On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of
birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship.
Even
removing illegal content is censorship. The no censorship rule isn't, and never has been, an absolute 100% no exceptions rule. It's no different from any other rule in this regard.
Well done, you've disproved the existence of the word "censorship". Or of the concept of editorial judgement. One or the other. I'm sure people will be convinced.
I thought his point was to disprove the particular definition of "censorship" that David Goodman was using.
Of course censorship exists. And of course editorial judgement exists.
I'd say the key distinction is that censorship is something that is done by someone other than the authors. Although by that definition, it can't exist in Wikipedia, because everyone is an author.
I suppose "self-censorship" is done by the authors themselves, but still if that is to have a meaning outside of that of editorial judgement, then it must refer to omissions done due to the threat of outside censorship. In the context of Wikipedia, that basically means following the law, something which I think everyone agrees is necessary at least with regard to the most liberal laws available.