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.

And it was quite successful, the law was basically mothballed.

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.

It was proposed to the English Wikipedia community (late yesterday) and as of now I don't think we have consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposa...

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.

Was the Italian protest something voted for by the community?

It was agreed upon by the community of the Italian Wikipedia.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma...

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.

If this law really is bad, why would it be a problem for Wikipedia to not be neutral about it?

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.