and ram this down the community's throats, with the encouragement of the Foundation, irrespective of the actual status of the bill, and regardless of counterarguments. Anyone who's actually interested in deciding whether Wikipedia's the right place to do something like this can read the RFC linked above. I doubt very much that many of the support !voters here will bother to do that, since judging by their contribution histories a great many of them are users rather than editors of this encyclopedia, likely drawn by the banners. Rehashing the opposing arguments here will only provoke lectures about the values of this community by politically motivated fly-by-nighters who've done next to nothing to build content, and I'm just so not interested. Especially since, like I said, this seems likely to happen no matter what anybody says or does. This will be a different place after we do this. We'll still be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" but also "Wikipedia, the crusading encyclopedia", expected to take stands in future debates. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering whether I will want to contribute to that encyclopedia. Lagrange613 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too...I TOTALLY AGREE with your sentiment. GenQuest (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It just so happens that unless there is a crusade, the corporations in the US will sue Wikipedia if anyone happens to upload copyrighted content, then the wikimedia foundation will be pushed to restrict users even more reducing the quality of wikipedia and disrupting its growth to probably a level where it will no longer be "the free encyclopedia". So in answer to your question "why bother?" because if you even want to continue being a "contributor" then you should. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Or just move the servers outside the US. Done. I agree that this reeks of forum-shopping - even the banner which has FINALLY appeared doesn't give anyone who isn't already in the know the impression that this could be as serious as shutting down the entire site for a day. Modest Genius ^talk 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I was asking "Why bother fighting this in yet another forum", not "Why bother blanking the encyclopedia". Lagrange613 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I read them, and re-read it just now. The process has been pretty standard. An idea is mooted on Village Pump or Jimbo's talk page, there seems some (or considerable) interest informally in it, so it moves to its own page for more in-depth discussion. It gets supported or opposed, and changes may be made. Nothing unusual here at all in terms of process, no evidence of anyone being "tired out". If there was a much larger view against, it would show up above. It hasn't. If you want an example of a really tooth-and-claw RFC look at the many RFCs surrounding flagged revisions/pending changes. Apart from its subject matter, this one's actually boringly routine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your other point deserves a thoughtful answer. I can't speak for anyone else but mine was in this reply at the WMF blog and this comment above. I hope they explain the reasons I (and perhaps some others) feel this is important for Wikipedia/Wikimedia and for our educational mission. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The above comment by Lagrange613 contains some very *cough* interesting arguments, starting with the POV section title. First there is the accusation that this is being "rammed this down the community's throats", ignoring the overwhelming consensus, then there is the elitist discounting of the opinions of those who read but do not edit Wikipedia, as if only the opinions of those who build content matter. Then there is an accusation that community input is being ignored ("this seems likely to happen no matter what anybody says or does") which is rather ironic, given the explicit rejection of consensus that precedes it. Then there is the claim that Wikipedia will be "expected to take stands in future [political] debates", ignoring the fact that this particular bit of politics is a clear threat to Wikipedia, and lastly there is the threat to stop contributing if he doesn't get his way. I don't find any of these arguments to be particularly compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This entire effort is POV; if you object to users contributing to this discussion based on their personal POV, then you're on my side. I do think that people who participate here regularly and are more familiar with what's actually done here on a daily basis should have more say in questions of what Wikipedia is about fundamentally, which is what this is. You can call that elitist if you want, but as I've written before you're opening the door for Bill O'Reilly to change Wikipedia by getting 1% of his nightly audience to register accounts. Wikipedia's Alexa rank is 6; every bill about the internet concerns us. Finally, I'm really not threatening to leave, just expressing my level of sadness and frustration with this, uh, process. It may cause me to leave, but that shouldn't influence anyone's decision; whether it could cause many other content-driven rather than politics-driven editors to lose interest probably should. Lagrange613 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Long term editors and contributors have even more of themselves vested in the project, and in seeing it not put at risk by poorly drafted legislation. And even if the legislation is changing, speaking out against it in force will encourage it to change in a direction that will protect our efforts. --Trödel 15:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

my why bother, is - why allow the rent seeking activity of the congress, drive activity here? you do of course understand that this "issue", lobbyist written bill, is calculated to polarize, inflame, generate funds. this is how the political system exacts rents from productive society. i wonder if they also shorted isp's, (covering on backlash), and went long studios. clearly the isp's are not investing enough in political "investment". a better wiki would be serene, and have an off-shore contingency plan. British Virgin Islands anyone? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything Wikipedia does has got to be able to take into account last minute changes to SOPA. It is already reported that one of the founders of SOPA wanted to remove the DNS blocking provision. If it's out of the bill, Wikipedia could end up looking very foolish unless we carefully update exactly what our complaints are about the bill. It could even backfire if our page stresses a removed provision too much, making it look like we have few complaints with the rest of it. And any arbitrary part of the bill could be changed five hours before we go live with the anti-SOPA page. This is not to say we shouldn't do something, but we *need* to be *sure* that we can rapidly respond to changes. Also, this really needs to include Protect IP as well, not just SOPAKen Arromdee (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. The official reports I can find all say that the sponsors has said they will concede "postponing" only (not removing, much less "wanted to remove") one part of the protested issues.... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but my general points are still valid:

1) "SOPA" should include at least Protect IP as well. We don't want readers to think that Protect IP is okay as a substitute.

2) We need to be responsive to last minute changes. We're going to look very foolish if something about SOPA changes on the 17th (or has changed now but many of us don't realize it) and the blackout page says that SOPA is a bad idea because of some part of it that's not in there any more. 208.65.89.236 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you really accuse something of being forum shopped for its benefit when it finds more or less overwhelming support in every forum it shows up in? If anything I think you could only argue that if there were shopping here it would be shopping for a forum which didn't support it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

At the RFC I linked it's gotten about 70% approval, or the bare minimum we insist on for appointing an administrator. We're talking about taking down the encyclopedia, which in my view requires a higher bar of support. Many of the support !votes above are SPAs or don't indicate the reasoning behind their support. So while it certainly gets majority support in the various fora in which it's appeared, this is not (supposed to be) a vote. Lagrange613 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good evening Wikipedia. Allow me first to apologize for this commentary. I do, like many of you appreciate the comforts of every article without the input of some user making it look biased. I enjoy that as any Wikipedian. But in the spirit of conversation, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with some legislation or the end of some fruitless struggle in congress, a conversation about a nice law for the people, I thought we could mark this article, an article that is sadly turned into a forum let's take some time out of our daily editing to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being written by mail, and men with more computers will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something wrong with this country, isn't there? Censorship, legislation, intolerance and oppression.

