--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
wrote:
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.
The definition of censorship has a componant of
authority applying the censoring on a community. The
community doesn't have a say.
Not the case in your example. Instead, the community
exercises judgment for themselves. Thats why it isn't
censorship.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com