CFP: 4th ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci’12)

Web Science embraces the study of the Web as a vast information network 
of people and communities. It also includes the study of
people and communities using the digital records of user activity
mediated by the Web. An understanding of human behavior and social
interaction can contribute to our understanding of the Web, and data
obtained from the Web can contribute to our understanding of human
behavior and social interaction. Accordingly, Web Science involves
analysis and design of Web architecture and applications, as well as
studies of the people, organizations, and policies that shape and are
shaped by the Web.

To address these diverse goals, the Web Science conference is
inherently interdisciplinary, integrating computer and information
sciences, communication, linguistics, sociology, psychology,
economics, law, political science, and other disciplines. This
conference is unique in the manner in which it brings these
disciplines together in creative and critical dialogue, and we invite
papers from all the above disciplines, as well as those that cross
traditional disciplinary boundaries.

Following the success of WebSci'09 in Athens, WebSci'10 in Raleigh,
and WebSci'11 in Koblenz, we are seeking papers and research notes
that describe original research, analysis, and practice in the field
of Web Science, as well as extended abstracts that discuss novel and
thought-provoking ideas and works-in-progress.

Possible topics for submissions include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Analysis of human behavior and social interaction using data from
social media, online networks and communities

- Methodological challenges of analyzing Web-based large-scale human
interaction and behavior

- Network analysis of the Web

- Microlevel processes and interactions on the Web

- Collective intelligence, collaborative production, and social computing

- Structure and organization on the Web

- Web communities and online lifestyles

- Web, society, and innovation

- Intellectual property and the commons

- Governance, trust, and privacy

- Web access, literacy, and democracy

- Knowledge, education, and scholarship on and through the Web

- People-driven Web technologies, including social search, open data,
and new interfaces

- Using the digital records of user activity mediated by the Web

- New research questions and thought-provoking ideas, emphasizing the
intersection of design and social interaction

Submission

Web Science is a strongly interdisciplinary field, with areas
representing different traditions for conferences and publications.
Therefore this year we are providing three different submission
formats (papers, notes, and abstracts) to allow for a wide range of
submissions from all disciplines relevant for Web Science.

Submission Guidelines for Research Papers & Research Notes

Research papers and research notes should present new results and
original work that has not been previously published. Research papers
should present significant theoretical, empirical, methodological, or
policy-oriented contributions to research and/or practice. Research
notes should describe brief and focused research contributions that
are noteworthy.

Papers can be up to 10 pages; notes up to 4 pages. All submissions
should be formatted according to the official ACM SIG proceedings
template (WebSci archive format at
http://chi2012.acm.org/cfp-formatting-instructions.shtml#extendedformat)
and submitted via EasyChair.

Submission Guidelines for Extended Abstracts

Extended abstracts should describe either (1) thought-provoking ideas
with the potential for interesting discussions at the conference, or
(2) works-in-progress for sharing valuable ideas, eliciting feedback
on early-stage work, or fostering discussions and collaborations among
colleagues.

Extended abstracts can be up to 6 pages, and should be formatted
according to the official ACM SIG abstract template (extended abstract
format at http://chi2012.acm.org/cfp-formatting-instructions.shtml#extendedformat)
and submitted via EasyChair.

Review, Publication, and Presentation

The Web Science program committee consists of a senior program
committee that covers all relevant areas of Web Science as well as
regular program committee members from these areas. Each submission
will be refereed by at least 3 PC members and one senior PC member, to
cover both the research background of each submission as well as the
necessary interdisciplinary aspects. Review criteria for all types of
submissions

include significance, originality, presentation, validity, and the
ability to stimulate discussion, with different emphases depending on
the submission category to allow for consideration of all relevant
works contributing to the advancement of Web Science.

All accepted papers, notes, and extended abstracts will appear in the
Web Science 2012 Conference Proceedings and will also be available
through the ACM Digital Library, in the same length and format of the
submission. Regardless of the submission format, accepted submissions
will be presented in one of three formats: 1) as a 20-minute
presentation followed by discussion, 2) during one of the poster
presentations and discussion sessions, 3) or as part of a panel
discussion. Research papers, research notes, and extended abstracts
are eligible for presentation in any of the three formats, depending
on reviewer recommendations. Submissions that are thought-provoking
and novel will be more appropriate for longer presentation, while
those that are expected to stimulate discussion will be ideal for
presentation in smaller groups or as posters.

