[WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

Thu Feb 17 17:29:04 UTC 2005

--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net>
wrote:

> I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue
> of editorial 
> control. That presumes an extremely narrow
> definition of the word 
> censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
> 
> Still no one has attempted a rational response to my
> question to 
> Jimbo...
> What is it about a picture of a man performing
> autofellatio in an 
> article about autofellatio that makes it
> "pornographic"?
> 
> At the end of the day this is about censoring images
> for the sake of 
> the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of
> an individual, 
> organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
> 
> We can debate until the cows come home but we're
> never going to reach 
> agreement on the points as they're being argued
> because this isn't so 
> much a debate about whether an image is appropriate
> or not but a debate 
> about which world view will prevail on Wikipedia:
> one that attempts to 
> self-censor on the grounds of prudery and
> squeamishness, or one that 
> doesn't.
> 
> The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement;
> many of us have 
> been able to agree to a technical solution that
> skirts around the whole 
> issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So
> why we're still 
> debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not
> entirely sure.
> 
> Christiaan
> 

If you really want to look at it that way then every
time you've reverted someone, or deleted a single
letter in an edit, you have censored.

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 