
RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest - lelf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike
======
jxcole
Here is what I recommend:

Facebook, google, youtube and wikipedia should take down their sites and
replace them with a message about SOPA all on the same day. But it shouldn't
end there. They should also personally attack each of the original progenators
in the Senate/House of the bill. Their political careers need to end that day.

It's not enough to simply stop this bill. If they do, another will be enacted
pretty soon with pretty much the same problems. Politicians need to understand
that if they take on the internet and choose record labels over their own
constituents they cannot expect support from their own political base.

~~~
OmarIsmail
I believe this is what they call "raising the stakes" and the consequences of
this may not be what you want/expect. In fact, taking such an aggressive move
may hasten the very thing you're trying to prevent.

Let me elaborate. Right now most politicians in the US are pretty out of touch
with the Internet, that much we can all agree on. They hear that it's
powerful, and they have young staff members saying how the Facebooks and the
Twitters are necessary nowadays, but it's easy for the regular politician to
not really buy into the hype. Despite that politicians (and nefarious people
in influential positions) aren't really happy with the Internet and the whole
open thing. Which is precisely why we're getting SOPA. Now, US politician
attacks have thus far been limited media copyright and piracy, dabbling a
little bit into privacy with the Facebook stuff. These are easy targets.

Now, if these sites take this kind of action, and has the kind of effect that
you want - namely kicking these politicians out - you don't think every other
politician is going to learn a very big lesson. And I'd hope that we plebes
have also learned a lesson. When politicians/people in power have a "threat"
that they are actually vulnerable to, they don't respect it and learn to co-
exist. Instead they try to destroy, co-op, or otherwise remove it as a threat.

Maybe I'm being cynical/pessimistic, but given the history of humanity and the
way people in power behave, I think I have reason to be.

~~~
jballanc
Actually, I think you're on to something, but I would go farther. Politicians
are not just out of touch with the Internet, they are governing a country that
is rapidly ceasing to exist outside the walls of their debating chambers. They
do not have control so much as complacency of much of the public, and they
seem more than willing to do away with the reality that does exist before
letting it supplant the fantasy in which they continue to govern.

------
bittermang
There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of
politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted
"First they came..." (which has it's own wiki page,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6>), sites like Wikipedia
cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia
is not sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, politics have come to them
pitchforks and torches in hand.

Do it. Paint it black.

~~~
snowwrestler
As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of
politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of
legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.

Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely
tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the
future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up
its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.

~~~
rosser
IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia
Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding
that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had
more to do with endorsing for or against _candidates_ than taking overt
positions on specific issues.

For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3)
organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues
that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section
501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as
political campaign intervention." [1]

Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make
reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or
against SOPA, and thus even _implying_ that WM wanted you to vote one way or
another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line.

Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the
Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be
kosher, per my reading on the subject.

[1] <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf>

(EDIT: clarification.)

~~~
BCM43
I'm pretty sure you're correct. I've worked with a number of 501(c)(3), and
most of them have worked on political issues and bills. They cannot endorse a
candidate though.

------
dendory
I think that's a great idea. The vast majority of people do nothing until it
hits them personally, that's why there's so much apathy. Cut Wikipedia for a
week, something used by so many people, and then normal people will start
caring. Show Americans what it can look like to be behind a firewall by having
many popular sites blank out for a week, and by the end of the week the whole
country will be in an uproar.

There's nothing more powerful to make people move and contact their
representatives than blocking them from their farmville, celebrity news,
homework help (wikipedia) and so on.

~~~
pnathan
Agreed.

If Wikipedia is locked out for a week, it will make mainstream international
news in no time flat.

I think it needs to happen.

~~~
cpeterso
I don't think the mainstream news media cares about Wikipedia. Plus, the
site's process and product are a direct challenge to the legacy news
oligarchy.

~~~
pak
Eh, I would say (sadly) that the mainstream news media practically depends on
Wikipedia to fill in background info for half of their stories. Gaffes by TV
reporters have occasionally been traced back to Wikipedia vandalism. Sometimes
Wikipedians then cite the misguided journalist(s) when adding the falsehood
into the article [1], a circular phenomenon of "fact-creation" that has been
lampooned by xkcd [2].

[1] [http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-
fact-o...](http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/10/2211220/false-fact-on-
wikipedia-proves-itself)

[2] <http://xkcd.com/978/>

------
bgentry
\-- My thoughts as posted in the other thread: --

 _SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle._

When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what
else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have:

a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been
neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission

b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political
views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission

 _The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own
interests._

I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up
their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not
received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware
of it, let alone aware of its repercussions.

