Wikipedia’s the only striking site that got the mainstream media interested. There’s been 4 million lookups on Wikipedia’s zipcode finder so far today. (Full data will be released in a day or two, when the WMF staff have had any sleep.) Wikipedia took the entire existence of SOPA mainstream.
I may be biased because the UK mainstream electronic media coverage has been substantial—I’ve been doing radio for two days, others have been doing television (including Jimmy Wales on Newsnight, which is seriously important here). I don’t know what the US media coverage landscape looks like—has it hit mainstream electronic media, or are they treating it as something those funny Internet people are making a fuss about?
I don’t know what the US media coverage landscape looks like—has it hit mainstream electronic media, or are they treating it as something those funny Internet people are making a fuss about?
Articles either displaying the blackout logo or directly mentioning Wikipedia in the headline are above the fold on cnn.com and nytimes.com, and below the fold on MSNBC. Most of the editorials I see look to be coming down on the opposition side. Don’t see anything on the SF Chronicle front page.
I don’t follow US news much, but it looks like it’s got some attention.
Might be hard to compare Wikipedia and Google. I’d guess more people use Google, but Wikipedia is more invasive. Regardless, it is certainly highly effective.
I think for media coverage, it would have been Wikipedia. Journalists joke about students left stranded without Wikipedia for their homework … but as far as I can tell, they’re almost all utterly reliant on Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder. They’re feeling its absence keenly. (And crying with relief when they realise it still works on their phones.) The news cycle started as soon as the warning banner went up yesterday.
They say so speaking to them (they used to say so a lot, when it was a novelty—say, 2005-2008), and I get the impression from stories that seem to have been backgrounded from Wikipedia. (Which is admittedly subjective rather than statistics. But when you recognise the Wikipedia writing style …) I suspect this is a lot of why Wikipedia gets a really easy ride from the press.
The Wikipedia blackout has been the single most effective protest against SOPA.
We got a front page headline in the UK. Admittedly only in Metro, which is complete rubbish … but is read by every bored commuter in the country.
My prior agrees, but have any evidence?
Wikipedia’s the only striking site that got the mainstream media interested. There’s been 4 million lookups on Wikipedia’s zipcode finder so far today. (Full data will be released in a day or two, when the WMF staff have had any sleep.) Wikipedia took the entire existence of SOPA mainstream.
I may be biased because the UK mainstream electronic media coverage has been substantial—I’ve been doing radio for two days, others have been doing television (including Jimmy Wales on Newsnight, which is seriously important here). I don’t know what the US media coverage landscape looks like—has it hit mainstream electronic media, or are they treating it as something those funny Internet people are making a fuss about?
(Edit: The post-blackout press release. 8 million zipcode lookups.)
Articles either displaying the blackout logo or directly mentioning Wikipedia in the headline are above the fold on cnn.com and nytimes.com, and below the fold on MSNBC. Most of the editorials I see look to be coming down on the opposition side. Don’t see anything on the SF Chronicle front page.
I don’t follow US news much, but it looks like it’s got some attention.
Congratulations on the media coverage!
Might be hard to compare Wikipedia and Google. I’d guess more people use Google, but Wikipedia is more invasive. Regardless, it is certainly highly effective.
I think for media coverage, it would have been Wikipedia. Journalists joke about students left stranded without Wikipedia for their homework … but as far as I can tell, they’re almost all utterly reliant on Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder. They’re feeling its absence keenly. (And crying with relief when they realise it still works on their phones.) The news cycle started as soon as the warning banner went up yesterday.
How far can you tell?
They say so speaking to them (they used to say so a lot, when it was a novelty—say, 2005-2008), and I get the impression from stories that seem to have been backgrounded from Wikipedia. (Which is admittedly subjective rather than statistics. But when you recognise the Wikipedia writing style …) I suspect this is a lot of why Wikipedia gets a really easy ride from the press.