[WikiEN-l] Censorship, really?

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] autofellatio image : back to square 2
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Someone wrote:

<something about censorship>

Every newspaper/encyclopedia/media has some kind of editorial policy. 
This is not the same thing as "censorship."  A newspaper puts all the
sports stories in one section, all the local news in another, and
keeps the classified ads separately from the news and editorials.
Censorship means trying to disallow expression of certain views in all
media, but we are not trying to remove the picture from everywhere on
the internet. You are free to post that picture on your web site if
you want. We won't campaign to get it deleted from your web site.
Having an editorial policy on graphic pictures is not "censorship."
That has to be the most absurd claim posted yet. Should we have no
editorial policy and no limits? Should we allow trolls to upload child
porn as an excuse to "illustrates" the child porn article? How about
allowing trolls to upload bestiality, anal sex, coprophilia,
urolagnia, necrophilia, and rape porn to illustrate those articles?
That's clearly absurd. There should be clear editorial policy on
graphic pictures. If not, and if every troll is allowed to upload all
kinds of graphic pictures as an excuse to "illustrate" articles,
Wikipedia would get blocked by all child protection software, some
ISPs, and all countries where porn is illegal. That's clearly harmful
to Wikipedia, and it opens the door to trolls to disrupt Wikipedia by
uploading even more extreme and graphic porn,  and then cry
"censorship" when it is removed.

OneGuy 
(Sorry, couldn't resist responding when I read some preposterous claim
about "censorship" on the archive).

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] autofellatio image : back to square 2
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Desysoping
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]