--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)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