For one of the largest and most important sites containing user generated content out there, Wikipedia has been strangely quiet on this issue.
Go to eff.org or mozilla.org, for example, and you'll find prominent banners raising awareness to the issue. Go to en.wikipedia.org and the only thing you'll find is a huge picture of Jimmy Wales asking for your money. Surely if they can plaster his picture on every single Wikipedia page for months on end like they also did last year, they could also spare a day or two to run an unobtrusive banner on SOPA. Especially since, as Jay Walsh correctly states, the bill could have "disastrous effects for Wikipedia and its sister projects"
Here's an idea, Wikipedia could redirect to "Sorry this site is not accessible due to an enforcement action under the Stop Online Piracy Act. (This is a test)" That would start a debate in the mainstream pretty quickly...
They did something like that for a day on Italian Wikipedia when they discussed in the Italian Parliament a law which, in the case when someone is offended (even if the facts are true!), if a website doesn't respond in 48 hours to the request of removal, the website would have been given a 10,000 euro fine.
They could just use the embedded code from americancensorship.org that http://techdirt.com seems to be using as well. It seems pretty effective (and scary) to me.
By my reckoning, so far at least half the commenters think this would break the "Neutral Point of View" policy. I personally disagree with that, but as an employee of the WMF it's not my place to tell them what to do.
Wikipedia editors have to be one of the most frustrating groups I've ever encountered. They typically have all the charm and practicality of a government bureaucracy without the helpfulness. It's like there's a competition among them to find some way the rules can be interpreted as banning anything anybody suggests.
Note: the Wikipedia community does not usually put things to a vote. They discuss and seek consensus. Although they sometimes do use icons to indicate their position and to get a rough sense of where everyone stands.
I think the bill is awful. I think WMF is right to stand against it.
But for Wikipedia itself, either you're committed to the duty of remaining neutral, even on important issues and issues with overwhelming sentiment on one side, or you're not.
Go to eff.org or mozilla.org, for example, and you'll find prominent banners raising awareness to the issue. Go to en.wikipedia.org and the only thing you'll find is a huge picture of Jimmy Wales asking for your money. Surely if they can plaster his picture on every single Wikipedia page for months on end like they also did last year, they could also spare a day or two to run an unobtrusive banner on SOPA. Especially since, as Jay Walsh correctly states, the bill could have "disastrous effects for Wikipedia and its sister projects"