Tony wrote:
Could we drop this really very silly fig-leaf? What we do on Wikipedia is censorhip--it's unavoidable, part and parcel of what we do in producing an encyclopedia. When we decide what should and should not belong to Wikipedia, we're censoring Wikipedia. It's censorship, and there's no big deal about it. Why this huge, tiresome monstrous effort to find another name for it?
I think you're devaluating the term "censorship". You have not responded to my observation that internal control of content is not strictly "censorship", and this is definitely not a figleaf (or a coloured block, for that matter :-).
We actually control content all the time, through the means of VfD. Apart from hard-boiled trolls, nobody has ever applied the term of "censorship" to the VfD process.
To reiterate my view: Wikipedia aims to produce an encyclopedia for the widest possible readership. This readership is reduced if it attains a reputation for containing inappropriate images. My employer's web access blocking tool already blocks out Wikipedia.
JFW
____________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system.
Free education for all doctors. The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date. http://www.doctors.net.uk/freelearning ____________________________________________________________
Tony wrote: I think you're devaluating the term "censorship".
I disagree. I think you're trying to equivocate in order to avoid using a word that you dislike strong,
You have not
responded to my observation that internal control of content is not strictly "censorship"
That was my response. I think your observation is fictitious.