Why Wikipedia was blacked out for a day

Below is an opinion piece written by Steve Virgin, a UK Wikipedian. It was originally published in the New Statesman . Over … Continue reading “Why Wikipedia was blacked out for a day”

  • Richard Symonds
  • January 19, 2012

Below is an opinion piece written by Steve Virgin, a UK Wikipedian. It was originally published in the New Statesman.

Over the last few weeks, the Wikipedia community has been discussing proposed actions that the community might take with relation to proposed legislation in the United States called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, these would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia. With more than 2,000 Wikipedians commenting on this legislation from all over the world, and a clear majority in favour of taking action, this was the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made.

It was felt that both SOPA and PIPA are pieces of clumsily drafted legislation that are dangerous for the internet and freedom of speech. It provides powers to regulatory authorities to force internet companies to block foreign sites offering ‘pirated’ material that violates U.S. copyright laws. If implemented, ad networks could be required to stop online ads and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites ‘found’ to be in breach of copyright.

However, leaving to one side the fact that there are more than enough adequate remedies for policing copyright violations under existing laws, in most jurisdictions, these draft bills go too far and in the framing SOPA and PIPA totally undermine the notion of due process in law and place the burden of proof on the distributor of content in the case of any dispute over copyright ownership.

Therefore, any legitimate issues that copyright holders may have get drowned out by poorly-framed draconian powers to block, bar, or shut down sites as requested by industry bodies or their legal representatives. Copyright holders have legitimate issues, but there are ways of approaching the issue that don’t involve censorship.

Wikipedia depends on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. This needs other sites to be able to host user-contributed material; all Wikipedia then does is to frame the information in context and make sense of it for its millions of users.

Knowledge freely shared has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it.  Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikipedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, will mean that the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to

All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

2 thoughts on “Why Wikipedia was blacked out for a day”

  1. Thank you for allowing people everywhere to vote for the free use of Internet…anytime, anywhere. It is difficult enough to find the true source of information all of the time. As years pass, concepts change and so does information. We should be willing to embrace this fact without stiffling a person’s right to speak, amongst other things.

  2. The easiest way for children to develop the ethic of giving is to experience volunteer projects through elementary schools, quality content.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *