How so? There is no legal or moral obligation for Wikipedia (the real-world organization) to remain neutral on issues that they feel threaten their existence.

Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) does have a few obligations in this regard, most notably their promise to keep articles as neutral as possible (and I think the fact that the Wikipedia community is really anal about things like "citation needed" and such reflects their commitment in this regard).

However, on the whole SOPA/PIPA issue, it's the organization speaking, not the encyclopedia, which should be perfectly clear from the writing style alone. The same can be said about those annoying fundraiser nag banners - they are certainly neither neutral nor relevant to the articles they are added to, but they were never supposed to be.

Looking at the SOPA article (the actual Wikipedia article, that is), I'd say it's a bit lop-sided in that long sections are devoted to criticism against the proposed bill, but the article does seem to make quite an effort in remaining neutral, and the lop-sidedness could simply be a result of opponent views being more diverse and verbose than the supporters' side, hence requiring more words to accurately paraphrase.

Using the user created encyclopedia as a platform to promote their agendas is wrong, no matter how important they think it is.

Imagine if you took your Encyclopedia Britannica W book off the shelf today to read about women, and opened it up, and (to your amazement) every page was blacked out with a blurb about how the Internet was going to destroy their business, and you should write your representative to complain about how many jobs would be lost.

Of course that is just a silly analogy, so you will be wasting your time poking holes in it, but at some level it is similar.

Wikipedia primarily exists because real people volunteer their time and donate money. I'm sure some of those people are pro-SOPA. By Wikipedia abusing their position, they alienate those people from contributing in the future. The site will become more and more skewed toward people who align themselves with Wikipedia's public nature. And for a site that must maintain a balance to remain neutral, that is dangerous.

I wouldn't mind as much if they used an organizational Wikipedia Foundation website to talk about SOPA and their official positions. But blacking out all the user generated content with their own spin is crossing the line.

REVISION:

I would never use Allegro.cc to promote my personal agendas. Of course, I'll post my opinions on threads like this, but I would never black out the website because I don't like my mailman.

Yes, it's my website. Yes, I pay for it. Yes, I run it.

But the content is overwhelmingly user generated, and as such, using it as my personal soapbox would be an abuse of the implied relationship between me and the people who contribute to the site.

i.e., If I'm going to complain about the weather, I'll do it within the same context that any other user can.

The blackout didn't kill it for sure, but it made a dent.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Can you imagine buying a set of the Britannica only to have those little subscription leaflets falling out everywhere?

It actually did do something. There was a massive flood of people calling their leaders. And a bunch of politicians have now distanced themselves from the bills, so that SOPA looks like it won't have the votes needed to pass anymore.

Megaupload.com was forced offline today. Mission accomplished.

So were the U.S. Department of Justice, the MPAA, the RIAA, Universal Music, the U.S. Copyright office, and BMI. Just sayin'.

So now a dozen people or so will be arrested and jailed for 20 years for a few minutes of fun. Mission accomplished.

{"name":"p8ImI.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/2\/b2a6857fd8aeabea8f8b80b54f013f04.png","w":444,"h":492,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/2\/b2a6857fd8aeabea8f8b80b54f013f04"}

Huh?! Apparently we have to speak the language of WTF?! in order to understand that.

Also, as I've stated time and time again the years spend for murder is case by case basis. If they could have proved he intentionally gave him the medicine he would have got 15-20 years or more. Got to love the law, Georgia just executed a guy that suddenly proof came out that he hadn't done the crime he was given the death penalty for but the Governor nor the lawyers wanted to open the case again to pursue the new evidence. Casey Anthony got away with murdering her own daughter. Seriously F*CKED UP!

His point is still invalid. All of his income goes to his children so every CD bought goes to them. His abusive father was pissed because he left everything to his family minus his father (which I find funny, a final F*ck You from the grave).

Is that why I can't read links to Google++ because I haven't signed up for their "do no evil" crap?