# Anyone Missing Wiki?



## Baron (Jan 18, 2012)

Wiki is down for 24 hours to protest the proposed piracy bill.  Don't despair; those suffering chronic withdrawal can still get it on their mobile.

Wikipedia Goes Dark For 24 Hours To Protest Web Piracy Bills | Fox News


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 18, 2012)

Yes, I missed it not 5 minutes ago, wanting to check who wrote Sober As A Judge. Fortunately another Google link tickled my memory.


----------



## garza (Jan 18, 2012)

There is _always_ another and better link for whatever information you need to find.


----------



## Baron (Jan 18, 2012)

For those who don't know (and while it's still legal to post it) this is what it's about:

[video=youtube;zBtr4aZtmrQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBtr4aZtmrQ[/video]


----------



## old man's dreams (Jan 18, 2012)

Good grief. Suppression of access to information must not happen. Ever.

Those of you that have experienced the drudgery of real library research understand the point.


----------



## philistine (Jan 18, 2012)

garza said:


> There is _always_ another and better link for whatever information you need to find.



I don't doubt it, but Google (or facsimile) has this annoying tendency of linking you to various pages, promising widgets, information, articles and other such things, linking you again and again... and not providing the information promised, or a skewed, lacklustre article.

The advantage to Wikipedia, surprise, is that it is very much like an encyclopaedia, in the sense that you search what you want, and you'll almost always get it right away.

That said, I haven't been on the computer much today, so haven't had the opportunity to miss it.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 18, 2012)

That's a good explanation video, Rob. 

While I have some sympathy for anyone who has their work ripped off I can't help thinking there has to be a better way to fix that than to try to clamp down government policing on the internet. I am not in favor of this at all, my view is that problems on the internet have resulted in entrepreneurial solutions (also known as JOBS!). 

Will the government fix all identity theft, libel, negative comments, hurt feelings, loss of information due to crashes, etc. next? There already solutions being created by entrepreneurs. Just a few names I can think of off the top of my head for things like this:



Reputation Defender 
LifeLock 
Identity Guard 
Toshiba online backup, Mozy Pro, Carbonite 

You want to make sure no one is plaigerizing your work? Ask Hawke how she checks for this, you can do it yourself. If you get successful enough you can hire an assistant to keep a check regularly to make sure that your intellectual property isn't being lifted and used elsewhere. I know that with many bands now you can't find their videos on YouTube unless they okay it and if they don't they'll get that video pulled. They check regularly and you have to go to their channel...so why do they need a government bill? They don't.

If the government wants to play on the internet, too, how about they pay strict attention to their own information? Cyber-warfare just may be the next type of aggression from one country to another, perhaps they should be planning for THAT rather than putting Bieber in jail (though that was the only part of the video that I kinda cheered about).

I realize that the internet is rife with stuff I don't want my kids to see, stuff I don't agree with, things that are unfair, rude, and even dangerous. But I want the government to keep its nose OUT. If the internet is the new Wild West then let's be wise and arm ourselves accordingly without Big Brother stomping all over it.


----------



## Baron (Jan 18, 2012)

Foxee said:


> That's a good explanation video, Rob.
> 
> While I have some sympathy for anyone who has their work ripped off I can't help thinking there has to be a better way to fix that than to try to clamp down government policing on the internet. I am not in favor of this at all, my view is that problems on the internet have resulted in entrepreneurial solutions (also known as JOBS!).
> 
> ...



Your new avatar?


----------



## garza (Jan 18, 2012)

old man's dreams - I have spent many hundreds of hours in libraries and archives in various parts of the world. A big problem with today's journalists is that they are no longer willing to do that. I continue to use libraries and archives because the sum total of the world's knowledge is not yet on the Internet. 

phillistine - While Google is quick and easy, it's not my first choice when I want to do any serious research on the Internet. I accumulate addresses of sites that deal with specific areas of knowledge. I store these in folders and sub-folders which I routinely keep backed up on at least two computers and Sky Drive. It's a bit slower, but I don't have to wade through all the irrelevant material you mention that Google brings to the surface. The files are added to almost daily as I come across new, good, sites. Google is good for the quick search for something easy, such as xO looking for information about 'Sober as a Judge'. 

