Censorship at wikipedia Options

[communicat]

There are numerous, readily available Russian academic and other reliable works that have been translated into English language; so English-speaking Russian authors are not really an issue. What is at issue is systemic and systematic bias through omission, i.e. censorship. I was banned from wikipedia for raising the issue, and I know of others who have been banned for identical reasons.

[communicat]

Edwin Black was blocked for making legal threats. So how come Timbo knows what Edwin Black "would write today"?

[communicat]

It's also probably one of wikipedia's longest articles, relying on nearly 400 reference citations.

So what, until people decided to shorten it, Fanny Crosby was 283k bytes and had 825 references.

Curiously, however, nearly all the references are from conservative Western mainstream sources, with only one source that deviates from the mainstream position (i.e. revisionist historian Prof. AJP Taylor). Never mind about what the NPOV rules state about the incorporation of a range of viewpoints on any given subject. The nazi-mentality admin censors like Nick-D and his cabalist sidekicks like Edward321 will ensure you're blocked for "POV-pushing" if you try to add any non-Western (or even Western) source that deviates from the cosy, Western-biased, fairy-tale version of World War II. Namely: it was a good war, the Anglo-Americans won it single-handedly, and the Russians (who lost nearly 50 million lives in the fight against Hitler) are hardly worth mentioning.

That's because there aren't enough English speaking Russians editing. And there never will be, as long as things keep declining as they are.

(Did you know that en-WP is loaded with thousands of articles about cities, town, villages, and other places in India? The coverage of Indian geography is almost as good as the coverage of English geography. Because Indian editors who can write in English have been editing. That's one of the major biases of Wikipedia--if large numbers of English-speaking people don't get in there and push their own ethnic or historical POV, it gets ignored. Wikipedia is a wargame, and a drug.)

There really should be much more about the Soviet Union's participation in the World War II article. And yes, Western source do tend spend a whole bunch of time on some minor skirmish on some beach in the north of France rather than the much more massive and consequential developments on the Eastern Front (a book which Cla68 recommend, a "War to be Won", while very good at what it is, is also more or less the quintessential work in this vein, which manages to mention the Soviets only as an afterthought, relatively speaking, nm things like Polish or Yugoslav resistance). So I sympathize with communicat here. But I also paid enough attention to the on-wiki developments to know that that ain't what he got banned for. It's one of those "grain of truth but crazy shit anyway" kind of things.

Also AJP Taylor is about as mainstream as it gets. Definitely not a "revisionist historian".

This is probably the post at which this stuff should be moved to the annex.

So what exactly, in your view, was the "crazy shit" that communicat was banned for? Far as I know, he was first topic-banned after alleging the existence of a cabal at military history project, and then site-banned for questioning the decisions of administrator Timotheus Canens. What's your version? Please do tell, I'm really interested to know, especially since Arbcom never did respond to my appeal.

PS: Interesting phenomenon that I've observed to my regret, is that when someone incurs the wrath of some nazi-style admins and their sidekicks at WP, everyone else including those who previously supported the victim, suddenly distances themselves from the situation. Presumably this is to avoid becoming the recipient of similar lynchmob treatment. Radek, with his "crazy shit" theory appears to be one of those. Bless him.

This post has been edited by communicat: Mon 8th August 2011, 11:20am

[Detective]

Nothing has changed since 2007. Wikipedia is not dynamic. It is static. That's maybe why Jimbo's currently bewailing the shortage of editors. That's why also there's a much ignored wikipedia page WP:WORLDVIEW, (as yet not AFD'd), which highlights bias through omission, i.e. censorship by any other name.

It really isn't helpful to misuse the word censorship in this way. Undoubtedly there is some censorship on WP, occasionally quite egregious censorship (especially with regard to criticisms of WP). However, bias through omission due to recentism, US-centricity, laziness or plain ignorance is a very different thing. Surely it is absurd to claim that the fact that there are far more articles on recent politicians than 19th century ones is censorship; nobody would stop you from adding articles on every major politician of the 19th century if you can find sources. To lump all these things together is to belittle the genuine censorship and weaken WR when we protest about gross abuse.

