Puddl Duk said:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored.
I don't think that's correct. The most obvious form of censorship
practised is the avoidance of descriptive terms that carry an emotive
payload. This is a good thing. If I encounter an article saying that a
prisoner at Abu Ghraib was sodomized by a US Military Police guard, I am
informed. If I encounter the same article but it says that the man was
sodomized by a thug in American uniform, the informational content is
roughly the same but there is an emotional overtone that would make me
question the piece. Censorship is a necessary activity at all levels of
production of an encyclopedia. No describing people as thugs in the
articles, even if they act like thugs. That's censorship. I don't think
there's anything wrong with censorship. We're censors.