Slashdot Mirror
Censored Wikipedia Articles Appear On Protest Site
Gregory Rider writes "According to a recent article in The Guardian, a group of disenchanted Wikipedia administrators has been going through back channels on Wikipedia and retrieving articles deleted by Jimbo Wales or other higher-ups. Now they're putting them back up on a website for everyone to see. This includes articles on Justin Berry, Paul Barresi, and, most strangely, Brian Peppers, which has been solicited for deletion off of Wikipedia 6 times with mixed success and is now banned from being edited on for a whole year."
Apparently the person who submitted this story thinks "delete" and "censor" are synonomous - they are not.
censor
verb
1. To examine (material) and remove parts considered harmful or improper for publication or transmission: bowdlerize, expurgate, screen. See include/exclude, show/hide.
Property is theft.
is why are they censoring this information? It's not a big deal that they're censoring, other than a possible 1st amendment violation, but why theses 3 articles?
I don't understand what's so wrong about these articles, except being that Peppers will scare the hell out of you.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Calling wikipedia an "encyclopedia" is like calling a plate full of turds a gourmet meal.
Wikipedia is a train wreck and a joke.
There was an edit to the entry for John Cena, the wrestler recently. In the middle of his bio someone had written "FUCK CENA".
Yeah, what a wonderful encyclopedia. (Not saying I don't agree with the comment, just that anyone who puts any stock in the accuracy of the content is a lunatic.)
I used to be a major contributor to Wikipedia, having made over ten thousand edits via several accounts. The reason i quit is because of so many crazy deletion decisions. For example there is over 100 articles dedicated to individual pricing games from the quiz show "the price is right", yet the articles for centimeter and the recent solar eclipse were almost deleted.
Schools and Userboxes are a common sore point in Wikipedia's deletion system. The toruble is that Wikipedia is reaching saturation point. With over a million articles most major topics are covered, but there is an increasing desire to add even more, burt with subjects of questionable "notability". This subject comes with a load of questions and basically if you can get enough geeks to support you , anything goes, read some of the culture categories some time.
This is why there are articles about obscure harry potter characters yet articles about less geeky subjects get censored. Wikipedia is likely to be crushed under it's own weight soon, the number of cleanup tags are increasing, more of it's editors are quiting or becoming vandals. By the time the Peppers ban is over Wikipedia is going to be in total quagmire.
Do yourself a favor, download the customize google extention and filter out Wikipedia.org. Learn to use other sources and find out how much Wikipedia is sapping the internet of its life.
Wikipeida is a troll and flamebaiter's dream. I can't stop remembering the awful flamewars I had with this asshat, who has a fetish for randomly vandalizing music related articles by reducing long articles into stubs for so called music guidelines which are total rubbish. Twits such as Astrotrain, Radiant and Morwen have also ruined my Wikipedia experience.
I have stopped using the site this month, I recommend others to do the same, it is only a matter of time before the wikiball gets incinerated by its own flamewars and ripping a goatse sized whole on the internet and the whole academic community.
To all the people who have made useful contributions, be smart, take your talent and run before you get it up the ass like I have.
im seeing a very boring remake of the "argument sketch" here. knock it the fuck off!
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
I think Wikipedia answer its use as an encyclopedia better then I can.
From "Reasearching on Wikipedia":
First you should question the appropriateness of citing any encyclopedia as a source or reference. This is not simply a Wikipedia-specific issue, as most secondary schools and institutions of higher learning do not consider encyclopedias, in general, a proper citable source.
This does not mean Wikipedia is not useful: Wikipedia articles contain many links to newspaper articles, books with ISBN numbers, radio programming, television shows, Web-based sources, and the like. It will usually be more acceptable to cite those original sources rather than Wikipedia since it is by nature, a secondary source. At the same time, simple academic ethics means that you should actually read the work that you cite: if you do not actually have your hands on a book, you should not misleadingly cite it as your source.