Deadlines

February 12: Submissions of papers and notes due

February 26: Submissions of extended abstracts due
March 31: Notification of acceptance
April 29: Final versions of papers, notes, and extended abstracts due
June 22-24: Web Science 2011 Conference, Evanston, Illinois, USA

General Chairs
Noshir Contractor, Northwestern University, US
Brian Uzzi, Northwestern University, US

Program Chairs
Michael Macy, Cornell University, US
Wolfgang Nejdl, L3S Research Center, Germany


Website
http://www.websci12.org/

Noshir Contractor
Jane S. & William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences
Northwestern University

Program Assistant: Marilyn Logan (mjlogan@northwestern.edu)

Please schedule appointments at: http://bit.ly/noshcal2012 (for help
see: http://bit.ly/noshcalhelp)

In Fight Over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises Against Old

WASHINGTON — When the powerful world of old media mobilized to win passage of an online antipiracy bill, it marshaled the reliable giants of K Street — the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Recording Industry Association of America and, of course, the motion picture lobby, with its new chairman, former Senator Christopher J. Dodd¹, the Connecticut Democrat and an insider’s insider.

Yet on Wednesday this formidable old guard was forced to make way for the new as Web powerhouses backed by Internet activists rallied opposition to the legislation through Internet blackouts and cascading criticism, sending an unmistakable message to lawmakers grappling with new media issues: Don’t mess with the Internet.

As a result, the legislative battle over two once-obscure bills to combat the piracy of American movies, music, books and writing on the World Wide Web may prove to be a turning point for the way business is done in Washington. It represented a moment when the new economy rose up against the old.

“I think it is an important moment in the Capitol,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and an important opponent of the legislation. “Too often, legislation is about competing business interests. This is way beyond that. This is individual citizens rising up.”

It appeared by Wednesday evening that Congress would follow Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon as the latest institution to change course in the face of a netizen revolt.

Legislation that just weeks ago had overwhelming bipartisan support and had provoked little scrutiny generated a grass-roots coalition on the left and the right. Wikipedia made its English-language content unavailable, replaced with a warning: “Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.” Visitors to Reddit found the site offline in protest. Google’s home page was scarred by a black swatch that covered the search engine’s label.

Phone calls and e-mail messages poured in to Congressional offices against the Stop Online Piracy Act² in the House and the Protect I.P. Act³ in the Senate. One by one, prominent backers of the bills dropped off.

First, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising Republican star, took to Facebook, one of the vehicles for promoting opposition, to renounce a bill he had co-sponsored. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who leads the G.O.P.’s Senate campaign efforts, used Facebook to urge his colleagues to slow the bill down. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina and a Tea Party⁴ favorite, announced his opposition on Twitter, which was already boiling over with anti-#SOPA and #PIPA fever.

Then trickle turned to flood — adding Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Representatives Lee Terry of Nebraska and Ben Quayle of Arizona. At least 10 senators and nearly twice that many House members announced their opposition.

“Thanks for all the calls, e-mails, and tweets. I will be opposing #SOPA and #PIPA,” Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, wrote in a Twitter message. Late Wednesday, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, withdrew his support for a bill he helped write.

The existing bill “needs more due diligence, analysis and substantial changes,” he said in a statement.

Few lawmakers even now question the need to combat pirates at Web sites in China, Russia and elsewhere who have offered free American movies, television shows, music and books almost as soon as they are released. Heavyweights like the Walt Disney Company secured the support of senators and representatives before the Web companies were even aware the legislation existed.

“A lot of people are pitching this as Hollywood versus Google. It’s so much more than that,” said Maura Corbett, spokeswoman for NetCoalition, which represents Google, Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay and other Web companies. “I would love to say we’re so fabulous, we’re just that good, but we’re not. The Internet responded the way only the Internet could.”

For the more traditional media industry, the moment was menacing. Supporters of the legislation accused the Web companies of willfully lying about the legislation’s flaws, stirring fear to protect ill-gotten profits from illegal Web sites.

Mr. Dodd said Internet companies might well change Washington, but not necessarily for the better with their ability to spread their message globally, without regulation or fact-checking.

“It’s a new day,” he added. “Brace yourselves.”

Citing two longtime liberal champions of the First Amendment, Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Mr. Dodd fumed, “No one can seriously believe Pat Leahy and John Conyers can be backing legislation to block free speech or break the Internet.”