[radek]

So what exactly, in your view, was the "crazy shit" that communicat was banned for? Far as I know, he was first topic-banned after alleging the existence of a cabal at military history project, and then site-banned for questioning the decisions of administrator Timotheus Canens. What's your version? Please do tell, I'm really interested to know, especially since Arbcom never did respond to my appeal.

PS: Interesting phenomenon that I've observed to my regret, is that when someone incurs the wrath of some nazi-style admins and their sidekicks at WP, everyone else including those who previously supported the victim, suddenly distances themselves from the situation. Presumably this is to avoid becoming the recipient of similar lynchmob treatment. Radek, with his "crazy shit" theory appears to be one of those. Bless him.

Well, he wasn't banned for it, but he was considered slightly goofy by some for consistently referring to himself in the third person.

I stopped paying attention at some point but IIRC you were trying to copy/paste stuff from your blog into WW2 articles, edit warred about it and were completely oblivious to any kind of criticism or discussion, particularly from the generally very reasonable Nick.

[communicat]

So what exactly, in your view, was the "crazy shit" that communicat was banned for? Far as I know, he was first topic-banned after alleging the existence of a cabal at military history project, and then site-banned for questioning the decisions of administrator Timotheus Canens. What's your version? Please do tell, I'm really interested to know, especially since Arbcom never did respond to my appeal.

PS: Interesting phenomenon that I've observed to my regret, is that when someone incurs the wrath of some nazi-style admins and their sidekicks at WP, everyone else including those who previously supported the victim, suddenly distances themselves from the situation. Presumably this is to avoid becoming the recipient of similar lynchmob treatment. Radek, with his "crazy shit" theory appears to be one of those. Bless him.

Well, he wasn't banned for it, but he was considered slightly goofy by some for consistently referring to himself in the third person.

I stopped paying attention at some point but IIRC you were trying to copy/paste stuff from your blog into WW2 articles, edit warred about it and were completely oblivious to any kind of criticism or discussion, particularly from the generally very reasonable Nick.

Well, if Radek paid more attention he would have understood the true reason why I was banned, which is not the diversionary reason he's promoting here as a WP apologist and Nick-D asskisser.

If Radek (who hails from Poland) is really so concerned about WP standards, he might consider also paying some attention to what is probably the most biassed article on WP. Namely, the weirdly lopsided article" titled Western Betrayal, which promotes an exclusively reactionary Polish interpretation of the term "Western betrayal", while excluding entirely of course the Soviet viewpoint. Encyclopedic content be damned.

[Milton Roe]

If Radek (who hails from Poland) is really so concerned about WP standards, he might consider also paying some attention to what is probably the most biassed article on WP. Namely, the weirdly lopsided article" titled Western Betrayal, which promotes an exclusively reactionary Polish interpretation of the term "Western betrayal", while excluding entirely of course the Soviet viewpoint. Encyclopedic content be damned.

Since the Soviets were in on the crime and had been shortly before busy mass-murdering thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals by shooting them in the back of the head, their betrayal is of the sort that occurs among drug cartels or other criminals. Say, of the sort who've robbed a bank and shot tellers and guards, or taken hostages for money and executed civilians, and then had one faction of their own turn on them, to get their half of the money, or control of turf, or for some other selfish reason that violates "honor among thieves." I suppose you can see why the West doesn't shed many tears for the shock of Stalin at finding out he'd been "played" by Hitler. Poor Stalin. I'd post my photo of the world's smallest violin, except I can't get up enough enthusiasm even to do that.

The "Soviet viewpoint"??? Please.

[communicat]

Nothing has changed since 2007. Wikipedia is not dynamic. It is static. That's maybe why Jimbo's currently bewailing the shortage of editors. That's why also there's a much ignored wikipedia page WP:WORLDVIEW, (as yet not AFD'd), which highlights bias through omission, i.e. censorship by any other name.

