--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)last-straw.net>
wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005, at 5:29 pm, Puddl Duk wrote:
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.
Following this logic nothing could be considered
censorship! Let's not
play semantics here; censorship involves the removal
or suppression of
information on political or moral grounds. This is
not our game. But
yes, many edits could be seen as censorship and I
would argue so.
However this doesn't make it right and it certainly
doesn't justify
institutionalised censorship.
Christiaan
Christiaan, you are the one who labeled this
censorship. I disagree;
Censorship, in this context, is when rules or
authority prohibit an image. And you have no say in
the matter. Wikipedia doesn't do this (outside of
illegal images).
Instead, we have an image policy that suggests
discussion before adding an objectionable image. I
guess you could label the winners of a vote to remove
an image as censors, but I wouldn't.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo