--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005, at 5:29 pm, Puddl Duk wrote:
If you really want to look at it that way then
every time you've
reverted someone, or deleted a single letter in an
edit, you have
censored.
Following this logic nothing could be considered censorship! Let's not play semantics here; censorship involves the removal or suppression of information on political or moral grounds. This is not our game. But yes, many edits could be seen as censorship and I would argue so. However this doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify institutionalised censorship.
Christiaan
Christiaan, you are the one who labeled this censorship. I disagree;
Censorship, in this context, is when rules or authority prohibit an image. And you have no say in the matter. Wikipedia doesn't do this (outside of illegal images).
Instead, we have an image policy that suggests discussion before adding an objectionable image. I guess you could label the winners of a vote to remove an image as censors, but I wouldn't.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo