Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Wikipedia Editors Blast Blackout

They prefer neutrality over advocacy

By Kate Seamons,  Newser Staff

Posted Jan 18, 2012 8:46 AM CST

(Newser) – Switzerland: It's not just an entry on Wikipedia—it's what some volunteer editors would like to be in the SOPA ruckus. In a word, neutral. In light of today's SOPA/PIPA blackout, the AP speaks with editors who aren't too pleased with the site's foray into advocacy, which they believe undermines the credibility of their contributions. It's "a slippery slope," says one editor out of Michigan. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales." That might be a bit of a stretch, but he does have a point.

The site itself lists "five pillars" of conduct. Among them: Wikipedia "is written from a neutral point of view." The site strives to "avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." Founder Jimmy Wales argues that the content can remain neutral, even if the community behind that content picks a side. But not everyone is convinced: The AP notes that some editors have gone so far as to black out their own user profile pages or resign their administrative rights on the site in protest.

A mobile device shows Wikipedia's front page displaying a darkened logo on January 18, 2012 in London, England.
A mobile device shows Wikipedia's front page displaying a darkened logo on January 18, 2012 in London, England.   (Getty Images)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
3%
9%
3%
11%
1%
74%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 23 comments
kukisvoomchor
Jan 18, 2012 9:43 PM CST
For what it's worth, turning off the JavaScript in your browser would let Wikipedia through during that period.
aspergers-guy
Jan 18, 2012 4:52 PM CST
It's nice for the site to have ideals they follow & live by, but the point these guys aren't getting is, if SOPA/PIPA are passed & a Wikipedia editor puts up a page with links (say, in footnotes for instance) pointing back to a web site that was mistakenly identified as violating SOPA/PIPA & *that* site ends up being shut down, it's possible at some point Wikipedia's entries, their topics & subjects start disintegrating from degradation of attribution, from attrition of source links to back up sites relevant to articles & topics they have on their website. Eventually this can become a cascading effect, where more & more sites go offline (here at least, as they are gradually filtered out by our new SOPA/PIPA imitation of the Great Firewall of China) & can't be checked to verify information on Wikipedia. The veracity of Wikipedia starts to decline from this over time. Not hard to understand, is it guys ? If free speech on the web is regulated by any one industry in this country (or for the benefit of any one industry in this country) and the rest of the country suffers as a result (the loss of topics, the loss of freedom of thought & freedom of speech just so this one industry is not harmed), well, we can see that such a situation is far from the ideal right away, can't we. So get your ideals in order, Wikipedia editors. We're talking about the right that allows Wikipedia to exist in the first place, not a Wikipedia entry on that right, and the ideals over how to deal with that right. If you want to stay neutral over *that*, you've lost before the battle even starts.
dilts2
Jan 18, 2012 3:49 PM CST
Just because people can edit a wiki page DOESNT mean they own it. And if im reading this correctly Wikipedia stood up for whats right for The Internet/people and people are pissed??  And NoooBody gives a shit about whales, they made a tv show about it and still no regulations. 
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne