Wikipedia - after the blackout

Blacked out Wikipedia page

Breathe again students, relax fact-checking journalists, Wikipedia is working once more - so let's step back and evaluate Wednesday's blackout. Did the dramatic gesture made by the online encyclopaedia and other websites really change anything?

And before we get started - yes, I know we should not rely on Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source so please take my first few words with a pinch of salt. And I also know that it was easy enough to get round the blackout if you wanted, but that's really not the point.

The aim of the gesture was to raise the profile of the debate about America's proposed anti-piracy laws, Sopa and Pipa, and to try to change the terms of that debate. And it looks this morning as though the blackout succeeded on both counts.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organisation behind the site, reported this morning that 162 million people had "experienced the Wikipedia blackout landing page" in the space of 24 hours.

Perhaps more significantly, eight million people in the United States looked up their congressional representatives through Wikipedia and, it is claimed, went on to protest about Sopa and Pipa. Wikipedia paints a picture of jammed switchboards at Capitol Hill and servers buckling under the weight of email from protestors.

Now this kind of internet protest is easier to organise than getting thousands of people onto the streets to demonstrate - and often has even less effect on the course of legislation. But this time it does seem to have worked.

One prominent Republican backer of the new laws, Senator Marco Rubio, announced on Twitter "After hearing from people with legit concerns, have withdraw support for #Pipa. Let's take time to do it right." And when the BBC in Washington tried to find voices on Capitol Hill willing to be interviewed in support of the legislation, nobody returned the calls.

Rupert Murdoch was not so shy. "Seems blogosphere has succeeded in terrorizing many senators and congressmen who previously committed. Politicians all the same," he told Twitter, before asking: "On Sopa, where are all big film stars with many millions to lose?"

But it looks as though the media backers of Sopa and Pipa have lost this round of the battle to Silicon Valley and the web activists.

Now of course Wikipedia was far from the only website taking action, but without its involvement the whole protest would have had a much lower profile in Washington and around the world.

So its strategy - not a total blackout but one that was effective enough for users and the global media to notice - has proved effective. But has Wikipedia damaged its reputation in the process? I note that the politician sponsoring Sopa called the blackout a "publicity stunt" and said that it was "ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act."

I learned that, by the way, from Wikipedia's entry on Sopa. I suppose I had better go and find another source to check that quote...

Rory Cellan-Jones Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

Zuckerberg - the unasked questions

Mark Zuckerberg's appearance at the Mobile World Congress was a missed opportunity.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Rory


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    "Wikipedia damaged its reputation in the process?"

    It's reputation is enhanced in my book, I did not realise how much I used Wikipedia until yesterday and was faced with the black-out message quite a few times as I searched for info and came across it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which has earned the trust the public has placed in it with its squeaky clean history.

    8 million Americans understand that politicians do not work for them, but for their lobbyists.

    Even without knowing the specific details of SOPA, gut instinct tells you who is right and who is wrong..

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    Media industry needs to wake up. My daughter wanted to buy an album online the other day. It has been released in the US but will not be relased in Europe until next year! How stupid is that? If my daughter wants the album that bad she will have no alternative but to get a pirate copy - or wait 12 months. Film and media industry - if you want the sales then let us buy at a fair price, simple!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    For Murdoch it is all about MONEY, don't worry about all the potential abuses of power that can be used from the poorly planned out legislation that will used to prevent freedom of speech. Murdoch and his lot think the US government works for him and not for the people.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    The fact that Mr Murdoch is calling for movie stars 'with millions to lose' to speak out in favour of these bills speaks volumes. The only people who suffer from freedom of information are the large corporations and wealthy individuals who currently make their money from controlling access to such information. Why on Earth would we take any notice of what they say?


Comments 5 of 223



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.