--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005, at 2:58 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
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).
What do you mean in this context? Censorship has a meaning. You are simply describing one kind of censorship. You can't just define it for your own purposes. We would be actively participating in self-censorship if we were to link or remove this image on the grounds that it was explicit. Please can we stop kidding around that this would not constitute censorship.
Christiaan
If you want to make this a black and white issue then 'please stop kidding around' and admit that every time you make a reversion you too are censoring.
And (repeating) the part you snipped and didn't reply to;
...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...
The main point (in my mind) is that censorship is imposed on a community by power of authority, and the community has no say. Wikipedia image use policy doesn't do this, instead it asks for people's collective judgment.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com