Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
If you use the word "censorship" so broadly,
you rob it of genuine
meaning.
One does not rob "censorship" of its meaning by using one of its
definitions; to remove or suppress information on moral or political
grounds. In fact the very denial of this definition is to rob it of
genuine meaning. What is being proposed is self-censorship. Indeed,
institutionalised self-censorship. How one can deny this I find a
little hard to grasp. I would in fact be hard pressed to think of a
better example.
When we correct a grammatical error, are we censoring
the error? When
we decide that a picture of George Washington goes on the George
Washington page, rather than the Thomas Jefferson page, are we
censoring?
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to
hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it
is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc.
we are not
making a purely editorial decision.
We make editorial judgments all the time, on all kinds
of things.
Should we put a scandal about a politician high in the article or
further down? Should we show a picture at the top of the page, or the
bottom? Should we show a picture directly or via a link?
Yes we do make editorial judgments all the time. What brings them into
the realm of self-censorship is the reasons for those edits. Some have
grasped this point early on and attempted to frame their argument in
terms of "aesthetics", which I find a little disingenuous.
If all of those things are censorship, then censorship
doesn't sound
so bad after all.
Yes but this is a straw man argument.
I don't care for this argument for another reason.
Many of us who
propose putting the image on a link are literally prepared to risk our
lives to fight censorship, should be become necessary. We are
extremely opposed to censorship. Calling us censors is a "low blow"
then, because it causes us to fear that we have done something
terribly out of line with our own principles.
Yes but you are using but one definition of the word to mean that of
censorship imposed by authority. I agree, that's not the kind of
censorship we are faced with.
This is why I think it is important to move this
debate away from
questions of "censorship" -- which is manifestly is not -- and towards
"quality of presentation of information".
I think we should face up to what is actually being proposed and get on
with deciding a very important question: is self-censorship a course we
want to take or not?
Christiaan