National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue
since most of their parent companies support this legislation.

~~~
Lewisham
Yeah, neutrality is only possible if Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Foundation,
hosts itself in a nation which isn't going to be controlled by legislation
that will affect it.

Even if it did, the domain seizures by the US means that Wikipedia is always
going to be vulnerable for as long as the US owns the root DNS zone.

You can only be neutral until you're the one getting beat on.

~~~
tejaswiy
But if there was hypothetically a law that was good for wikipedia and bad for
the people in general, then should they just keep quiet? I'll protest because
it impacts me isn't such a viable strategy. You either protest everything that
is "wrong" from some view point or you protest nothing. And this is where we
get on the slippery slope.

------
lazerwalker
I find it interesting that many of the commenters would rather see legislation
passed that could harm Wikipedia than see the site "politicized" in any way.

I definitely understand the sentiment, but I think there's a big difference
between simply taking a political stance for the sake of it and fighting to
make sure your non-profit organization is legally allowed to survive and
continue operations as it has.

~~~
waqf
> _I find it interesting that many of the commenters would rather see
> legislation passed that could harm Wikipedia than see the site "politicized"
> in any way._

That's a false choice. Many of the commenters would rather _take the small
chance that a Wikipedia protest could have been the deciding factor preventing
SOPA_ than see the site politicized.

FWIW, I agree with them, and certainly one factor which weighs into my
decision is that in my opinion the chance that Wikipedia would be the deciding
factor is, say, less than 1%.

~~~
chc
A Wikipedia protest would be a _huge_ factor. It would put a recognizable face
on the potential consequences of SOPA, whereas now it's kind of vague what's
at stake to most people. Opposition to SOPA would go from "A majority of
geeks" to "A majority of the Internet-using population," which is a few orders
of magnitude. I don't see how you could doubt any of this. Since the effect
would be massive — definitely beyond any politician's ability to ignore —
there are only two situations in which it is unlikely to be a deciding factor:

1\. SOPA will inevitably fail even without Wikipedia's help, so it's not even
worth worrying about SOPA

2\. SOPA literally cannot be defeated

~~~
waqf
I'm glad you stated that argument, because it's kind of what I suspect a lot
of people think so it gives me something to attack ;).

My specific concerns are:

a. I think politicians _can_ ignore something that "a majority of the
Internet-using population" knows. As long as the "mainstream" media (i.e.
television) chooses not to pick it up, the politicians won't be forced to
answer for themselves.

b. If there is opposition to SOPA, either the public media spin will be
controlled by politicians announcing that the draft law has been modified "in
response to" the concerns/opposition/protests, or "SOPA" will be defeated but
the powers that want it passed will regroup and send it through again next
year under a different name.

c. If there's room to argue that Wikipedia is exaggerating the threat, then
that is what will be publicly argued when this story breaks. This might not
turn out so positively for Wikipedia (or negatively for SOPA): after all,
which side has more experience and resources to put towards controlling the
public debate? And that's before we consider the possibility that someone will
seriously suggest that it would be _better_ for Wikipedia to be censored.

Don't read (b), in particular, as defeatism: I understand that this is a war
and that we have to fight the current battle as well as future ones. I claim
only that in the cost–benefit analysis, the utility of defeating this
particular incarnation should not be approximated by the utility of being free
from SOPA-like law for ever.

~~~
doktrin
a. I disagree, but this is speculation on my part. For instance, I think an
issue can gain sufficient public attention without television coverage. In
addition, I think a Wikipedia blackout would in fact garner a not-
inconsiderable amount of mainstream coverage.

b. The cost-benefit is highly skewed towards immediate action. It is highly
likely that some incarnation and/or descendant of SOPA will eventually become
law. However, it's critical that SOPA does not. If publicly defeated, future
versions will be less ambitious and more rational.

------
huhtenberg
SOPA is going down. I think it is obvious. I also think it is quite obvious
that it was _meant_ to go down by its creators. The open question now is what
part of SOPA will be reintroduced later.

\--

This is a trivial tactic based on the idea of _anchoring_. Say, one wants to
pass an unpopular piece of legislation. He would then introduce something that
is 5x as bad (an anchor), let the public take it down, and then reintroduce a
(what now seems a much milder) version. Sure, the public may take an issue
with it too, but it won't be as unified and uproarious. The public had their
win, they prevailed, and they are simply bored to fight the same fight all
over again.

~~~
CamperBob
Which, as others have said, is why the black banner or page should target the
Senators behind the legislation, not just the legislation itself. The Overton
Window needs to be slammed shut on their fingers.