I have never used Wikipaedia for research, so I don't miss it.

Edit - A followup thought. Thinking about it, I can't remember the last time I used an encyclopaedia of any sort. Probably not beyond first form. They are useful for kids in school, but once we get to a certain age we need something more.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 18, 2012)

Baron said:


> Your new avatar?


Heh, possibly!


----------



## KangTheMad (Jan 18, 2012)

I noticed it at 11 at night. I wanted to wiki stuff 

I did sign the google petition, because honestly, blocking certain sites only works so long as someone doesn't use a proxy. And if proxy sites get blocked, people will just put Tor up on rapidshare or something.

So essentially, SOPA, if passed, will block like, 12% of the people.


----------



## garza (Jan 18, 2012)

Would SOPA interfere with the sorts of sites I use most often? I don't download music or videos or games. I use Gutenberg and several university sites to download public domain texts. I go to newspaper sites around the world to find out what's happening. I read online versions of magazines and journals. Which of these will be affected? Truth to tell I've paid no attention to it because I pay so little attention to what goes on in The Far Frozen North.


----------



## Baron (Jan 18, 2012)

Anyone who is getting desperate can still access the mobile version by using this link:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KangTheMad (Jan 18, 2012)

garza said:


> Would SOPA interfere with the sorts of sites I use most often? I don't download music or videos or games. I use Gutenberg and several university sites to download public domain texts. I go to newspaper sites around the world to find out what's happening. I read online versions of magazines and journals. Which of these will be affected? Truth to tell I've paid no attention to it because I pay so little attention to what goes on in The Far Frozen North.



It depends, if there are any copyright issues about articles or content, yes. I'd assume university and other .edu sites would not be affected. But I wouldn't be surprised if Al-jazeera got "accidentally" blocked after some negative Islamic incident.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 18, 2012)

This isn't one of those things that would stay contained to one area. If it's about copyright then all kind of .edu uses will be affected even if it's to have a layer of bureaucracy added over top of what they already do.

Be very wary of looking at this and saying 'oh, but this would never happen to _me_.'


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jan 18, 2012)

"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you." 
     - George Orwell, _1984_​


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 18, 2012)

KangTheMad said:


> I did sign the google petition, because honestly, blocking certain sites only works so long as someone doesn't use a proxy. And if proxy sites get blocked, people will just put Tor up on rapidshare or something.



Yeah, because RapidShare is TOTALLY going to escape the government blocking.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 18, 2012)

I think its a real shame that the USA can impose laws that could potentially ruin the internet for the entire world. Its arguable if such a thing should even be legal under international law. Shouldn't internet leglislation be global?

Regardless of the sloppiness of the bills etc, I would still probably say that the current laws should suffice and that there's no need for any new leglislation. The fact of the matter is that success against piracy is unlikely to come through these means, as people will always find a way around, and there would likely be far more reduction in piracy by focusing on the moral aspects of piracy, thereby attempting to convince the majority of the public not to pirate material, or to pirate material more sparingly.

I also wonder why this actually matters at all though. Most of the people who are kicking up a fuss about piracy are already rich, and already have plenty of genuine customers. Most of the pirates would not simply start buying their material, they'd just reduce the amount they consume. And, ultimately, money could be _lost _by elimating piracy, as there a lot of people who pirate content and _then_ buy it if they think its any good. Which is actually quite shrewd, (and, arguably, a perfectly moral practice).

Perhaps if the people complaining about piracy gave more realistic prices, produced better content, and actually had some morals themselves, they'd not be having these problems. Personally, I fail to see why so many people need a never-ending stream of money, why not just cut the prices to simply meet the costs once the money's been made? Hm?  