And where back in the 90s you had the freedom to link and post as you saw fit, you now have censor and a legislation of surveillance coercing your websites and requesting their dimission. How would this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you would do it. I know you don't know. Who would have? Huge media corporations, legal threats, consumerism, there are a myriad of ways to keep you ignorant, ways that conspired to corrupt your ability of knowing and rob you from your right to understand it. Congress got the best of you and in your ignorance the corporations turned to the now high congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX)

He promised them gains, he promised them control so the media could achieve in return the ability to sue you as they saw fit. Today we can end this promise, today we can stop the Stop Online Piracy Act so we can remind this world what it has forgotten. More than 30 years ago two great men developed the TCP/IP and embedded it forever in our computers. Their hope was to remind the world that communication, freedom, and innovation are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the legislation of this congress remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow this project page to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside the Wikimedia Foundation during a full blackout and together we shall give them a January 18th that shall never, ever be forgot. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

White House stance on SOPA et al

I received an email this morning from the White House regarding its answer to this petition on its We the People page. Here is their view on SOPA and related legislation. upstateNYer 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I give you an "A" for effort but the reply to you is so worded as to be for it and against it. Typical. Better off trying the Congressman, especially your own from your state, as well as the Committee on Judiciary. Mugginsx (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

President Obama can be commended for throwing us a bone. But the stark reality is that it's the Congress where we have to maintain our focus. SOPA/PIPA have to be stopped cold in the Congress at the earliest possible point, and whenever any of its embers get sparked again. In short, let's stay vigilant. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I just meant for that to be an FYI. Don't forget, he's the last step in the law-making process. upstateNYer 20:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama said that he was against NDAA 2012, yet he signed it and the power to detain US citizens indefinitely into law after a tiny modification. We can't depend on Obama and his veto powers. He, as with most other politicians, isn't dependable. Stay the course; sent a message to Congress via the blackout. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Michaeldsuarez's cynicism. However, the president's veto pen is an essential tool if we can muster support for our view of the matter within the administration. This White House response to a petition opposing SOPA identifies three key staffers, Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at the Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, the Chief Technology Officer of the United States and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff, operating in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. These are certainly among the key players in the White House on this issue. Obama himself is the key player. Of course, it would be best if Congress didn't pass SOPA. But we need to have a fallback position. If Congress forges ahead against our opposition, these three are the people we must speak to in order to have any hope that President Obama will veto this bill. Please, no matter what we decide here, be sure to speak directly to these three people, describing our opposition in a respectful and intelligent way. To ignore them would be a grave failure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we", and how can "we" reach these people with the likelyhood that we would be heard.

Per this morning's New York Times: " The Obama administration said Saturday that it strongly opposed central elements of two Congressional efforts to enforce copyrights on the Internet, all but killing the current versions of legislation that has divided both political parties and pitted Hollywood against Silicon Valley."[9] The White House's specific objection? "We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet." So Obama rejects the measure for the specific reason the community objects to it. The only way for this to become law is for big chunks of Democrats in the House and Senate to vote to override a Democratic President's veto in an election year—not gonna happen. It's over, and Wikipedia won. The only question now is whether we drop the stick. Lagrange613 18:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama also was against the controversial provisions in the NDAA but he still signed it into law, and almost every Democrat voted for it even under threat of a presidential veto. Reminder that on top of it the senate version, Protect-IP was introduced by a Democrat. Wikipedia/the internet didn't win crap yet, all they've done is postponed hearings and talked about possibly taking out the DNS part of SOPA(which even with that out SOPA is still terrible), but we know how congress acts. They could very easily just be hoping no internet blackout occurs, the hubbub dies down, and then they ram it through congress under the radar. We, the collective internet, need to show we're not playing around. It's finally starting to break through, yesterday for the first time I finally heard one of the big cable news networks do a report on SOPA despite their corporate owners being amongst the largest supporters of it. Let's have the internet give them a story to die for come the 18th.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — TheMadcapSyd

NDAA was a totally different animal. For one thing, it funds the Defense Department, so it was guaranteed to pass in one form or another. SOPA does not belong to the same class of politically "must-pass" legislation. Congress can't make laws, rammed through or otherwise, without the President getting a chance to veto, and he's already indicated he's against the very premise of the bill as written. Arguments that "we, the collective internet" (not we, Wikipedia) must take down the encyclopedia regardless of the bill's actual status demonstrate how far divorced this proposal has become from rationality and good judgment. Lagrange613 20:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA/PIPA Hearings Postponed

SOPA Delayed; Cantor Promises It Won't Be Brought To The Floor Until 'Issues Are Addressed' GOP lawmakers seek to postpone PIPA vote Should we continue with our planned blackout on the 18th?

• No Again I iterate that "making noise" is fun, but it is calm words with legislators which get things done. Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does the work - and for legislation, it is the grunt-work of negotiation which is the "lightning". Collect (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we should continue, they postponed it not because of kind words but because of massive outrage and the threat of an internet blackout by the giants of the internet. Stopping is exactly what they(in this case the lobbyist from the corporate media/entertainment industries) want us to do. Let the anger fade away, let the talk stop, ect, so congress can then ram the bill through under the radar. A protest that didn't inconvenience someone has never accomplished anything and has never had its message heard. The big cable networks have finally started doing reports on SOPA despite their owners being amongst the bill's largest proponents, they finally couldn't ignore it any longer given the amount of attention it has been receiving. So let us, the collective internet, give them a story to die for. The issue at hand is the message, most people of the general public still don't even know about SOPA and no one is going to read a stupid click-thru banner. Despite how terrible all of them may be, a large number of people still get their news from TV news stations and they're finally just starting to report on SOPA(and the reports I've seen are actually pretty fair). God you don't let off pressure when it looks like you're starting to win.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - Like the team leader in Star Wars exclaims, "Stay on target!" We absolutely have to go ahead with the 1/18 blackout so that Congress learns in no uncertain terms the will of the People and that we're not backing down. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Rep._Issa_has_postponed_the_January_18_hearings_on_SOPA as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. we should continue. Slight setbacks or removal of provisions is not enough. Please note that some of the information going around is inaccurate, particularly the magnitude of the setback: No, SOPA Is Not Dead Yet‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason why servers are located in the United States

Possibly because only the United States has Freedom of speech embedded in its Constitution? (Aside from the Foundation being located and chartered in the United States.) Even if SOPA passed and was found Constitutional, the US might still be the country in which the most freedom would be available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "only the United States has Freedom of speech embedded in its Constitution"!? um, no that is not true; many countries have constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech. as to how complete that freedom, or how well the freedom is enforced, the usa has neither the best, nor the worst record. Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Arthur needs to see the world a bit, indeed the US is not the only country that has freedom of speech embedded in the constitution. I would even say that the US respects freedoms less then in a lot of other nations. If SOPA passes, the Wiki servers should probably move to Europe. Maybe place them in the same basement as Wiki Leaks? Too bad for all the American users that will have to find their way around the copy of the Great Chinese Firewall that the US will implement, but at least Wikipedia will be safe for the rest of the world. Jurjenb (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If SOPA were to be enacted, the first problem that will create for us is the need to move our servers out of the US. The second problem will be that our US-editors and readers will be cut off from the ability to view those servers without filtration-- splitting off the US population from our main global community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Move it to Sweden! --J (t) 20:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what's taken out of both bills once the problems that have been addressed are taken out. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there might be something very helpful in focusing on moving to another jurisdiction. I think it could be very emotionally powerful if Wikipedia just mentioned the possibility that it would no longer be legal to operate in the US.