For at least four years, Hollywood studios, recording industry and major publishing houses have pressed Congress to act against offshore Web sites that have been giving away U.S. movies, music and books as fast as the artists can make them. Few lawmakers would deny the threat posed by piracy to industries that have long been powerful symbols of American culture and have become engines of the export economy. The Motion Picture Association of America⁵ says its industry brings back more export income than aerospace, automobiles or agriculture, and that piracy costs the country as many as 100,000 jobs.

---

(Page 2 of 2)

The House response, SOPA, was drafted by a conservative Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, with the backing of 30 co-sponsors, from Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, to mainline Republican Peter King of New York. The Senate’s version, written by Mr. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, attracted 40 co-sponsors from across the political spectrum and cleared his committee unanimously.

Then the Web rose up. Activists said the legislation would censor the Web, force search engines to play policemen for a law they hate and cripple innovation in one of the most vibrant sectors of the American economy.

Mr. Smith, the House Republican author, said opposition Web sites were spreading “fear rather than fact.”

“When the opposition is based upon misinformation, I have confidence in the facts and confidence that the facts will ultimately prevail,” Mr. Smith said.

Google, Facebook and Twitter have political muscle of their own, with in-house lobbying shops and trade associations just like traditional media’s. Facebook has hired the former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. Google’s Washington operations are headed by Pablo Chavez, a former counsel to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and a veteran of the Senate Commerce Committee.

And for all the campaign contributions, Washington parties and high-priced lobbyists the old economy could muster, nothing could compare to the tentacles the new economy can reach into Americans’ everyday lives through sites like Wikipedia. Aides to Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, say he will press forward with a vote Tuesday to open debate on the Protect I.P. bill. Negotiators from both parties are scrambling for new language that could assuage the concerns of the Internet community, but expectations are that the bill will now fail to get the 60 votes to move forward — a significant setback.

“The problem for the content industry is they just don’t know how to mobilize people,” said John P. Feehery, a former House Republican leadership aide who previously worked at the motion picture association. “They have a small group of content makers, a few unions, whereas the Internet world, the social media world especially, can reach people in ways we never dreamed of before.”

---

References

1. ^Christopher J. Dodd (topics.nytimes.com) ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/christopher_j_dodd/index.html?inline=nyt-per )
2. ^Stop Online Piracy Act (politics.nytimes.com) ( http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr3261 )
3. ^Protect I.P. Act (politics.nytimes.com) ( http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/s968 )
4. ^Tea Party (topics.nytimes.com) ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier )
5. ^Motion Picture Association of America (topics.nytimes.com) ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/motion_picture_association_of_america/index.html?inline=nyt-org )

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

http://tinyurl.com/78hugjj

Calls for Papers (special): International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP)

Special Issue On: Immigrant Inclusion by E-Participation

Submission Due Date
2/1/2012

Guest Editors
Itir Akdogan, Mauri Kaipainen, Sonia Sousa, and Ilona Tikka

Introduction
“Immigrant Inclusion by e-Participation” (IIeP) is a multi-stakeholder regional project that addresses immigrant communities and public authorities in Estonia, Finland and Sweden. The aims of the project include bridging the tools, activities, and concepts of citizen communities, on one hand, and the governments’ top-down participation practices and technologies on the other, in terms of interoperability and integration of technologies. The Joint International Workshop on Immigrant Inclusion by e-Participation was organized within the project framework in 2-3 November 2011 at the University of Helsinki in Finland. The workshop gathered authorities on national and local levels involved in e-democracy and e-governance, immigrant and multicultural non-governmental organizations, and researchers in e-democracy and inclusion of immigrants in participatory decision-making processes in order to create a discussion forum and interaction between authorities, NGO actors and immigrant societies on immigrant inclusion by e-participation.

Objective
This special issue aims at sharing the discussions of the event with the international research community, but even at elaborating the subject in a wider spectrum with contributions from researchers in this field who were not present at the workshop. The special issue will thus bring together various perspectives on how authorities and immigrants may use new information and communication technologies for more inclusive and democratic societies. 

Recommended Topics
Topics to be discussed in this special issue include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Activism, initiative citizenship, and immigrants
• Challenges and limitations of e-participation
• Empowerment of immigrants in e-participation
• Governmental and municipal e-participation
• Hate speech online
• Immigrant’s public e-participation awareness
• Inclusion vs. exclusion of immigrants online
• Non-governmental organizations and e-participation
• Political e-participation of immigrants
• Promotion of  social interaction and civic engagement
• Transnational identities, diaspora, and use of social media

Submission Procedure
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit papers for this special theme issue on Immigrant inclusion by e-participation on or before February 1, 2012. All submissions must be original and may not be under review by another publication. INTERESTED AUTHORS SHOULD CONSULT THE JOURNAL’S GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSIONS at http://www.igi-global.com/Files/AuthorEditor/guidelinessubmission.pdf.  All submitted papers will be reviewed on a double-blind, peer review basis. Papers must follow APA style for reference citations.