Note- I myself am not a pirate. Though I did use to have a plastic cutlass in the stock-cupboard.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jan 18, 2012)

It's messed up because the US government thinks it can spread its control over something that doesn't belong to it. The internet is not a nation, it's a WHOLE NEW WORLD, and the US thinks it has the right to regulate something that belongs to everybody. And SOPA is so vague about what exactly constitutes copyright infringement that someone could be deemed a felon just by linking something. If you ask me, it has nothing to do with preventing "intellectual property theft" - it's all about control and greed. 

I think it's totally awesome that Wikipedia is doing this blackout thing. Google has also placed a blackout over their logo, and a bunch of other websites have "gone dark" in protest against SOPA. This is a great way to spread awareness, because I had no idea about SOPA until yesterday when I tried to visit Wikipedia. All the power to them for standing up to this stupid law. I'm going to be so mad if this bill gets passed. Practically everyone (aside from big corporations who will profit from lawsuits against copyright infringements) is against SOPA. If the bill gets passed, that's going to flip the whole idea of American democracy up on its head.


----------



## KangTheMad (Jan 19, 2012)

I think the bill is dead in the water, with the blackouts and, oh, the bill's author turning out to be a copyright violater *sniggers*


----------



## MJ Preston (Jan 19, 2012)

I support the WIKI move and blacked out both of my websites as show of support.


----------



## BabaYaga (Jan 19, 2012)

[FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]TheOatmeal.com blacked out in protest of SOPA / PIPA - The Oatmeal

One of my favorite Internet comics has also blacked out. He's doing it for the kittens.

[/FONT]


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 19, 2012)

BBC News - Megaupload file-sharing site shut down
Interesting article here. The site, Megaupload, has been taken down using pre-existing US laws. 
Quote from the article: 





> "It begs the question that if you can find and arrest people who are suspected to be involved in piracy using existing laws, then why introduce further regulations which are US-only and potentially damaging."


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jan 19, 2012)

That's just scary, and further supports my theory that the US government is just trying to spread its control. These congressmen trying to pass these bills don't understand anything about the internet and how it works. They're just a bunch of old guys trying to show everyone who is boss. It's not enough that they're allowing the destruction of the US economy, oh no, they have to destroy the internet too. This is all just really screwed up, especially if they decide to pass those bills. When the government makes decisions that only benefit the minority (rich) instead of the majority (the rest of us), you know we're not living in a democracy.


----------



## themooresho (Jan 19, 2012)

Frankly, this is pretty much how I feel about almost any new piece of legislation that comes out of Washington.  They are almost always written by someone with a secret agenda, and never really benefit the people who they're supposedly protecting.  All they do is further infringe on our freedoms.

Ron Paul 2012


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 20, 2012)

The hackers have responded to the shutting down of Megaupload by spamming denial of requests to American government, (Department of Justice), and copyright websites. They also brought up a mimic site of Megaupload. Both SOPA and PIPA have been postponed, I believe, but likely the hackers will be in the wait to retaliate to those also. The American government has effectively stuck a bulls-eye target to its head. And, somehow, I don't think they quite realised that this was going to happen.

Edit-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16646023


----------



## KangTheMad (Jan 20, 2012)

It wasn't that the US was trying to exert influence. The movie industry went and said "hey, piracy is a problem, we're loosing X amount of money to it which is in no way exaggerated. We will give you Y amount of money for your campaign. In return, we'd like to see a bill that says something like what is on this draft."

Then both sides in the House say "well, we aren't too certain about this. That group wants to pass it, but our group isn't very sure it's the right thing to do. I mean, we have elections coming up, and this might upset some people, you know?"

"Ok, heres some more money for your campaign so you can deal with those people."


----------



## DuKane (Jan 26, 2012)

Blatantly borrowed from friends fb


----------



## KangTheMad (Jan 26, 2012)

Hmm. . .So if one is gonna break the law, it should be murder?


----------