Why Sweden? I imagine Switzerland or the Vatican or the former Soviet Union as 'politically powerful' locations, but Sweden hasn't occurred to me. Do tell. HectorMoffet (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

iceland. [10] nevertheless, the contingency planning should begin now to move servers. there could be reach out to friendly jurisdictions. while the foundation may be more comfortable with florida law, there might well be better shields elsewhere. and open communication of the contingency plan with the community and congress. start with feelers, then mirror, with switch over capability. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, just do it! Passivity is death to the Wiki-movement. This is only the government's FIRST step. A law only opens the door. It does not limit the measures which may be taken in its name. REALIZE the States are only some millions, compared to the billions in the rest of the world. The government regards it as self-evident that they own and control the world. They still speak of "losing China", as though we had owned it once. Like it or not this battle will continue. I'm very gratified and impressed by all the work evidenced here. As for First amendments, etc. Its application is to message, not media----and web content has been denied protection before. Strive on, said Buddha.Idealist707 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After introducing SOPA, if You read the text, there is no legal option for not blocking Wikipedia. So why not just to take down on 18 January whole English wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Firstly I thought that SOPA is some joke, or law introduced in North Korea. But it was for me a big suprise that Americans(if You read U.S. constitution) introduce this. It will probably create for WHOLE USA own Internet, something similar to North Korea own Internet(they just move them only files from regular Internet that they want). Yes I known that taking down whole English wikipedia is a bad thing for English language native or not speakers, but if You don't make just an example for American citizens, then they will live even worse(because the ip blocks in China are covered by topic, not just one thing) than China Internet users now.

There is no legal option to not block Wikipedia, after that law imposed. As You see everything what will be treated in USA as a violation of law(for e.g. some countries have other laws about maximum author rights term or personality rights) would be blocked, even if have just a link to other language version. This is really like old Soviet block rights or North Korea today.

If for e.g. I will add to my friends on Facebook someone who I known at school, and he will post/publish some illegall in USA video, and my friend from USA would be at list, they don't only block publisher, but also me, all of my friends. And maybe friend in USA could also get an legal process. Just if we even make him on friends list, because I don't talk with him, from my school ending.

Like in Soviet block, or North Korea - if even one guy from family write "Kim Dzong ill is a b*******", they imprisoned whole family, and even friends had problems with law. Even if they only known him from school.

Please also note/write on this site of Wikipedia that this is similar more to North Korea Internet(the blocked list will be huge, and probably exclude rest of world) than even to China great firewall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.102.192 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Other suggestions

It's been mentioned that some folks might welcome the chance to provide a few general thoughts and alternate suggestions, mostly for discussion. Some of those suggestions might not play out directly to this action, but would give us ideas for advocacy down the road. JayWalsh (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since we are suppose to be BOLD, I suggest the "English Wikipedia" in USA goes "TRUE DARK" on January 1. By "TRUE DARK", I mean provide only a simple web page protesting SOPA and zero access to wikipedia content. One step back from this would be to lock-out everyone that doesn't have an account, and disable account creation during those "true dark" hours. I prefer the Reddit protest hours of 8AM to 8PM (EST), but I'll back shorter hours or an hour here and there if people thinks its too long. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Make it even MORE unavoidable and inconvenient. Random 5 minute periods of "TRUE DARK' throughout the day, several per hour. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that we mirror the actions of Reddit[11], the Cheezburger network[12][13], Minecraft[14], Tucows[15], and other websites[16][17] by blacking out the English Wikipedia worldwide on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC), replacing Wikipedia with a simple message. This is not the time to negotiate a bunch of details amongst ourselves that we simply cannot reach agreement on by January 18th.

If you agree, add "Follow Reddit" or "Reddit Option" to your vote above. If you disagree, add "Don't Follow Reddit" or "No Reddit Option" to your vote above. This will indicate that, in addition to your support of a specific proposal for, say, a US-only blackout, you either support or oppose following Reddit's lead as a second choice. If this is your first choice, vote below and add "second choice after Reddit option" or "second choice after following Reddit" to your above vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Jan 18 hearing on hill,[18]; [19] attend, then sit down in street; get arrested. should be $100 post & forfeit. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that this page will be flooded with people against SOPA, and there's probably going to be a "silent majority" of non-editors who are angered when the site goes down. So don't read too much into the votes. I think the WMF should just perform whatever office action it thinks is right, and not try to hold a kangaroo court for justifying its tough choice. (BTW I voted for the blackout!) .froth. (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• As a separate point, in the future I think it should be clear in the voting headers that people voting for a full blackout are also voting for a click-through, should the full blackout not be accepted. Then you don't have to deal with the "1 prefer 2" or whatever. .froth. (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• SOPA cuts both ways. Lawmakers need the internet community (and its free generous help) more than they seem to realize. I'd be interested to see discussion of a formal 24 hr block of House + Senate + other relevant IP ranges (supporting businesses?), to drive home this point: - that if lawmakers don't act nice, the internet community might decide not to either.

After all, if SOPA passes the pirates will just use other routes. But where will legislators find replacements for the sites they have come to rely upon for work, if sites freely providing services, decided to forbid lawmakers and their departments or offices using them? A formal 24 hr block notice for federal IPs might really make a few people think very hard about what the internet community gives freely and generously to all. It would certainly gain coverage of a different kind than "Lots of sites including Wikipedia shut down for a day". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (being controversial for the day and having been nudged to post this thought!)

Congress can hurt you far more than you can hurt it. Don't imagine you can play that game. And worse, such an idea would make Wikipedia into a political battleground far beyond anything that has ever been seen on it before. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I last heard that sort of reason not to oppose bad law during the civil rights movement. Without getting into politics, let's just say my own feeling is that the signals being sent are pretty strong (although you don't like those either), but stronger may be needed since this directly impacts our belief in free accessible knowledge and mass collaboration. I seriously doubt we (or anyone else) will get warred upon for a 24 hour block, much the same as people don't get warred on for supporting other parties or appealing federal decisions to the courts. If the law gives a right of refusal to provide a service, that's the law. I didn't notice any worries about legality of withdrawing services to protest other countries' policies doing harm, or against other laws in the U.S.. If you think it would be that significant, that's almost an argument you're advancing in favor. Either way the point should be made that the internet ecosystem isn't just the United States, nor is it obligated to abandon its sense of freedoms to harmful ideas. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe such an action would be needlessly inflammatory while serving no positive purpose. It would certainly undermine much of Wikipedia's positioning as a project which is not a political football (and make no mistake, that is what's going on here, and members of Congress are quite skilled in analyzing such situations). This would be risked for no significant reward. The backlash would likely be more disruptive than SOPA. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are far more worthy points than a mere "You'll get hurt if you protest". In the parlance, they "speak to the point". Thanks for that. The points you make are possibly accurate, or possibly not. One reason for the original post is so that these possible routes can have daylight and have those different perspectives considered.

There are times when it's best to stay silent (or "choose one's battles"), and times it's incumbent to speak up with as much force as can be found. A lot of times are in between. A concern with this legislation is it's a defining moment for the freedoms achieved through this medium. It's a defining moment when we say to other countries "follow our lead" and state clearly what our lead will be. It's a point where bad law is going to have a disproportionate effect and the people guiding it don't seem to appreciate that.

The hearings of December disparagingly and repeatedly referenced "nerds" - in fact some of those concerned are world famous names. It says a lot for the ignorance going on here. Hence it's worth suggesting how they may be helped to understand how seriously others they represent, are taking it. The internet ecosystem itself has the right to make clear its stances, and to add such pressure as it may hold, if it so chooses.