It really isn't helpful to misuse the word censorship in this way. Undoubtedly there is some censorship on WP, occasionally quite egregious censorship (especially with regard to criticisms of WP). However, bias through omission due to recentism, US-centricity, laziness or plain ignorance is a very different thing. Surely it is absurd to claim that the fact that there are far more articles on recent politicians than 19th century ones is censorship; nobody would stop you from adding articles on every major politician of the 19th century if you can find sources. To lump all these things together is to belittle the genuine censorship and weaken WR when we protest about gross abuse.

Never mind the semantics. Whether it's bias through omission or bias through deletion, it still amounts essentially to the same thing: suppression of information, otherwise known as "censorship". In the case of the former, it's systemic and nobody at WP has the will or the inclination to do anything about it; in the case of the latter, it's deliberate and when done in bad faith it's gross abuse, which happens to be the norm as far I and many other former WP editors are concerned.

[Jagärdu]

Jimbo frequently practices censorship. He shouldn't be speaking about it.

You people have a pretty broad understanding of "censorship". Censorship would be oversighting the comment entirely. Evasiveness when confronted with something that makes you uncomfortable because you don't have any answers that wont make you look bad is not censorship. If I had my druthers the term censorship would be stricken from the English language because it is abused all the time in the modern world, especially in places where the new libertarianism of Web 2.0 can be found. That includes Wikipedia of course, but also Wikipedia Review.

What if Silver Seren repeated his request for comment on Jimmy's talk page three more times?

What would happen then?

Be honest.

I would probably get in trouble for...something. I don't know what exactly Jimbo and his army of admin talk page watchers would use to get me in trouble.

Likely the generic "blocked for disruptive editing" or something to that effect.

The same thing would happen to you if you reverted a comment you added to anyone's talk page 3 times. Jimbo's talk page is just like anyone else's. Sure it get's more exposure, but is a user talk page. While user's don't own their talk pages, it has always been understood that they may erase any comment added there, including warnings. Edit warring with them to keep your comment up will lead to a block no matter who you are, or who they are. I'm sorry if reality isn't as interesting to you all as "censorship" by shadow governments is ...

[communicat]

If Radek (who hails from Poland) is really so concerned about WP standards, he might consider also paying some attention to what is probably the most biassed article on WP. Namely, the weirdly lopsided article" titled Western Betrayal, which promotes an exclusively reactionary Polish interpretation of the term "Western betrayal", while excluding entirely of course the Soviet viewpoint. Encyclopedic content be damned.

Since the Soviets were in on the crime and had been shortly before busy mass-murdering thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals by shooting them in the back of the head, their betrayal is of the sort that occurs among drug cartels or other criminals. Say, of the sort who've robbed a bank and shot tellers and guards, or taken hostages for money and executed civilians, and then had one faction of their own turn on them, to get their half of the money, or control of turf, or for some other selfish reason that violates "honor among thieves." I suppose you can see why the West doesn't shed many tears for the shock of Stalin at finding out he'd been "played" by Hitler. Poor Stalin. I'd post my photo of the world's smallest violin, except I can't get up enough enthusiasm even to do that.

The "Soviet viewpoint"??? Please.

Your post is incoherent. Can't make head or tail of what the fug you're trying to say. You seem not even to have read the article in question. Jeez, what next. Typical wikipedian comedian.

[radek]

Nothing has changed since 2007. Wikipedia is not dynamic. It is static. That's maybe why Jimbo's currently bewailing the shortage of editors. That's why also there's a much ignored wikipedia page WP:WORLDVIEW, (as yet not AFD'd), which highlights bias through omission, i.e. censorship by any other name.

It really isn't helpful to misuse the word censorship in this way. Undoubtedly there is some censorship on WP, occasionally quite egregious censorship (especially with regard to criticisms of WP). However, bias through omission due to recentism, US-centricity, laziness or plain ignorance is a very different thing. Surely it is absurd to claim that the fact that there are far more articles on recent politicians than 19th century ones is censorship; nobody would stop you from adding articles on every major politician of the 19th century if you can find sources. To lump all these things together is to belittle the genuine censorship and weaken WR when we protest about gross abuse.