All submissions and inquiries should be directed to the attention of:
Itir Akdogan, Mauri Kaipainen, Sonia Sousa, and Ilona Tikka
E-mail: itir.akdogan@helsinki.fi

Special Issue On: The Politics of Green IT

Submission Due Date
3/15/2012

Guest Editors
Abbe E. Forman, Ph.D.

Introduction
Green IT refers to environmentally sustainable IT/computing in an effort to lower the carbon footprint of IT/computing.  San Murugesan defined green computing as “the study and practice of designing, manufacturing, using, and disposing of computers, servers, and associated subsystems—such as monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communications systems—efficiently and effectively with minimal or no impact on the environment” (San Murugesan, “Harnessing Green IT: Principles and Practices,” IEEE IT Professional, January–February 2008, pp. 24-33).

Objective
This special issue will explore the emerging topic of Green IT. “Greening” is a hot button issue that has recently been embedded in a multitude of platforms. As global environmental concerns have grown, many people and organizations have started to make changes to lower their carbon footprint in an effort to slow further decay. As society has become aware of the negative impact that computers and computing have on the environment, Green IT has taken a front seat as a way to lessen that impact.  This issue will explore the ways that people, organizations, and governments are changing the way they use and dispose of computers.

Recommended Topics
Topics to be discussed in this special issue include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Adding or increasing Green IT curriculum
• Algorithmic efficiency
• Computer recycling
• Green IT policies and regulation
• Greening data centers
• Power management
• Storage (i.e., cloud storage)
• Telecommuting
• Toxic computer dumping
• Virtualization

Submission Procedure
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit papers for this special theme issue on The Politics of Green IT on or before March 15, 2012.  All submissions must be original and may not be under review by another publication. INTERESTED AUTHORS SHOULD CONSULT THE JOURNAL’S GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSIONS at http://www.igi-global.com/Files/AuthorEditor/guidelinessubmission.pdf.  All submitted papers will be reviewed on a double-blind, peer review basis. Papers must follow APA style for reference citations.

All submissions and inquiries should be directed to the attention of:
All submissions should be should be directed to the attention of:

Abbe E. Forman, Ph.D.
E-mail: abbe.forman@temple.edu


Original Article: http://www.igi-global.com/calls-for-papers-special/international-journal-politics-ijep/1147

Wikipedia, Facebook, Google and several other websites to go dark Wednesday in protest against SOPA

NOTE: At this time we believe only USA sites will go down Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning.

Some of the sites Yahoo, Twitter, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hotmail have mirror sites in India, they may be up but not sure.

USA  ET Tuesday-Wednesday Midnight = Wednesday 10:30 AM India

 

Joining the protest against two proposed federal Internet regulation bills, Wikipedia's English-language site will be blacked out for all of Wednesday, co-founder Jimmy Wales announced onTwitter today.

Beginning midnight ET Wednesday, Jan. 18, visitors to the English site will see a protest message for 24 hours, Wales tweeted. The move will affect about 100 million users.

"This is going to be wow," he says.

Wikipedia and several other sites are calling on lawmakers to block the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). They are concerned the laws will "hold website owners liable for links to sources of illegal music and movie downloading, with a detrimental effect on free speech online," The Financial Times reports.

Reddit and the Cheezburger network, which includes such sites as The Daily What and Fail Blog, also plan to shut down to protest SOPA, The Washington Post  reports. The document service Scribd already made a billion pages vanish in protest, the Post says.

Craigslist posted a message to all its users explaining it and other Web site's opposition to the bills.

Meanwhile, Wales tweeted this: "Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday! #sopa"

Saturday, the White House urged that SOPA be vetoed and spelled out what it would support in anti-piracy legislation. The House leaders then said they would shelve the bill until a "consensus" could be reached, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he hoped to "move forward" with an amendment when lawmakers return from recess, The Hill says.

NEW YORK | Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:24pm EST

(Reuters) - Wikipedia, the popular community-edited online encyclopedia, will black out its English-language site for 24 hours to seek support against proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said threatens the future of the Internet.