As a charity we have only a limited part in that. As a worldwide community with a mission of free knowledge and mass collaboration, and with specific interest in places where exactly this activity already takes place, where the very ecosystem that makes our work possible is at risk (and noting circumvention is federally funded and endorsed by human rights bodies where it does occur) - it's in our ballpark. Our editors, our readers, our mission, and the work of others in similar missions, are at risk from this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I find something appealing in the idea of a total blackout for legislative offices, because I suspect quite a number of legislators have no real conception of how much their staffs depend on internet services like ours for day-to-day operations, and this would open their eyes. However, targeted interference could easily engender hostility toward, rather than support for our cause. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am advised by a 'bot, acting on behalf of a consensus of administrators, that my responses to this RfC are inapplicable or unclear. Whereas my response to the above proposition represents my best effort to communicate my position on that specific proposition, and whereas it has been deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking it and withdrawing from this RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is really the most [messed] up "ballot" I've ever seen. Question 1 should have been: "Should there be action on SOPA?" — yes or no. Question 2 should have been — "If yes, should the action be taken on Jan. 18 or some other date?" Question 3 should have been — "If yes, which of these options should be employed? Please support only two." And they should have been listed simply, in logical progression of severity of impact. Group sourcing ballots is clearly something that doesn't work. Democracy good, structure good. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that more forethought into the structure would have been useful. I boldly instituted the multiple-choice structure for the first question because we had a bunch of people opposing for totally different reasons, and it was pretty confusing. I don't think your proposed structure would work though, because people opposed to a SOPA protest action would be upset by having questions they're "not supposed to answer" because they didn't answer "yes" to previous questions. For whatever reason, I think everyone wants to add their opinion to every question. Dcoetzee 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We're short on time and expertise. We don't have a month to debate the process. Even with it's deficiencies, we such such a clear consensus that even if the format of the ballot were changed, the result would very likely be the same. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So the idea is to oppose what is essentially censorship, by voluntarily shutting down? It would make more sense to remove all product and business references to new products sold by SOPA supporters for a fixed and lengthy period of time. A monetary impact if you will. And not accept their apologies or flip-flop on policy until the establish timeframe has completed.

Self-harm has a storied history as a mode of protest. .froth. (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is something immensely noteworthy about the fact that almost every supporter of the bill has placed their entire social marketing structure almost exclusively in the hands of strong opposers of the bill that are stated to be willing to consider a blackout. One has to wonder how long (say) Sony would endorse SOPA or PIPA if told that Google searches, Google+ site, Twitter feeds and hashtags, Facebook pages, Yahoo! searches, and the like for their business worldwide would not return results for 24 hours or as needed (with explanatory message as applicable) until they acted nice.

Google didn't need anyone's permission to remove matters it felt it didn't want in results, nor Google+ to remove profiles it didn't approve of, nor Twitter to block tweets. If a business feels SOPA puts their back against the wall, they may feel the risk is minimal. I suspect MPAA et al depend on these businesses and the internet rather more than these businesses and the internet depends on MPAA et al (especially faced with a business-model-breaking law in the aisles), and facing this as well as mass public protests, would re-evaluate their own best alternative resolution faster than the eye could follow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to link to the Wiktionary definition of SOPA, since it gives a very good understanding of what it is: "a piece of trash". --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I quote a hale and hearty colleague, and am in full agreement:

  I honestly don't have the energy to spell out, again, all the reasons this is a bad idea. It's pretty clear from the way this idea is being shopped between Jimbo's talk page, the (still open) RFC at the village pump, and WP:SOPA and its subpages that the proponents are determined to tire out the opponents and ram this down the community's throats, with the encouragement of the Foundation, irrespective of the actual status of the bill, and regardless of counterarguments. Anyone who's actually interested in deciding whether Wikipedia's the right place to do something like this can read the RFC linked above. I doubt very much that many of the support !voters here will bother to do that, since judging by their contribution histories a great many of them are users rather than editors of this encyclopedia, likely drawn by the banners. Rehashing the opposing arguments here will only provoke lectures about the values of this community by politically motivated fly-by-nighters who've done next to nothing to build content, and I'm just so not interested. Especially since, like I said, this seems likely to happen no matter what anybody says or does. This will be a different place after we do this. We'll still be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" but also "Wikipedia, the crusading encyclopedia", expected to take stands in future debates. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering whether I will want to contribute to that encyclopedia. Lagrange613 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry to leave out the Wikilinked things; the words are what matter the most. As I said, I am totally in agreement.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Missing the other huge prong Give a concise description of the situation and issues in a prominent place. (don't forget, 90% of even Wikipedians don't even know what SOPA is and what the problem is) And make it easy for the to write their congressman, senator and president to give their opinion. Blackout is good, but informing and facilitating action would be much more powerful. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why are the Wiki servers located in the USA anyway ? I know its probably more convenient in many ways, but there are many more internet-legislation-friendly countries to locate in, and thus freeing Wikipedia of some of the more pointless pieces of US legislation which they constantly have to look out for. Though SOPA seems to be a law that the US govt wants to extend to anywhere and anyone on the planet they have a beef with. The Yeti (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Changing the default skin to something SOPA-specific. I think we should send a signal, but responding to censorship with censorship is not the way to go in my view. Changing the default skin for not logged-in users could be done in a way that gets the message across. This could also work in tandem with banners or click-through. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How to protect wikipedia against copyright policies and censorship

Intelligently oppose to SOPA - Wikipedians have to deal with political games, especially if they are not in their interest. But the English Wikipedia is neither African, British, Irish, Canadian, or Indian in what sense however, and certainly not US (for political reasons, of course, not because I am denying the participation of US-Americans)!!! The problem is one ruled by an ill form of destroying the globe (called "globalism"). There are certainly international organized responses to it (certainly Wikipedia is, as well). I propose to ask the experts who defend the rights of an open knowledge and education law concerning copyright interests:

[20]

The Max Planck Association declared an open access declaration at Berlin 2004. I suggest to share their experience to share material with other contributors and to offer individual material here and for others, but in a way that everybody can use it for distributing free knowledge, and nobody who would like to claim it as their property.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE WILD WEST WHERE YOU CAN SET YOUR CLAIM!

This is my opinion and not of the wikipedians, but for a consense we need a brain, and not only ours... Also a solution for US located servers should be found – I like the proposition to move them.

