Hi, Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick.
Then I don't think people here are misinformed as you says. You may question that the blackout was the best strategy, but there was a public debate and vote about it. Finally, I don't think there is anything unethical about fighting against SOPA. Quite the contrary IMO. Yann 2012/8/3 Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>: > I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a > giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets > and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many > people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And > some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets. > > Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen > goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good > Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall > says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a > law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are > stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening > the stall today." > > So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them > in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill > these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what > the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that > would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you > don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market > stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to > profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of > dollars ... > > One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the > community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what > SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html > > Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather > than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical > problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at > least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well > and truly been lost. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l