Talk:SOPA Learn more page for review
I think we need to make the contact us link more visible w/ a direct link to the info@ email on the page, to take the pressure off the blog and other channels -- OTRS seems to be keeping up pretty well. -- phoebe | talk 13:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Current wording: "In most cases we are stricter than the law requires, and act within minutes or hours of notification."
Possible stronger wording: "We are far stricter than the law requires, and we usually act within minutes or hours of notification"
The latter is far stronger, but also invites a challenge. We can actually meet that challenge (and hence look good) but do we want to?
- Rationale for the claims -
- The vast majority of freely licensed and public domain media is actually on Wikimedia Commons. Media on Wikipedia includes all our fair use material. Our non-freee/fair use criteria are savagely tight compared to the law. Only if a source is known, only if strictly needed, no more than needed, remove if a chance of a free image exists (even if one isn't held), no fair use in non-articles, rationale for each and every occurrance, deletion if no longer used, .... etc.
- Our criteria for free/PD are also tighter than the law strictly requires. Full background on sourcing, permissions on OTRS file, deletion if in doubt, bots to scrutinize, ...
I added the qualifier "American censorship" to "is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality". Rationale - it might just be a powerful hook. Americans don't much like censorship, and don't trust "sekret matters" .... so to have it done by Americans (as these laws make overwhelmingly likely) may be especially poignant and powerful - "We're doing this?!". FT2 (Talk | email) 17:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Addition: Suggested by a friend: http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html -- it is a great video, not sure that we wouldn't break the TED site though :)
Removal: I wouldn't include the Greenpeace link -- no matter how good, Greenpeace is very political, leaves the wrong impression about our motives/stance. -- phoebe | talk 19:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)