--Platonykiss (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Move them where? US law is almost uniquely well suited to what we do. In Canada and much of Europe, for example, NPOV can not be maintained because factual reporting about the views of crazy people run afoul of ham fisted anti-"hate-speech" laws, or as another example in the UK the liability for saying something negative about someone, even if its true, is basically unbounded under their libel laws. This has been carefully analyzed many times in the past, and the reason that Wikimedia (as well as many organizations with similar free speech challenges) are located in the US. All these crazy copyright laws we got in the US came along with strong protections for service providers. The same balance isn't found elsewhere --71.191.197.79 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA has specific provisions targeting "foreign infringing site." If Wikipedia relocated abroad, it could be accused of being one. Thus, that idea is unlikely to help and might well hurt. Superm401 - Talk 06:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

people have suggested iceland [21], or switzerland.[22] if chimerica wants to adopt the great wall from her codependent, then that's her loss. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Access to SOPA and a handful of directly-related articles

Someone brought up an interesting point above. Wikipedia would likely be most people's main source for SOPA articles. Could we have a poll on allowing a small number of articles, related to the act? I'd say SOPA, PROTECT IP Act, OPEN Act, and any article which has "censorship" or "intellectual property" in the title. --Quintucket (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This needs to be done globally along with a worldwide blackout. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If there is a "hard" blackout, providing access to relevant articles is a no-brainer. If it's a click-through/soft blackout, this is moot. Dcoetzee 18:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- this is a great idea because it would allow curious users to access more in-depth (and hopefully neutral) material on SOPA, etc., in article form and with related ELs — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but we might want to protect the articles as well. Otherwise it would be a great opportunity for vandalism (or even deliberate sabotage). 208.65.89.236 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - so far as if the blackout happens this would be a very reasonable way to show what indeed is happening. I think the whole idea of a blackout is incredibly stupid in the first place, but this is making a silk purse out of a sow's ear in my opinion. On a technical side, I'm not sure how many "exception" articles can be done in this way. They would be easy to manage though, and IMHO they should be hard protected (sysop only) for the duration of any such "blackout" as well if they are going to be made so public and the only articles on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Suppot, a logical approach. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Dcoetzee --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Kaldari (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Already stated this in my remarks in other voting sections. Jurjenb (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious and sensible. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – We shouldn't deny access to information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Very good idea. Denis Kasak (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Strongly support - great idea. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. It would be nice if we could provide a frozen version of our article on SOPA and a frozen version of all the articles it links to. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimmy Wales could read over the handful of versions of those articles posted around UTC noon the day before the action and select the least vandalized versions. Users outside of the US should be given details on how to contact both their nation's ambassador to the US and the US ambassador to their nation or, in the event such a person does not exist for their nation, the national representative most like an ambassador to the US and the national representative most like a US ambassador to their nation. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. While it might be inconsistent to provide selected information during a blackout, it would be helpful for folks who don't know what SOPA is or why it matters to Wikimedia.--Glorimous (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. For the reasons listed above. Edkollin (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming a full blackout, this is a very important point. (Actually, it's a good illustration of why a soft blackout is a better idea than a full blackout, but it looks like the immature and the SPAs have taken over this poll.) After all, providing information is what Wikipedia is all about (when the discussion isn't taken over by fourteen year old boys venting their newly found testosterone). When people find Wikipedia changed from what they expected, what could be a better idea than educating them about the issue! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure that the votes above are in addition to, not instead of, voting in the appropriate section. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A stupid question

Just to be sure, will a full blackout mean that the website is replaced by an anti - SOPA message, or just that the site goes offline? If it's the former you have my full support with any form of blackout. Thanks. Aethersniper (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The former. It would make absolutely no sense to merely take the site offline - it would not create awareness. Dcoetzee 18:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Include a link to the IRC channel

If the likely event of a full blackout occurs, then I propose that we include a link to the English Wikipedia's IRC channel. We could use the IRC as a means for further updates on SOPA and the Wikipedia blackout. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I feel that flooding IRC with thousands and thousands of confused newbies is not the right approach to take. — Joseph Fox 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then create a special channel specifically for the newbies. Obviously, they will be confused, and I feel that we should have a channel open for people to ask about certain elements of the SOPA and PROTECT IP acts. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The very fact they will be confused is reason enough not to go ahead with this stupid plan. — Joseph Fox 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If a special channel were instituted, who would staff the channel and who would have chan-op powers in that channel? Would it be flooded with happy people who know what's going on, with people not needing help, would people with a strong opinion for/against show up and and want to rationally discuss? What would be the endgame of giving a link? Who would actually keep the channel from degenerating into pure incivility? As for #wikipedia-en, I'm unsure as to what the exact point would be of giving out a link...for SOPA-chat? And please don't send people to Help, on a normal day there are times when no Helpers are available, who exactly would volunteer to take on any possible civility-cop duties? --Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Barring the fact that most readers have probably never heard of IRC before and won't understand what is happening, this would probably kill the servers. -- Luk ^talk 09:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The IRC link was useful when the italian language wikipedia went on strike. Some people joined it (it was a channel different from the one used by regulars) and there could be more explainations. If and only if the IRC network is disrupted or there aren't enough ops then you simply remove the link :-) --Lou Crazy (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support strongly Global Full Blackout. Ricardo Oliveros Ramos (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support strongly Global Full Blackout--Ivanpares (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please place your votes in the appropriate section. They are likely to be uncounted if posted here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Make wikipedia home page and banner point to WP SOPA article, and invite research, citations, additions to, and work on (instead of a blackout)

Let's do what we do best: focus the attention of a legion of Wikipedians on writing the definitive treatment of SOPA, what it says, what it means in general, what it means for Wikipedia, its perceived flaws, the arguments offered in favor of it, the arguments against, any alternatives, lists of groups favoring, lists of groups opposing, timelines, better ways to reach any valid policy objectives behind SOPA etc.

We're in favor of light, not darkness. Blacking out makes it about Wikipedia and power, and may add more heat than light. A month of focus makes it about SOPA. The news cycle, if they cover it, will cover the article, and the issue will be about what the issue should be: SOPA. --Ocdnctx (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Stronly Support The points against a blackout are strong. Millions of people around the world rely on Wikipedia and to have Wikipedia out for a day would be damaging to a lot of people's research. Just to point it out, not only is Wikipedia a great source of information, but it is a great source for external links for articles and websites on issues with a standard of quality that Google just doesn't have. We need to keep these doors open. Also, it must be global for all languages that have a SOPA page, this bill has reprecussions around the world because nine of the top ten of the world's most viewed webpages, Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Facebook, Yahoo, Windows Live, Blogspot, Amazon, and Twitter are all American, leaving Baidu as the only non-American website in the top 5. To completely blackout would make learning about SOPA and other topics near impossible, and the information most Americans will get on this will not be from places with NPOV policies. Since 9 of the top 10 websites are based in the United States and will undeniably have parts censored by the American government to the entire world! By redirecting most languages on wikipedia.org to SOPA than the entire world will be able to know about this and the GOP will be in deep trouble. People then will hear about what is happening here and then can read about who supports and doesn't support the bills, which will protect Wikipedia. I promise everyone who reads this that if Wikipedia stands by and doesn't make sure everybody knows about this than Wikipedia will be censored for information about many countries and finding accurate information will become difficult in America. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, but if Wikipedia will be destroyed than we cannot let them destroy the internet, we have to take a side because we will be harmed. Let freedom ring. Stidmatt (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Yes, make wikipedia home page and banner point to WP SOPA article, and invite research, citations, additions to, and work on (instead of a blackout)! Recommend that the Wikipedia, the Wikiquote, etc. in all the languages carry the no-to-SOPA-banner for a certain time (could be for a certain week, or month). Try to have en.wikipedia's article on SOPA translated to as many languages as possible. -- I am not strongly opposed to a single blackout for a day or two (as a protest against SOPA), but I am afraid of a possible future inflation of "blackouts". Beware of that! It is OK with me if the Wikimedia Foundation takes sides every now and then, for instance, on legislation issues concerning free speech,the internet and ownership to information. It makes me glad to see this discussion about SOPA on the pages of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia needs to forge a stronger alliance with the libraries and their associations. If only the librarians would also discuss their tactics in common, and over the national borders, like the wikipedians! --Mikaelbook (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC) -- "The ALA will continue to voice strong opposition to PIPA and SOPA, while further analysis of the OPEN Act is needed" --Mikaelbook (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support During blackouts, keep the SOPA article available at all times, so at least users can be informed of what the blackout is all about. Jurjenb (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Seems logical to me. PoizonMyst (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy dialectic forum

