--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored.
I don't think that's correct. The most obvious form of censorship practised is the avoidance of descriptive terms that carry an emotive payload. This is a good thing. If I encounter an article saying that a prisoner at Abu Ghraib was sodomized by a US Military Police guard, I am informed. If I encounter the same article but it says that the man was sodomized by a thug in American uniform, the informational content is roughly the same but there is an emotional overtone that would make me question the piece. Censorship is a necessary activity at all levels of production of an encyclopedia. No describing people as thugs in the articles, even if they act like thugs. That's censorship. I don't think there's anything wrong with censorship. We're censors.
The definition of censorship has a componant of authority applying the censoring on a community. The community doesn't have a say.
Not the case in your example. Instead, the community exercises judgment for themselves. Thats why it isn't censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com