~~~
mavelikara
I was unsure who the Senators were, and had to look it up on Wikipedia. Here
is the relevant section:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters)

------
hsmyers
I wonder if it would also make a difference if Google arranged to censor all
of the supporting members of the House and Senate. It shouldn't take long for
at least their aides to get the message in a particularly realistic way. For
my .02 worth, I'd leave the 'switch' on for good, but I'm old and vindictive
:)

~~~
boredguy8
Wouldn't that run counter to Google's point about how hard / difficult it is
to censor specific sites?

~~~
burgerbrain
Suppose they just blocked access entirely to all publicly known IP blocks used
by congress members and buildings?

That wouldn't be the same sort of technical challenge as SOPA would pose, but
would drive home the point pretty well.

~~~
boredguy8
This is an interesting idea, insofar as it falls generally in line with one of
the potential effects of SOPA enforcement.

But perhaps more interestingly: because people would still have a job to do,
they'd use Bing or something else, which would hopefully demonstrate to
Washington just how circumventable the legislation is.

~~~
burgerbrain
Quite so, that's a great point.

------
bguthrie
I'm surprised by how torn the community appears to be - after their success in
Italy, I would have expected stronger support for such a proposal. Is there a
tally somewhere on that page? My rough reading is that supports outnumber
opposes, but not by much.

I'm heartened that they're considering it. I certainly think it's worth
trying.

~~~
raldi
I can't find a tally on the page, but a quick Perl tally suggests "support" is
getting ~75% of the votes.

~~~
redthrowaway
It won't have a tally, as this is just a straw poll and not any sort of
official !vote on the matter. Jimbo's floating the idea on his talkpage to
guage the community's reaction to it and get some ideas for what he should say
to lawmakers when he meets them.

If it seems like the motion has legs, then either Jimbo or someone else will
create an actual RfC where the community will hash out a plan to enact it.

------
Joakal
Adopting a silent stance is still a political stance of abstaining.

Frankly, Wikipedia organisation has every right to protest if it means long-
term problems with SOPA compared to maintaining the reputation of being
neutral.

Surely, a Wikipedia editor can point out projected costs and article effects
with the SOPA compared to losing some article experts/editors from having a
less neutral reputation. Much less emotion through the evidence route.

------
cheald
I thoroughly respect the stance that Wikipedia should remain politically
neutral, but when there's legislation that _threatens your existence_ , it's
the right time to get act on it.

"Blanking" Wikipedia uses the Wikimedia Foundation platform to make a
statement to educate the public about an issue that threatens to kill the
Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikipedia, by extension), and thereby to enlist help
in keeping the site alive. This is functionally no different from the Jimbo
Wales Annual Stare-Into-Your-Soul-Until-You-Donate funding drive, except that
then, the issue threatening Wikipedia is money rather than legislation. This
is not Wikipedia taking a political stance on an issue just to take a stance;
it is Wikipedia trying to educate the public about and beg for help regarding
an issue that threatens Wikipedia's existence.

If Congress introduced a "Make Wikipedia Illegal" bill, would it be wrong or
"politicization" for Wikimedia to attempt to defend their existence by making
an emergency call-to-education to the public?

------
salimmadjd
I understand why Wikipedia wants to editorially remain unbiased. That said,
they have a huge ad on top to raise money to stay in business. I don't this
action any different than brining to attention laws that could harm Wikipedia.

This is a simple darwinian situation. Entities that can defend themselves
survive and those that can't vanish in time.

------
EGreg
Here were my thoughts:

