Slashdot Mirror
Wikimedia Censors Wikinews
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)."
Wikinews used to have its own embargo on reporting about Wikipedia, because they were giving disproportionate weight to Wikipedia in the news. In fact, it even led to -- I think it was the Washington Post -- referring to Wikinews as "the news website about Wikipedia". We Wikinewsies collectively ground our teeth when we heard the fruit of our labors described like that.
Where can you see that the articles were actually deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation and not by the Wikinews community?
"Do we need a WikiNewsNews To cover news on WikiNews without censorship?"
No, but we need to find out the background of who done this censorship, to find out if someone if trying to game the legal system, to open up Wikimedia Foundation Board to easier and more legal action.
I obviously can see the censorship issues in the first article. We're talking about an individual trying to use the legal system to squelch her deservedly bad reputation in business dealings. Welcome to the information age, lady. News of bad deals travels fast now.
On the other hand, I can't say I disapprove of the deletion of nude underage children in sexual contexts on Wikipedia, or of the decisions of moderators to override group votes on such manners. (Note the "group vote" was likely by music fans in regard to a specific album cover. What do you *think* their vote would be? Duh.) I'm not a prude or anything, but there's no real need to show some of the images they discussed. If you want those images, they're likely just a few clicks away elsewhere on the net anyhow. It seems that Wikipedia should cater to a wide audience, with content appropriate for all ages. Even the most adult of subjects can be handled in a way that makes it appropriate for all ages of the audience without diminishing its usefulness as a research tool.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
These are naval gazing articles. A fraud artist sues Wikipedia. They deleted the he said she said article about her while the litigation goes on. In fact, it looks like this went to deletion review and everyone agreed to get rid of it.
How is this a bad thing? How is this an expose. My god, if this is wikinews and all they talk about is bogus wiki issues, save us all.
Or that a user uploaded a bogus image, which was then deleted? How is that a bad thing.
Interesting, my workplace uses the Smartfilter censorship software to keep us from, you know, doing our jobs, and just noticed this gem:
You cannot access the following Web address:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_Wikipedia_pornography_investigation
The site you requested is blocked under the following categories: Hate Speech, Historical Revisionism, Extreme
You can:
Use your browser's Back button or enter a different Web address to continue.
The powers of be must HATE that site. I don't think the Historial Revisionism thing even exists on Smartfilter's official list of categories to censor.
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
Yes if you can "keep your head" in a time of moral frenzy then you are indeed wise.
Thanks for your comment,
UTW
To which I've always said: "Just because someone appears to be stupid does not mean they're not malevolent."
In fact, pretending to be ignorant is usually one of the primary defenses used by those who cause the most harm. From the common proclamations: "I never went to their house and I don't know how he fell three times onto a knife with my fingerprints" to the common practice of creating "plausible deniability" to protect corporate or governmental leaders before illegal activity takes place. I'm not saying I know the solution, just that looking the other way because someone might be stupid is not it.
As for the whole child-porn motive that's bandied about so much lately, it's a very effective tool used by politicians to get any disgusting regulations passed in congress. No one wants to look like they are pro-child porn and will always vote to pass any bill that clams it's needed to combat child porn. Thus politicians need to keep a healthy fear that child porn is everywhere in the public eye so that people demand that something be done.
"I deleted the article after a highly concerned late-night phone call from Mike Godwin."
Also, Check this out.
I can't decide whether I'm more disgusted by blog* terms or wiki* terms, and why the format of the web page is important enough to be a part of any term discussing its content.
remember that the lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundaion is about libel and HAS ENTERED INTO TRIAL, of which a statement or article, even posted on Wikinews, AND REGARDLESS OF WHO WROTE THAT, could be constituted as a official response about the lawsuit and could very be held against Wikimedia Foundation.
Section 230 does not apply in this case.
Interesting tangent, because I just got back from watching "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian". (Verdict: Moderately ok. Better than the first movie.)
In the movie they have centaurs, real actors/actress from the navel up, CGI'd on to horse bodies. The women centaurs have bikini tops on, but the children didn't have any covering. They all had long hair, as well, so in many quick shots I couldn't tell whether I was looking at a pre-teen centaur male or female.
Now, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have put a naked ten year old girl on screen... but the fact that I couldn't even tell the difference was interesting to me, as I ruminated on censorship. If they had shown a young girl, it would have not looked different in any significant way. It would probably take a freeze-frame and keen eye to tell whether that was a boy or a girl... but still, the director would have been crucified.
Or what if it was a young, bare-chested boy actor, but the character was a young female centaur? Child Porn? Best jail everyone involved, just to be sure we're safe. Ok, I've talked myself into posting this as an anonymous coward.
This comment rocks. Britain had the same problems in 2001 - amusingly satirised in the Brass Eye Paedo special: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#2001_paedophilia_special