geni wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.
More popular. Not bigger.
We're not bigger than AOL? Hell, we're bigger than Jesus Christ!
Mr. Lennon has a point.
Actually, think about it. We may not be bigger than AOL, but we sure as hell are big enough that if we were to appeal to AOL at some level, there'd be a decent chance of them listening. Heck, with all the media attention Wikipedia seems to get every time it farts, you can imagine the headlines... "AOL refuses to help Wikipedia" or something...
Or am I just wishful thinking here?
media attention to the china issue has been limited.
Yeah, but that's China. Relatively few people care. But if America Online, (insert various jingoistic patriotic bullshit here) was not cooperating with a website which promotes Free Speech (insert various references to US legalalistic cruft here), then oh noes!!1! We might even get the ACLU involved.