Never mind the semantics. Whether it's bias through omission or bias through deletion, it still amounts essentially to the same thing: suppression of information, otherwise known as "censorship". In the case of the former, it's systemic and nobody at WP has the will or the inclination to do anything about it; in the case of the latter, it's deliberate and when done in bad faith it's gross abuse, which happens to be the norm as far I and many other former WP editors are concerned.

Ah yes, the article on Western Betrayal. Which was supposed to be an article on the presence of perception of betrayal - not whether or not it actually happened - in Eastern Europe and turned it into... not sure what to call it, under the strange title " Controversial command decisions, World War II ", sourced mostly from your own wacky website (for those who don't feel like reading too much - basically Mr. communicat is of the opinion that US and Britain "betrayed" the Soviet Union as early as 1941 and conspired to get Hitler and Stalin to fight each other). This was actually quite a trick (those folks who like to mess with Wikipedia should pay attention) - you managed to delete one article which you didn't like and at the same time create a whole new article as a vehicle for your website, all in one fell swoop. It was these kinds of constant not-so-sneaky tricks that kept you in trouble.

And then it was YOU who for some reason kept dragging others to ANI, AE and other drama boards and tried the Ottava "plz ban all those who disagree with me, ok thanks" strategy only to have it backfire. How many times did you request an ArbCom case before you actually got one? Three or four? And then for some strange reason every person who you managed to piss off and whose time you wasted by filing spurious reports on them showed up, said "yup, ban him", and the ArbCom dutifully banned you.

There are easy ArbCom cases and there are hard ones. There are ones they get right and ones they get wrong. This one was such a no-brainer that I'm not surprised they picked it up (eventually), as it most definitely made them look productive. And I'm not even surprised that they got it right.

The only sense you're a victim here is like a person who tries to stick up a grocery store, then immediately goes to the police station to file charges against the clerk for resisting the robbery.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Reading between the lines, communicat's posts here scream "fringe lunatic", not "reasonable critic".

Reasonable critics do not jump straight to "censorship" because they couldn't get their personal viewpoint shoved into WP, and don't attempt to reframe simple bias as intentional censorship. That they imply it's some kind of universal WP conspiracy to hide "the truth" strongly indicates a fringe viewpoint not actually backed up by evidence.

We are talking military history buffs, not religious fanatics, after all. Anyone really into history is going to read a lot of less-than-flattering things about their country's involvement in war. While some are going to cling to particular beliefs, many history buffs love studying different aspects of the story. A reasonable editor probably would have some difficulty, but they'd probably find at least a few allies along the way.

[communicat]

Nothing has changed since 2007. Wikipedia is not dynamic. It is static. That's maybe why Jimbo's currently bewailing the shortage of editors. That's why also there's a much ignored wikipedia page WP:WORLDVIEW, (as yet not AFD'd), which highlights bias through omission, i.e. censorship by any other name.

It really isn't helpful to misuse the word censorship in this way. Undoubtedly there is some censorship on WP, occasionally quite egregious censorship (especially with regard to criticisms of WP). However, bias through omission due to recentism, US-centricity, laziness or plain ignorance is a very different thing. Surely it is absurd to claim that the fact that there are far more articles on recent politicians than 19th century ones is censorship; nobody would stop you from adding articles on every major politician of the 19th century if you can find sources. To lump all these things together is to belittle the genuine censorship and weaken WR when we protest about gross abuse.

Never mind the semantics. Whether it's bias through omission or bias through deletion, it still amounts essentially to the same thing: suppression of information, otherwise known as "censorship". In the case of the former, it's systemic and nobody at WP has the will or the inclination to do anything about it; in the case of the latter, it's deliberate and when done in bad faith it's gross abuse, which happens to be the norm as far I and many other former WP editors are concerned.

