Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikimedia Censors Wikinews

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the because-they-can dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has revealed that the Wikimedia Foundation Board (which controls Wikipedia and Wikinews) has killed off a Wikinews report into the Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation lawsuit. Wikinews is a collaborative news site and is meant to be editorially independent from the WMF. The WMF office also suppressed a Wikinews investigation into child and other pornography on Wikipedia, which was independently covered by ValleyWag and other outlets this week. The US Communications Deceny Act section 230 grants providers of internet services (such as the Wikipedia and Wikinews) immunity from legal action related to their user-generated content provided they do not exercise pre-publication control. In deleting articles critical of the WMF prior to publication, Wikileaks says the Wikimedia Foundation may have set a dangerous precedent that could remove all of its CDA section 230 immunity (at least for Wikinews, where the control was exercised)."

2 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hmm... what to do... by xaxa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How was this ever allowed on an album cover? It's art. Do you find it sexually attractive? I don't. It's normal to see a naked child and not be aroused, that's one reason adults look different to children.

    It's not normal to see the picture and run round screaming about paedophilia while calling the thought police.

    Remember Nevermind, by Nirvana? It has a picture of a baby boy, you can see his penis. At the time 'Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."'

    Do you remember what your own penis looked like when you were 5? Haha! You're a paedophile now, because you're imagining a 5-year-old's penis!
  2. Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a reason why nothing is "blocking out her breasts": because she doesn't have breasts. And breasts are visible in just about every soap ad in Europe, plus half of Renaissance nude paintings and sculptures depict "underage" (meaning under-18) models, so what is the big deal? The girl in the CD cover has already said she's perfectly fine with it. Maybe she needs a good dose of therapy to convince her that she's been abused.

    Seriously, this article talks abous censorship but it looks like this "investigation" is the one trying to apply warped USA "morals" to what the (worldwide) users of Wikipedia can and cannot see or include in the articles.

    Maybe you should set up a firewall like China so you're not exposed to "dangerous" ideas, such as the fact that women have breasts?

    Australia got the convicts, the USA got the puritans. It's pretty obvious who drew the short straw.