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

[communicat]

If you'd really like to see some longstanding and still currently ongoing censorship in action, take a look at wikipedia's article on World War II. It's claimed to be one of Wikipedia's "most successful" and the "tenth most visited " article. on wikipedia. It's also probably one of wikipedia's longest articles, relying on nearly 400 reference citations. 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. Encyclopaedic content? No. Censorship? Definitely.