Ah yes, the article on Western Betrayal. Which was supposed to be an article on the presence of perception of betrayal - not whether or not it actually happened - in Eastern Europe and turned it into... not sure what to call it, under the strange title " Controversial command decisions, World War II ", sourced mostly from your own wacky website (for those who don't feel like reading too much - basically Mr. communicat is of the opinion that US and Britain "betrayed" the Soviet Union as early as 1941 and conspired to get Hitler and Stalin to fight each other). This was actually quite a trick (those folks who like to mess with Wikipedia should pay attention) - you managed to delete one article which you didn't like and at the same time create a whole new article as a vehicle for your website, all in one fell swoop. It was these kinds of constant not-so-sneaky tricks that kept you in trouble.

And then it was YOU who for some reason kept dragging others to ANI, AE and other drama boards and tried the Ottava "plz ban all those who disagree with me, ok thanks" strategy only to have it backfire. How many times did you request an ArbCom case before you actually got one? Three or four? And then for some strange reason every person who you managed to piss off and whose time you wasted by filing spurious reports on them showed up, said "yup, ban him", and the ArbCom dutifully banned you.

There are easy ArbCom cases and there are hard ones. There are ones they get right and ones they get wrong. This one was such a no-brainer that I'm not surprised they picked it up (eventually), as it most definitely made them look productive. And I'm not even surprised that they got it right.

The only sense you're a victim here is like a person who tries to stick up a grocery store, then immediately goes to the police station to file charges against the clerk for resisting the robbery.

You really are a shithead, and like all shitheads you resort to attacking the messenger when you don't like the message. The message here is: why don't you just fix that crappy article? Oh, and by the way, you misrepresent entirely what my "wacky website" is really about. Try reading it some time when you're not too preoccupied with Russophobia, talking self-righteous crap, and shooting messengers.

[communicat]

Reading between the lines, communicat's posts here scream "fringe lunatic", not "reasonable critic".

Reasonable critics do not jump straight to "censorship" because they couldn't get their personal viewpoint shoved into WP, and don't attempt to reframe simple bias as intentional censorship. That they imply it's some kind of universal WP conspiracy to hide "the truth" strongly indicates a fringe viewpoint not actually backed up by evidence.

We are talking military history buffs, not religious fanatics, after all. Anyone really into history is going to read a lot of less-than-flattering things about their country's involvement in war. While some are going to cling to particular beliefs, many history buffs love studying different aspects of the story. A reasonable editor probably would have some difficulty, but they'd probably find at least a few allies along the way.

Ah! Surprise, surprise! Here we have yet another deviationist shooter-of-messengers. Never mind "fringe lunatics" and all the rest. Why not just apply your mind to the message and forget the messenger for a while? The message here being that WP's World War II article relies on about 400 conservative mainstream Western accounts of the war, without reference to any non-Western (or even Western) accounts that deviate from the mainstream Anglo-American POV. So what do you have to say about that evidence, Mr Military History Buff?

[Jagärdu]

Reading between the lines, communicat's posts here scream "fringe lunatic", not "reasonable critic".

Reasonable critics do not jump straight to "censorship" because they couldn't get their personal viewpoint shoved into WP, and don't attempt to reframe simple bias as intentional censorship. That they imply it's some kind of universal WP conspiracy to hide "the truth" strongly indicates a fringe viewpoint not actually backed up by evidence.

We are talking military history buffs, not religious fanatics, after all. Anyone really into history is going to read a lot of less-than-flattering things about their country's involvement in war. While some are going to cling to particular beliefs, many history buffs love studying different aspects of the story. A reasonable editor probably would have some difficulty, but they'd probably find at least a few allies along the way.

Ah! Surprise, surprise! Here we have yet another deviationist shooter-of-messengers. Never mind "fringe lunatics" and all the rest. Why not just apply your mind to the message and forget the messenger for a while? The message here being that WP's World War II article relies on about 400 conservative mainstream Western accounts of the war, without reference to any non-Western (or even Western) accounts that deviate from the mainstream Anglo-American POV. So what do you have to say about that evidence, Mr Military History Buff?

When you show up to a party in a clown costume you can't expect people to treat you as anything but a clown.

[Jagärdu]

Jimbo frequently practices censorship. He shouldn't be speaking about it.

