On 7/15/06, Stephen Bain
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Wikipedia should avoid gratuitous self-reference, but the blocking of
Wikipedia by China is itself newsworthy/articleworthy, IMO. We have a
[[Wikipedia]] article, after all - not all self-reference is
forbidden.
I think that's a good assessment, and good criteria to use. The blocks
have been covered in the major media, and the articles ties in with
other articles about PRC internet censorship, particularly [[Baidu
Baike]].
Well as someone living on the front lines of Wikipedia access in
China, I do think moving the article to Wikipedia: namespace is the
correct thing to do. It's not really appropriate for the main
namespace. It wouldn't be appropriate for any of these either:
[[Blocking_of_BBC_in_mainland_China]]
[[Blocking_of_Blogger_in_mainland_China]]
[[Blocking_of_HRIC_in_mainland_China]]
Why wouldn't they be appropriate? The subject, including the treatment
of Wikipedia, the BBC, and various bloggers and blogging services, has
been of great interest to some people and has received considerable
mainstream media coverage.
It's certainly possible that the article incorporates material that is
either not neutral or not verifiable. That should be handled by pruning
it, and if the pruning is drastic enough the article might warrant
merging. Perhaps to [[Internet censorship in mainland China]]
(neutrality check: would [[Internet filtering in mainland China]] be a
better title?). But moving to the Wikipedia namespace is not the
solution to these problems any more than deleting the article would be.
--Michael Snow