"You are trying to send a message that the SOPA is crossing the line for the
internet, because it gives too much power to corporations to shut down
websites and cut off their funding -- even if Wikipedia is unlikely to be
among them. Shutting down wikipedia can _illustrate_ this, but consider the
consequences. First of all, Wikipedia content is replicated elsewhere, so
people would be able to get at least a recent copy of Wikipedia articles
somewhere. But before you take such an action, consider when you will "pull
your troops out". Certain countries have started "military campaigns" due to a
very controversial reading of their constitution (ahem, [[8]]) , and it always
became unclear when to pull out. I am worried that if Wikipedia goes down this
road, it will likewise be unclear when to revert back. Suppose the SOPA is
passed anyway. Will Wikipedia voluntarily be its first casualty? In that case,
be aware that your attempt at a protest may very well get Wikipedia
permanently removed from the internet. If you are supporting this action,
please explain below what it will take for Wikipedia to go back online, or
else why you think it is OK for Wikipedia to never reopen for business as a
result of this brinksmanship. I would oppose because if we all know Wikipedia
will be back whether or not SOPA passes, then it's not a credible threat at
all, merely a protest -- which at the end of the day is worth shutting down
the site. "

~~~
sbayless
Thats a good point. What if, instead of shutting down completely, wikipedia
shuts down for just one day every week (say, each Monday). That way, people
will continue using the site most of the time, instead of adapting by
switching to some other source (like a website of replicated content), and
hence the periodic loss of access will continue to be noticed. Moreover, in
the event that the bill passes, wikipedia can comfortably continue protesting,
without permanently shutting down.

------
bryanh
Facebook and Google (or YouTube) might be the only other internet powerhouses
with enough traction to successfully pull something like this off. I hope they
take a stand. It is an awful bill with awful consequences.

~~~
bdrocco
I can't say I'd mind youtube getting shut down for a day...

It'd be comical though when a study puts a value to the U.S. productivity
increase when youtube videos are an inaccessible distraction.

Some of those videos have sucked up millions of man-hours of viewing... if
even a single digit percent of those views were by workers procrastinating,
we're talking millions in lost productivity. (Per clip!)

------
Shenglong
Too bad WOW didn't purpose this instead. I'd wager millions of angry, hair-
pulling, screaming 13 year-olds are a lot louder than all of America's
partially inconvenienced adults.

~~~
whyenot
"It is easy to dismiss video games as pointless activities that only teenagers
indulge in. The truth is that the average age of MMORPG players is around 26.
In fact, only 25% of MMORPG players are teenagers. About 50% of MMORPG players
work full-time. About 36% of players are married, and 22% have children. So
the MMORPG demographic is fairly diverse, including high-school students,
college students, early professionals, middle-aged home-makers, as well as
retirees. In other words, MMORPGs do not only appeal to a youth subculture."

<http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html>

~~~
Shenglong
I'm fully aware. That wasn't the point I was emphasizing, though!

------
azelfrath
Imagine if all The Greats did this: Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Youtube,
Twitter, hell even 4chan.

80% of Internet traffic (just pulling that number out of thin air) blacked
out? People will notice. People will care.

Wikipedia has the right idea and needs to kick this off. Then others need to
follow suit.

------
snowwrestler
What a terrible idea; I can't think of a faster way to kill the public
credibility of this open encyclopedia project.

------
feralchimp
Perhaps someone here at HN can do what the RfC's opposing commenters
repeatedly asked someone to do, but which no one (at least in the few hundred
comments I read) actually did:

Explain how SOPA threatens the existence of Wikipedia. Show your work.

It's one thing to say "this situation is different! we're fighting for
survival!" and another thing to argue it based on past real events and the
actual contents of the bill.

There is a reason WP avoids political advocacy as a foundational principle,
and it's not just to preserve their status as a charity.

------
lambda
I'm torn. On the one hand, I strongly oppose SOPA, and I agree with most of
the online protests I see of SOPA and PROTECT-IP.

On the other, Wikipedia prides itself on its neutrality; it is one of
Wikipedia's selling points, that they (at least attempt, as much as a
collaborative, anonymously edited encyclopedia can) to provide a neutral point
of view, keep from giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, don't allow
themselves to be tempted into being non-neutral or appear non-neutral by
offering advertising. Making a strong political statement that takes advantage
of their popularity would move away from this neutral stance.

On the gripping hand, this is something that would impact Wikipedia directly.
Wikipedia would instantly become much more liable for any problematic content
posted by users. They would likely have to change their editing policies, add
domain blacklists to avoid linking to verboten domains. Many sources of
information that Wikipedia editors use and link to may be banned. SOPA is in
direct opposition to the open and free dissemination of information that is
Wikipedia's mission.

So, I don't really know. I wish there were a good answer here. But there
really isn't.

~~~
sukuriant
I stand in a similar position to you; and am going to say something sappy
here:

Perhaps even the neutral have to fight be allowed to remain neutral.

Censorship stands in the face of neutrality.

~~~
regularfry
It's simpler than that. Even the most neutral body will be very much pro its
own existence. If Wikipedia views SOPA as an existential threat, it is not
inconsistent to oppose it.