See also: Relational dialectics and Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Proposals workshop

Here's the idea: on top of the blackout page (in whatever form it does take), include a link to a single page where Wikipedians, readers and congressional staffers can post comments for discussion. The page would then either be held on-Wikipedia or on a Wikimedia Foundation site. On the page, people providing input would discuss work-around solutions, the why and how of SOPA's threat to the Internet, and compromise strategies. It would be especially valuable both for congressmen and seasoned readers of the encyclopedia to converse as this allows a direct channel of communication more presentable than e-mails or phone calls. On the main blackout page, we can outline Wikipedia's mission statement, its purpose and ideals and the importance of a free Internet. Of course this would also affect countries outside the US, but Wikipedia is fundamentally a global project, the Internet is a global service and the legal consequences of SOPA are global and far-reaching. During the duration of the blackout, the forum page serves as a compromise strategy on which disparate parties can either come to a consensus or put forth suggestions for communal input. It is important to get a wide range of perspectives on this that is both readable and pertinent so that policy makers can best take notice.

My comments:

Wikipedia is an important free service to netizens worldwide, offering an indirect form of self-education for anyone who has the ability to access the Internet. Targeted removal of copyright infrigements, while helpful to copyright holders, may jeopardize the project as our current practice is to tag and remove known violations on-sight, and that currently does suffice. I recall a recent US Public Policy project involving universities, from which this suggestion takes much of its inspiration. Taken to the extreme, the consequences of SOPA are all too similar to a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack using legal mediums that could shut down much of the Internet. We should see by now that the Internet is not a service to take for granted, as the electricity grid becomes ever-more fragile. Yet the world wide web has triggered a veritable mass shift in the thinking of businesses worldwide, including the collapse of mainstream media circa 2009 (citation requested). While SOPA may be an effort to protect the American economy, it may certainly prove to be very inefficient, as it indirectly eliminates the legitimacy of some of the world's most popular websites, virtually destroying the online economy. Obviously, the old forms of online protest are not working. Instead of resorting to extreme ends that could hurt the reputation of the encyclopedia, a balanced approach consisting of collaboration from all sides is suggested.

It may be possible to eliminate piracy, and moral to protect intellectual property online–but one can never copyright information, and once information is out there, it cannot be destroyed by any means. This is why it is important to protect the veracity of the Internet as a whole: Wikipedia by nature is a compilation of knowledge, found either on the Internet or on print sources. This occasionally leads to unintended infrigements, whether by copypasting too much content, linking to known copyright violations or directly reproducing work without permission. Impromptu solutions to these problems include removing copyright content on-sight, but extreme legal measures are likely to undermine the sharing of knowledge. Redistribution of information does not constitute theft, and it is not necessary that restrictions on piracy lead to eventual uncontrolled shutdown of many legitimate sites that run on a very simple basis: the collaboration and sharing of truth. While our policy is verifiability, our ultimate objective is to freely distribute what's known and approach that ideal of truth and veracity. While we aim to include reliable sources, sometimes we inadvertantly add a few links that turn out to be copyright violations. There is a real systemic risk for cascading failure when governments of one country are given the right to shut down numbers of websites globally that may be heavily inter-linked: this is a complex system. Policy must address its own unintended consequences, and this is why dialectic and collaboration are so important.

I take some examples from the main SOPA initiative page.

“ The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. ” — User:Slaporte (WMF), 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback

—User:Jehochman, 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some pros and cons of this approach, AFAICT. Please feel free to further comment, adding !votes and pro/con reasons. Please notify me in the event this discussion is moved elsewhere.

Pros

• As a collaboration, this discussion would provide a coherent solution that considers all sides of the debate to be presented to Congress. If Wikipedia is to do some form of "petitioning", then this is our new collaborative petition.
• It is a new approach likely to garner more interest and attention - Wikipedia is a stakeholder in this decision.
• In addition to setting potential recommendations for SOPA, it is a potential outline for future means by which the encyclopedia can address similar issues as they arise. This can set a precedent that will be useful.
• The method integrates the collaborative nature of Wikipedia into discussion over the goals of the project onto the larger public spectrum.
• It does not conflict with any existing blackout proposal, and can be easily integrated into the design of the display page that may or may not block out access to Wikipedia articles.
• As a landmark point in Wikipedia's history, the proposed action, in some form, is more likely than not to take place, and more likely than not to gain outside attention. Allowing the silent majority to voice their opinion on this issue is a good remediation strategy.
• The action will make clear that the Internet is a precious resource prone to disruption as well as an effective communication and collaboration medium.
• Wikipedia draws together a record of past copyright legislation, so linking any of those articles may make clear any negative issues raised by this new law. Wide diversity of opinions is important for NPOV, as well that it is important to protect from indiscriminate legal action that opinions or inadvertant postings may bring.

Cons

• The word Forum. Wikipedia is not a forum.
• The large disruption that the blackout will bring together with providing a vent for viewers of the message may flood the page with far too much information. It may become necessary that editors summarize, filter or compile the input and suggestions.
• Wikipedia is not inherently intended for advocacy or self-promotion.
• It might require a predetermined outline of some sort, as to guide decision makers into actual solutions and not some incoherent mess that nobody can read.
• The large volume of user net traffic to one editable page may crash the servers, as well as create large edit conflict jams.
• There is a chance that Congress will not read whatever results from the dialectic "petition".
• There is an inherent risk of groupthink, and shunning of unpopular opinions.
• Realistically, my understanding of US policy is limited, but this is why we have an encyclopedia.

Please contribute further to this discussion. Proposal made: ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Small Suggestion

Heya, I went thru the page, read comments, and suggestions and I thought I'd suggest this:

• Since we may know what Wikimedia projects are most frequently accessed by Americans, those particular Wikipedias go offline with a full page banner protesting against SOPA on. T his only for the USA, and not for any other country, UNLESS of course, some other country supports this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. (from the Netherlands) What they are doing is not ok, the world needs free internet, uncensored and everything (with a few exceptions, f.e. childporn) should be allowed without any bullshit like SOPA or even ACTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomk1996 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be brought up at the other-language Wikipedias. Nothing decided here is binding upon them; they can choose to go full blackout, put up a supporting banner, do nothing, or anything in between, but any decision will have to be made quickly; we are now 13 hours away from the deadline that the Wikimedia foundation says they need so as to have time to act. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for going global The SOPA legislation will influence visitors from all over the world. Make it a worldwide action. But.... This is specified in section 2.2.1 if you want to go US-only or global. Please put your support in the appropriate category. Jurjenb (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) (Canada/The Netherlands)

Oppose. If you want to discuss a partial block or blackout of other Wikimedia projects, you'll have to do it there. English Wikipedia has no mandate to decide things for other projects. /Julle (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Banners for every Wikipedia Edition

SOPA affects every Wikipedia-Edition, so I think, we should have banners at every Wikipedia. We have prepared a banner, that can be used with the Site-Notice-Feature and an information site for the readers at the german Wikipedia. Both can be easily translated, the banner is here: [23], our information site is here. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Support Not much more to say. Every wiki should definately be bannered. PoizonMyst (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Strongly Support. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Especially if you know that when US does, the others follow.

