It's interesting that they're being criticized. One of the three responses on the page (the other two being positive) is: "This is an overtly political decision. Poor form."
Personally I think one should be deeply ashamed of backing away from an issue because it may be seen as "political".
Fact is that I doubt Wikipedia would have been possible in an environment where censorship and action without due process is seen as acceptable. Actually, access to wikipedia has been limited in the past by regimes that we consider totalitarian, or near-totalitarian, and the very action of censoring the web has been pointed out as a concrete manifestation of lack of democracy.
Democracy in the west has been weakened gradually over the past years. To a large degree because the population is helpless when it comes to influencing policy; we don't know how to act.
So when a clear opportunity to be heard presents itself I find it disgraceful that thoughtless and unprincipled people promote apathy and inaction. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
I think they are looking at this from the wrong perspective (although it's easy to do). An overly political stance from GoDaddy has forced Wikipedia to make a decision.
It's the same reason why I think Google and other big tech platforms shouldn't use their service to promote anti-SOPA initiatives... once you go down that track, your service is seen as divisive and political.
There is a significant section of the wikipedia community that thrives on inertia (just try contributing to an article there and see for yourself) for these people even a modicum of change is completely unacceptable. Heck if tomorrow wikipedia discovered a way to feed all the hungry children in the world by adding one article to the site you'd have people voting to delete that article for some reason.
It is a political decision, but it is directly related to an issue that could spell doom for wikipedia. Non-profits still get to have a say in issues that relate to their own survival.
Exactly. Certain "wikipedians" seem to hold neutrality with high regard while ignoring the fact that Switzerland has the luxury of neutrality because they are willing to act in their own defense. These wikipedians confuse pacifism with neutrality.
Do not confuse stupidity with neutrality. An organism which makes no effort to avoid its extinction, especially when it can do so in a peaceful manner, has forfeit its evolutionary right to exist.
I hope the wikipedians in question will take some time to think about how their passive stance actually ends up jeopardizing their neutrality, and that once they have gotten their shit together, feel enough shame to apologize for being part of the problem.
Political indeed! SOPA isn't just a practical issue (although, it is this too), it's an ethical issue. It's important for organizations like Wikipedia (and universities! ) to take a stand.
Neutrality is important to their culture, and it could be difficult for some to separate "we don't want to support harmful practices and products" from the politics of those practices and products.