The service will be the highest profile name to join a growing campaign starting at midnight Eastern Time on Wednesday that will see it black out its page so that visitors will only see information about the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

The information will urge Wikipedia readers to contact their local congressman to vote against the bills. Other smaller sites leading the campaign include Reddit.com and Cheezeburger.

"This is a quite clumsily drafted legislation which is dangerous for an open Internet," said Wales in an interview.

The decision to black out the site was decided by voting within the Wikipedia community of writers and editors who manage the free service, Wales said. The English language Wikipedia receives more than 25 million average daily visitors from around the world, according to comScore data.

The bills pit technology companies like Google Inc and Facebook against the bill's supporters, including Hollywood studios and music labels, which say the legislation is needed to protect intellectual property and jobs.

The SOPA legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives aims to crack down on online sales of pirated American movies, music or other goods by forcing Internet companies to block access to foreign sites offering material that violates U.S. copyright laws. Supporters argue the bill is unlikely to have an impact on U.S.-based websites.

U.S. advertising networks could also be required to stop online ads, and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites found to be distributing pirated goods.

Google has repeatedly said the bill goes too far and could hurt investment. Along with other Internet companies such as Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter and eBay, it has run advertisements in major newspapers urging Washington lawmakers to rethink their approach.

White House officials raised concerns on Saturday about SOPA saying they believe it could make businesses on the Internet vulnerable to litigation and harm legal activity and free speech.

"We're happy to see opposition is building and that the White House has started to pay attention," said Wales.

News of the White House's comments prompted a prominent supporter of the bill News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch to slam the Obama administration.

"So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery," he posted on his personal Twitter account Saturday. News Corp owns a vast array of media properties from Fox TV, the Wall Street Journal to Twentieth Century Fox studios.

Wales said the bill in its current form was too broad and could make it difficult for a site like Wikipedia, which he said relies on open exchange of information. He said the bill also places the burden of proof on the distributor of content in the case of any dispute over copyright ownership.

"I do think copyright holders have legitimate issues, but there are ways of approaching the issue that don't involve censorship," Wales said.

(Reporting By Yinka Adegoke; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

 Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, confirmed the site’s decision on Monday on Twitter, writing: “Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!”

 The members of Wikipedia have been debating and voting about whether the site should participate in a blackout, which several other Web sites, including Reddit, the social news site, and BoingBoing, a technology and culture blog, plan to join.

On Twitter, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia would go dark beginning at midnight Eastern time on Tuesday  and remain unavailable until midnight Eastern time on Wednesday. Visitors who try to reach the Wikipedia home page will be greeted with information about the bills and details about how to reach their local representative. Mr. Wales estimated that the blackout could affect as many as 100 million people.

“This is going to be wow, ” Mr. Wales wrote. “I hope Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington on Wednesday. Tell everyone you know!”

[governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA

We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and India's Intermediary Guideline Rules. I have also gleaned from concerns on freedom of expression in other countries that have been subject to List discussions in the past year etc. This is a first Draft in text as well as attached for those who may wish to add their tracked changes, edits and comments before 2200 UTC +12 18th January, 2012.

Draft Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Censorship (SOPA/PIPA/IGR)

We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary censorship of the internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly use the internet. We note with increasing concern the the various censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop Online Piracy Act  (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary internet users all over the world.

We note that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and urge governments who have ratified the ICCPR to abide by their commitments.  Whilst freedom of expression has limitations, these limitations are on the verge of being extended to accommodate assault on freedom of expression and the openness of the internet.

Whilst the exception has been provided for it does not mean that it can be abused. For jurisdictions which have legitimate governments where people can truly have their say in the laws that their legislators dish out or choose their representatives to Parliament or Congress, it is critical that even more so, civil society is seen to make a stand.

We have observed with great concern threats to freedom of expression on countries such as Republique Democratique du Congo, China and Syria.

We have watched with joy as Burma continues to relax its censorship of online content. Countries can mature in aspects of freedom of expression and it takes awareness, outreach and dialogue.

For a country like the USA to pass SOPA or PIPA as law at the expense of freedom of expression is a realisation that the assault on freedom of expression does not know borders. We stand with civil society organisations in the United States of America and abroad who are collectively raising their voice against the SOPA and PIPA.

We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet.

English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and thePROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be 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. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge 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 Wikimedia. 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, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place – many do! – but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States, don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. 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.

On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation 

Original Article:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout