
Wikipedia will be leaving GoDaddy - shahed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
======
basugasubaku
Link to the actual edit:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=467377661&oldid=467375455)

~~~
shahed
Thanks for the link!

------
richardburton
I think the great thing about an organisation as large and as important as
Wikipedia taking a stance on this is that it makes for great copy. Journalists
will love it. I hope this GoDaddy story takes on a new life and makes the
transition from the blogosphere to the newspapers and therefore the general
public's consciousness. Keep on fighting my US friends. Keep on fighting.

~~~
noamsml
> Journalists will love it.

This is probably the most important point. Boycotts of SOPA-supporting
companies, as many have pointed out, do very little to stop the bill from
passing. What they do succeed in doing is making sure opposition to the bill
stays high in the news cycle and enters public consciousness.

------
Canada
I donated to Wikipedia as a direct result of their decision to dump GoDaddy. I
spent a good chunk of my day lobbying those I know with tons of domanis at
GoDaddy to dump them immediately.

~~~
adamtmca
hell of a username. do it justice.

------
chuinard
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."

~~~
vacri
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.

~~~
burgerbrain
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.

~~~
bborud
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.

I'm disgusted.

------
bborud
Are there any good estimates on how much GoDaddy has lost because of their
support for SOPA?

------
robomc
Why is domain name supplier a community matter... does the community vet
decisions on data-centres or server software?

~~~
ekiru
Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editors participating in
the linked discussion seem to think that domain name supplier is a community
matter.

As far as I can tell, this was a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the
resulting action will be taken by the Wikimedia Foundation.

------
phil
OMG, Wikipedia talk pages are freaking impossible to read!

Surely there are some serious Wikipedians floating around here. Hasn't anyone
thought about adding a little bit of threaded conversation support to
mediawiki so these back and forth discussions aren't such a mess?

------
bradfeld
I think this is a very powerful move by Wikipedia against SOPA.

I hope they do something creative - such as take the entire site down for a
few days in protest with a message that says something like "this is what your
favorite websites could look like post-SOPA. Call your congressman now and
tell him / her that SOPA should not be passed."

------
gnurag
Just donated $10 to Wikipedia in support of @jimmy_wales stand against SOPA
and keeping the Internet free.

------
ellie42
Will GitHub boycott GoDaddy because of their support for SOPA?

~~~
Canada
That would be great. Maybe there should be a new open source software license
featuring total denial of rights to use to the MPAA/RIAA member companies too.

~~~
kachnuv_ocasek
No, that would be bad. If open, it should allow everyone. The goal is to unite
not segregate after all.

~~~
VMG
_The goal is to unite not segregate after all_

Who says that? Why should you unite with your enemy?

~~~
aw3c2
Basic of free speech means allowing hateful stuff too. The more you forbid the
less free it is (whatever "it" is).

~~~
VMG
allowing is not the same as supporting

------
GigabyteCoin
Wikipedia used GoDaddy, period? I'm surprised they were able to function as
they do, seriously. Not poking fun at anybody here.

~~~
mryan
There is a difference between registering your domain with GoDaddy, and using
GoDaddy's DNS servers. The wikipedia.org domain is (currently) registered with
GoDaddy. Wikipedia run their own DNS servers.

------
WeWin
In a longer run this may not look as good for Wikipedia as it does now. It
shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly
neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote. It also
shows that they are willing to turn on their business partners and screw them.

This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that
of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening
with the editing for some time.

~~~
mustpax
Neutrality does not require passivity and inaction. In fact, it requires that
you actively distance yourself from politicized parties so that your
neutrality is not called into question. GoDaddy has, of their own accord,
become a politicized party in the SOPA debate. It is altogether reasonable for
Wikipedia to choose not to be involved with them.

~~~
WeWin
So has Wikipedia: they could have just dropped GoDaddy without saying a word,
that would have been neutral. Publicly proclaiming you severing business ties
for a politically-charged reason is just bad business.

~~~
vacri
"publicly proclaiming" is 'as discussed in our own online spaces where we came
up with the decision'? Do you have evidence of wikipedia seeking out other
media to promote their decision?