------
rmc
There is no SOPA bill in my country, please don't block English Wikipedia from
me. Unless you are willing to block enwiki for everyone incl. USA when some
law somewhere threatens it, please don't do the same when a law threatens only
USA.

I know the USA is big in the anglosphere, but please be a bit less USAcentric.

~~~
feor
Wikipedia was created and is _hosted_ in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is
based in the US, Jimbo Wales is American, and I'd wager a large part of en.wp
visitors and editors are American. Like it or not, Wikipedia itself is US-
centric.

And though it may be besides the point, you know as well as I do that if SOPA
happened to pass in the US it wouldn't be long before most Western countries
had their own version too.

------
jeggers5
At the moment - just by doing a find 'support'/'oppose'; there are 161
'support's and 62 'opposes'

~~~
theon144
Really? When I quickly skimmed through, the supporters seemed to be in the
absolute majority.

Well, it's a straw poll anyway, so they may or may not act according to it.
Let's see.

------
ggwicz
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to
perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really
cooperating with it." \- Martin Luther King, Jr.

SOPA is evil. We need to do everything we can to fight it. Wikipedia is one of
a handful of sites who have the power to really make a difference.

I suggest that not Wikipedia, but blogs, community sites, even your business
sites all have at least some temporary display against SOPA.

I only get ~15 visitors to my site per day.

That's still something to work with.

We must all support a temporary Wikipedia white out. Those who are opposed are
blind and need to understand SOPA.

------
deepkut
While I agree taking a neutral stance is important for an organization like
Wikipedia, it is imperative the world understands the impact SOPA will have. A
majority of the people I know understand enough about SOPA to say, "I'm
against that," but

(1) these people do not resemble your average American, and

(2) even they couldn't tell you much more than "it isn't good," or "it's what
the entertainment biz wants."

People really need to understand SOPA. It needs to make headline news. This
will push it there.

------
tibix
This is very, very interesting. I'd like to point out that the situation is
very similar to Asimov's Foundation. In the novel, the Encyclopedists where
arguing whether they should stick to their scholar work on the Galactic
Encyclopedia or become a very strong force in the history of mankind.

That decision has come to Wikipedia.

------
plasma
I'd definitely like to see this happen.

I agree with a proper blackout that presents the use of some/most of the site,
and a detailed reason about why it is happening and who's responsible in the
senate/house/etc for the bill so people know not to vote for them.

If you do nothing, its too late. One day of no Facebook won't be so bad.

------
cpeterso
If Wikipedia won't protest, a outside group (like Anonymous) could do the job
for them with a week-long DoS. They could just peg the Wikipedia servers or
use bots to continuously auto-wipe/censor random articles.

~~~
ComputerGuru
You know, that's a really brilliant middle-of-the-road solution.

And if someone at Wikimedia, you know, notices a DoS and just happens to have
problems with their load balancer.. hey, it's not their fault - they stayed
neutral!

------
jtchang
Frontpage of Wikipedia should be changed to:

"We're sorry. SOPA passed so we can no longer legally show you Wikipedia
content. So long and thanks for all the fish."

------
vldo
This seems pointless.. wikipedia pages will still be accessible via google
cached pages. Also i think wiki should remain neutral in this matter.

~~~
theon144
The point isn't to not let anybody access the content, they just use it as a
means to raise the awareness on an issue.

------
grandalf
Uh, hello, don't take sites down, just use the ad revenue to support the
political opponents of the officials who support SOPA.

------
BiosElement
If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

~~~
gojomo
That's alarmist hyperbole. Even if the worst form of SOPA passes...

• it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash –
smaller sites have much more to fear

• the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or
modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia

• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction

• etc., etc., etc.

SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down
by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and
elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing
its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by
the ephemera of silly politics.

~~~
nostrademons
"it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash –
smaller sites have much more to fear"

The _threat_ of use is often significantly worse than the use itself.
Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for
a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't
stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like
COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets
that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take.

Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't
provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know
it ceases to exist.

(Same with startups: would _you_ start a company to fill that void if you
_knew_ that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd
be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)

~~~
gojomo
I agree completely and such chilling effects are more reasons why SOPA is bad
for the web. But I was only listing why it's not, realistically, an
existential threat for Wikipedia.

------
kunalmodi
not during college finals!

~~~
finnw
If the aim is to maximise news coverage, that would be the perfect time to do
it.

~~~
DrStalker
But think of all the poor students forced to find original sources instead of
just visiting Wikipedia!

Would be interesting to see the changes in grades for assignments due during a
period when Wikipedia was unavailable.

