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."
From American Heritage Dictionary:
censor (Transitive Verb)
To examine and expurgate.
From Encarta:
censor (Transitive Verb)
1. remove offensive parts from something: to remove or change any part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security.
2. exercise control over something: to suppress or control something that may offend or harm others.
From Merriam-Webster:
censor (Transitive Verb)
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Now, also from Merriam-Webster:
censorship (noun)
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
I see nothing there about the government being necessarily involved. But then again, everyone carries around their own personal mental dictionary that they edit at will.
You don't seem to know what "censorship" means. Censorship refers to when the government prevents publication of materials, not a private website.
False! The relevent definition given by answers.com (found from the helpful Google link) is: The act, process, or practice of censoring.
Television and radio networks have censors. What they do is censor. Any media company can censor.
But I can understand your confusion since whenever the First Amendment is brought into play it's usually a case of government censorship, and the First Amendment is the context most talked about. But the problem here isn't the government censoring anyone, it's the hypocritical stance taken by the Wikipedia editors, since Wikipedia prides itself on the open flow of information, allowing, basically, anyone to contribute on any subject.
As for whether media censorship is a good thing, I take the position that it is not. The reasons government-sponsored censorship are bad are the same reasons media-sponsored censorship is bad. Actually making that case logically, in the face of concerns over property rights, is I think possible, but something I would have to think about for a while.
Under Susan Hildreth the San Francisco Public Library became an abysmal mess. She played politics to get where she is today-- but she was not wanted here by people who really love books.
She embraced technology because of its glamour-- not for its usefulness. This is a big subject-- and I simply do not have the energy to rehash what many San Franciscans know: the Public Library here is an over-politicized place that cheats its benefactors, employees, and the public-- largely thanks to Hildreth's past leadership and her continuing influence.
Hildreth's actions bespeak subservience to technology interests-- especially RFID interests.
Of course she would say her efforts are a rsounding success! For her to prove it is another matter.