Wikipedia's protest

Wikipedia's protest last week was interesting. Taking down the whole of the English section of their encyclopaedia to raise awareness is a pretty bold step and so there's obviously a lot that can be said about it.

It appeared at first a great example of a company using its brand power to champion a social campaign. It worked well through making its point evident of its action - imagining a world without free information.

It was done in order to argue that American legislation to police the internet should not be passed. However whilst it seemed great at using its product to prove its point, I was disappointed by its use of power instead of its use of its expertise.

I, like others that visited the site, followed the link to learn more and yet it left me even more confused. I still did not understand exactly what the legislation was about and how it would affect companies like Wikipedia. Whilst it was good to have precise action points, what could have made its campaign even better is if it had simply laid out a very clear page explaining the proposed legislation with the pros and the cons - thus educating people to decide for themselves instead of biasing their views by providing too little information.

Wikipedia's position has always been strong for providing clear, unbiased and organised information which makes it easier for readers to gather knowledge. Yet with the protest last week, with some irony, its greatest strength became its greatest weakness as it did little to prevent its view from seeming biased. As a company that even refuses to display adverts for fear of biasing its content it seems a shame that it took this route to explain its views.