You people have a pretty broad understanding of "censorship". Censorship would be oversighting the comment entirely. Evasiveness when confronted with something that makes you uncomfortable because you don't have any answers that wont make you look bad is not censorship. If I had my druthers the term censorship would be stricken from the English language because it is abused all the time in the modern world, especially in places where the new libertarianism of Web 2.0 can be found. That includes Wikipedia of course, but also Wikipedia Review.

You're lost in a time-warp, pal. But before you find your way back to the Dark Ages, where you belong, take a look at Wikipedia's stated NPOV policy. It says that a range of viewpoints must be incorporated in any given article, including minority viewpoints. That rule is rarely if ever properly applied. Views that deviate from the "mainstream" are invariably reverted. In other words, censorship. And don't forget, what might be considered a "fringe" view in America may well be a mainstream view in other parts of the world. So who's to dictate what is and what is not "fringe"? I'll tell you who: certain heavily-biased cabalistic retards who pass themselves off as "editors". Maybe you're one of them?

Wikipedia also has a policy on FRINGE topics, like the conspiracy theories you apparently promote regarding 9/11. Fringe topics are not treated like just any other view point. Of course, you'll say this is exactly how they censor your cherished ideas. Regarding your cultural relatively argument the English language Wikipedia can only even try to represent what is mainstream in the English speaking world I'm afraid.

And, I'm from the Dark Ages because I'm not a libertarian jack-off? Technology is great, but some of the trolls that have found a second life online are not. Oh and Wikipedia has tons of problems, it's just that the ones you are crying about aren't on the list. Sorry.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Mon 8th August 2011, 10:24pm

[Zoloft]

<snicker-snack> Oh, and by the way, you misrepresent entirely what my "wacky website" is really about. Try reading it some time when you're not too preoccupied with Russophobia, talking self-righteous crap, and shooting messengers.

I read great bloody chunks of it.

My review:

[Bielle]

<snicker-snack> Oh, and by the way, you misrepresent entirely what my "wacky website" is really about. Try reading it some time when you're not too preoccupied with Russophobia, talking self-righteous crap, and shooting messengers.

White on black: angry male with non-mainstream ideas. (If I find evidence to the contrary, I will let you know.) The symbolism is overwhelmed by this truism. You don't have to read a word to know that much.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Ah! Surprise, surprise! Here we have yet another deviationist shooter-of-messengers. Never mind "fringe lunatics" and all the rest. Why not just apply your mind to the message and forget the messenger for a while? The message here being that WP's World War II article relies on about 400 conservative mainstream Western accounts of the war, without reference to any non-Western (or even Western) accounts that deviate from the mainstream Anglo-American POV. So what do you have to say about that evidence, Mr Military History Buff?

I yield to your devastating argument; it *must* be censorship.

Note that you've just fully outed yourself as a fringe lunatic, as you've just admitted you've been pushing non-mainstream theories. For it to get no mention in WP at all, it's way, way out there. It really isn't hard to get something into WP; all you need is a halfway decent source. If you got nowhere, then "deviate from the mainstream" is code for "I'm the only one who believes this."

Call me what you want, but right now I'm judging you to be on the crazy scale right below the guy who was out to prove the Rotary is a front for Mason world-domination, but a bit crazier than the one out to prove Amish/Old Order Mennonites are evil. Like both of them, you immediately discount those who disagree with you with an unusual label; "deviationist" is a new one, I'll give you that.

BTW, I never said I was a military history buff. I tend to prefer the big picture as far as history goes. However, I've worked with a few different people who primarily do military history on WP, and they have generally been pretty open people. If you'd gotten into trouble in certain areas related to religion or nationalism, I'd be more inclined to question my first impression of you, but you pretty much keep verifying that first impression.

[timbo]

>>basically Mr. communicat is of the opinion that US and Britain "betrayed" the Soviet Union as early as 1941 and conspired to get Hitler and Stalin to fight each other.

"Betrayed" is polemic language, but other than that this is actually a more or less standard left wing interpretation of the political situation. It's actually very much in the mainstream of discourse on the topic, not tinfoil hat brigade by any stretch — maybe even a majority view in academia.

t

This post has been edited by timbo: Tue 9th August 2011, 4:28am