• Strongly oppose This isn't for English Wikipedia to decide. If other Wikipedia versions want a banner, that's their call. /Julle (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Info for those who think US policies don't have an effect on other countries

U.S. Pressures Spain Into SOPA Style Law:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6224/196/

Wikileaks cables reveal US pressuring Canada on IP enforcement:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/wikileaks-cables-reveal-us-pressuring-canada-on-ip-enforcement.ars

The US pressures the EU to pass ACTA before the end of 2011

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.4/us-pushes-acta-european-parliament

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that US policies do have an effect on other countries, I am not sure who is arguing otherwise. But I also think that voters in other countries don't elect US Congress, and so there is little that they can do about it. Whether that's fair or not is a complex geopolitical question. :) But it is true. Therefore a US-only blackout is going to be about as effective in terms of actually impacting whether this thing happens or not, as a global blackout.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is this:

[1] A full worldwide blackout will put a lot of pressure on foreign governments to not do whatever the US did to piss of the entire Internet. This is a direct future benefit to foreign users, and IMO well worth a 12-hour interruption in service.

[2] A full worldwide blackout is much easier to implement than a US-only blackout. Some foreign users will be misidentified as US, which will no doubt anger them. Some US users will be misidentified as foreign, with an unknown impact. If by chance we happen to miss blacking out a few key congressional staffs and major newspapers, it could reduce the impact a lot.

[3] A full worldwide blackout will put more pressure on Congress than a US-only blackout. Maybe only a little more, but some.

[4] Any blackout is likely to help fundraising (you don't really appreciate what you have until it is gone). A global blackout will help more than a US-only blackout. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Wales. If the only way to change the law is to petition the U.S. Congress, it makes no sense to act against people who don't have the right to do so. Wikipedia should not be completely blocked in any territory that does not elect a representative to the Congress of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.184.127 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What contact details should we give to folks in other nations?

I think we should be given details on how to contact both our nation's ambassador to the US and the US ambassador to our nation or, in the event such a person does not exist for our nation, our national-representative-most-like-an-ambassador to the US and the US national-representative-most-like-an-ambassador to our nation. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And since it takes Wikipedia at least five weeks to decide anything with its screwy decision-making system...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We should probably start discussing what happens if reports are correct that SOPA has been killed ahead of the Wednesday deadline. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Its shelved in the house but Harry Reid still plans on bringing PIPA to a vote in the senate. --haha169 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Easy; keep up the pressure and try to take back the public domain from copyright maximalists. -- RichiH (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if the SOPA bill has been shelved, it can always quietly sneak its way back in at a later date. We can't back out now just because it may be temporarily put off. The public still needs to be aware of it and the pressure needs to be kept on and to show that we're still serious and will never accept such a bill. That, and there's still PIPA, which is unfortunately less-known, but still in the running. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromise?

When any reader comes to Wikipedia on January 18th, or subsequent proposed date for action, the page they are presented with is a clear message and description of SOPA, it's repercussions, and a way to contact their legislator. They can click to contact, or click through to the information they were seeking. I understand the arguments of a powerful impact (protest) being needed, but it makes no sense to me to literally force readers to be a part of it. Wikipedia has a responsibility to it's readers as no other website does. An historic and self proclaimed responsibility. I've seen those ready for a blackout argue that taking a different route is somehow equal to not fighting for civil rights. I don't believe that is true. Would a school shut down to protest? A hospital? Wikipedia is here for learning, not like other websites who are either clearly or inadvertently selling a product and who can make such a statement without real risk to their credibility. The only way to make a difference with Congress is to have a voice at hearings and committee meetings. One important thing I learned as a city councilmember was be careful what precedent you set. Afterward, where do you draw the line? I fully understand the critical nature of the SOPA act, as described many times in these discussions. But please consider that there are so many unknowns at this moment with the progress of the Bill, the changes made, and the possible dates of discussion by House and Senate. I believe we should give readers the opportunity to learn about SOPA, the opportunity to act, and to also provide them with what they count on us for. On another page, it was suggested that the SOPA article itself be released from the WP:NPOV! Talk about setting an unhealthy precedent! Wikipedia has been in the process of being built for a very long time, and I don't think a hasty decision that may hurt it's neutrality and credibility should be decided in a few days...no matter how noble the cause...it may not be Wikipedia's place to jump in the political ring. Let those that can...do. And then show support by INFORMING the masses. I know, I know...I am new here. But for something like this it can be an advantage to have an outside point of view amongst the intense passion. Politicians may actually dig in their heels instead of listen when they feel forced. Educating them is far superior to anything resembling aggression...putting them on the spot publicy to answer to the rotten parts of SOPA might yield more results...sadly, many legislators aren't always aware of the "devil's in the details" parts of a Bill until hearings and committee meetings. For the future, I think that Wikipedia should fiercely protect it's neutral reputation. Petersontinam (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In some things Wikipedia is NOT neutral, and has never claimed to be, in a meta sense, Wikipedia is very much pro-neutrality. At first I did think that lobbying on matters like this would be quashed by the community, but then I thought, can Wikipedia be neutral if no one has neutral access to it? I'm still ambivalent, I admit. I don't like the idea of a complete dead-stop, but... perhaps SOMETHING is appropriate. - BalthCat (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing I'd underscore is that Wikipedia as we know it cannot exist under SOPA. We're not bystanders here, we're future victims. NPOV appies to articles, not foundations. We have to speak up while we can still stop this. HectorMoffet (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like for the time being, we are able to take a breath..:The Hill", article on SOPA being SHELVED But this has been extraordinary conversation on what should/shouldn't be done in this situation. "The Hill" article mentions something about future online piracy legislation, but hopefully there is time to find the absolute proper way to protest. Petersontinam (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reddit, Boing Boing, Minecraft, Mozilla, etc., etc. are not "taking a breath" and neither should we. Stopping the blackout/protest now would send the message to congress that they can use their ability to quickly shift scheduling, make changes to the law that later get undone, etc. to torpedo any coordinated Internet protest. We simply can not move as fast as they can, so we will lose every time if they lure us into a game of Whack-a-Mole. Better to go ahead with the protest so they get the message that such tactics will not work. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Badon (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority opinion seems to point to using a blackout...with many excellent arguments on why it is important to do so. Respectfully, I still feel that it shouldn't inhibit readers from accessing information. Inform them on SOPA and PROTECTIP, yes, in an easy to understand format...give them the opportunity to act, yes. Let them continue on to what they were seeking? Yes. Block readers from Wikipedia for 24 hours? No, I just can't agree with that. How about this:

