If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events.
By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long reaching consequences.
Here's a trivial question for starters - how does humanity trust Wikipedia's articles on SOPA given that it has taken a stance on the issue? Or trust it's pieces on the people supporting SOPA (a lot of whom are perfectly normal, smart, upstanding people we just happen to disagree with strongly).
> Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted.
Your comment is well-written, summarizes a tenable position and contributes to the discussion. Unfortunately, the principle of not downvoting for mere disagreement has in practice been abandoned on HN.
If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events.
By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long reaching consequences.
Here's a trivial question for starters - how does humanity trust Wikipedia's articles on SOPA given that it has taken a stance on the issue? Or trust it's pieces on the people supporting SOPA (a lot of whom are perfectly normal, smart, upstanding people we just happen to disagree with strongly).
The taint could be far reaching.