Censorship at wikipedia Options

[communicat]

Censorship, according to Jimbo, is "antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia". But while he's preaching to the Chinese about freedom of information, he somehow manages to turn a blind eye to what's going on in his own backyard. Anyone who doubts that censorship is actually the norm in certain important wikipedia topic areas, should have a look at these off-wiki articles. And no, you won't find any links to them on wikipedia; they've been blacklisted. Here are the links:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...hip-462070.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sft_wikipedia.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

http://hnn.us/articles/125437.html

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm

This post has been edited by communicat: Thu 4th August 2011, 10:22am

[thekohser]

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

[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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

Wikipedia Review doesn't claim to be WP:NOTCENSORED.

Right now, Jimbo Wales, with a straight face, is suggesting that WP is losing editors due to "convoluted editing templates." Whatever this editing template problem is, it must be a hell of a nasty software thing, since it's affecting recruitment and retention of administrators on WP, also. The journalists asking the softball questions are too ignorant to know about that, and if they do know, are mostly too overworked or lazy to connect the dots to see that Jimbo is self-evidently full of shit, or else they are too jaded to really care whether he is or not. Or all three.

Not only is there a broad class of problems with Wikipedia that WMF will not discuss in public, there's a class that they won't even allow to be discussed on Wikipedia. Hence, the need for Wikipedia Review. A few journalists and others occasionally read here, especially if Google can find the comment topically.