Show a black, blank page when anyone lands at Wikipedia...after 3 seconds, have a message that says something like "This is what Wikipedia will(may) become if SOPA and PROTECTIP pass." And then explain what they can do to stop that from happening, and then let them either act or not...then continue on to what they were looking up. Petersontinam (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to have a page that does something after 3 seconds on my computer, because I don't allow web pages to load and run software on my PC. 20% to 25% of users disable javascript and all other forms of scripting. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a full-blackout shouldn't be the way to go about with this. Soft blackouts with a very visible message screen describing the harmful effects of SOPA/PIPA should be good enough - and a small link at the side saying, "Continue to Wikipedia". --haha169 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As a member of the motion picture/music industry, and contributor to Wikipedia I find it hypocritical that you "censored" my work for 24 hours in the name of supposed anti-censorship. Wikipedia claims to be for knowledge, but politicking in support of Internet thievery is not the way. SOPA and PRO-IP are great bills and they should be passed. Your propaganda about "breaking the Internet" and causing censorship is based on falsehoods. Freedom of speech is not the "freedom" to steal somebody else's speech. If you want movies and music and don't want to pay the creators, make your own movies and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, people have made their own music and still been successfully sued. (See, for example, the case of "My Sweet Lord".) Second, the incumbent publishers still have a stranglehold on promotion of music and movies to people who have not chosen to make their lives revolve around the Internet. Third, the SOPA and PROTECTIP proposals go much further than necessary, would impose unfunded mandates on Internet service providers, have a far lower burden of proof than the competing OPEN bill, and would in fact interfere with protocols such as DNSSEC. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Like restaurant chains come up with their own birthday jingles so they won't get sued for public performances of Happy Birthday to You? I expect a lot infringe that simple folksong's copyright, not realizing that Time-Warner owns its copyright and still collects royalties on it. Imagine: Jane posts a vlog entry singing Happy Birthday to her friend, and the vlog site gets its DNS blacklisted. An extreme example, but allowing such an extreme result makes this a bad bill. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Musicologists who compared "He's So Fine" with "My Sweet Lord" all agree it was an infringement. I'm a Beatles fan, but I agree with the Judge in that case who found an "unconscious infringement."

And what does that case have to do with SOPA? There's nothing unconscious about the off shore web sites who are offering up American movies for free. Who is going to spend $150,000,000 creating a movie if it is going to be available for download free while it's still in the theaters? (Google "download movies for free" and help yourself.)

The on-line thievery which killed the music industry (3/4 of those who worked for the record companies 10 years ago have lost their jobs and the artists are making a fraction as much money) is now at work demolishing the film and television industry. That's the "cause" which Wikipedia went dark for? Destroying the livelihoods of America's most creative and hard working people? As somebody who has contributed to Wikipedia from the start I feel this non-profit enterprise has been hijacked through the blind ignorance of the leadership, who are aiding the for-proft companies who have made a fortune ripping off the creative community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The music industry is not dead. Have you some sources showing otherwise or to back up what you say about artists? The companies making records may well be dying because no-one wants records any more, that's progress. Hopefully the media moguls will die out too because they have been taking most of the money in the past for just controlling the channels. As to searching google for 'download movies for free' did you actually check up on any of the sites that came up and see what they actually meant by that? For instance you can a free taster and then signup for a monthly fee, or have free access to things nobody would want to pay for, or they advertise the access but don't have it for anything worthwhile. There might be something there down deep which is ripping off hollywood but I certainly didn't spot it easily. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What steps should people take to avoid unconscious infringement? The parallel to SOPA is that if son-of-SOPA erodes the protection afforded by the OCILLA safe harbor, service providers can infringe without knowing what their users are uploading. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I support to wikipedia in all, an hug Carliitaeliza (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet should b clean and free. I'm glad that the wikipedia community is taking the threat seriously, yeah...I too support to wikipedia in all. DRAGON BOOSTER (talk).

Plan beyond victory

Wikipedia deserves congratulations for this action, and news about withdrawn support and veto threats is very encouraging. Yet Arden Hathaway's comments above, and similar positions, need to be given fair and careful consideration. This is Wikipedia --- we, as much as anybody, should be able to offer verifiable fact-based answers to questions like that. Articles like music industry and SOPA might accommodate some of this information, but we should set aside a special place for such should-be-FAQs (maybe run them through the Humanities Refdesk?) We should dialogue with our opponents (i.e. RIAA, Viacom) and test the quality of their information.

We should also open discussions on the larger issues - perhaps on Wikiversity? - considering whether we can propose a true and workable alternative to the copyright system, both to restore any profits lost to piracy and to create a world where people can freely communicate without fear. Our object here certainly is not to destroy livelihoods, nor to destroy all the cultural information we so love to read and edit about here - it should be to make these things available to all without limitation or restriction. We can do this with something as simple as an income tax-based funding system where contribution is mandatory but the taxpayer chooses recipient organizations. Any such change will have winners and losers and will step on some well-entrenched industrial toes, but if we do it right it will also mean more art and music, less corruption and degradation, more for artists, less for middlemen. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.146 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Next Stop Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)?

These days the EU parliament is expected to ratify ACTA. Now may be one of the last options to prevent ACTA (in comparison to which SOPA pales if I am informed rightly) --SchallundRauch (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Avaaz is calling it "an even bigger threat"; see also Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Parallels_with_SOPA_and_PIPA. The EU rapporteur for ACTA recently resigned in protest... There's a petition against EU ratification of ACTA here. Rd232 ^talk 14:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: Stop CISPA

The worst portions of SOPA have been incorporated into CISPA. I can find no rational justification to go black over SOPA but not protest CISPA --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I may or may not disagree with you, but i wanted to note that according to Wikipedia, "however, the most recent version of the CISPA bill has removed any reference to intellectual property". I absolutely think we should be vigilant about them sneaking back in various provisions that we protested against before, but I also think we should be very very careful to not over-protest. I have not yet fully reviewed the current bill myself, so I reserve judgment on it for now, while acknowledging that the array of opponents is impressive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is http://www.privacyisawesome.com/ what you had in mind? 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CISPA. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What if we protest in a different way? What if we do something like black out only articles about the US Government? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, the passed bill sounds if anything worse than the one proposed before.

One action we could take is rather indirect, but could score a newsworthy point: McGraw-Hill is a publisher named by Anonymous (group) (supposedly) in a call for protest today. [24] Their call for protest is something weak and stupid (sorry guys!), namely, defacing textbooks made by the company, which would only increase sales. But we could hit McGraw-Hill with overwhelming force. All we need to do is decide on one of their most profitable textbooks that a lot of people can competently edit a substitute for on Wikibooks. Imagine if we got together to create a better textbook, freely available, for every school to use! There's nothing they can do for that - but scratch that asset right off their list. And we can do it again if we feel like. (indeed, sooner or later we will anyway, but like the Berserkers or Necromongers, we can spare our friends... till last :) ) True, McGraw-Hill is only one of a lot of 800+ companies represented in a statement by Business Roundtable,^[25] and so it's not like we'd be taking out the whole supporter base. But as an act of open, absolutely legal terrorism to demonstrate that the people of this country have power and can respond to these companies' actions meaningfully, it would be an important morale booster. If we announced a date to get started on the textbook, and they withdrew membership and support in Business Roundtable before that, then we'd have a newsworthy story. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)