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

[timbo]

God damn, what a bunch of weak links...

2007?

Two truther links?

A piece by Edwin Black that I very much doubt he'd write today?

Hmmmmm.



tim

[communicat]

God damn, what a bunch of weak links...

2007?

Two truther links?

A piece by Edwin Black that I very much doubt he'd write today?

Hmmmmm.



tim

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.