In a message dated 2/24/2008 2:23:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, toddmallen@gmail.com writes:
Wikipedia is not censored>> --------------------- Based on a discussion we had a bit ago on the Village Pump (I think) or maybe Policy and Guidelines... at any rate someone brought up that it is in fact censored. That is, we censor fringe-talk and crazy-talk and vandalism...
I had suggested maybe "Wikipedia is not censored for moral outrage" which nicely (I think) covers both religious outrage and political outrage. Maybe. At any rate, I agree with you.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/24/2008 2:23:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, toddmallen@gmail.com writes:
Wikipedia is not censored>>
Based on a discussion we had a bit ago on the Village Pump (I think) or maybe Policy and Guidelines... at any rate someone brought up that it is in fact censored. That is, we censor fringe-talk and crazy-talk and vandalism...
AFAIK, fringe-talk and crazy-talk is not censored as much as it is dismissed as trolling.
Vandalism cannot be "censored" because censoring something requires that it contain information. Most vandalism is either deletion (which is in fact censorship) or random "OMGROFL TIMMY IS GAY" (which contains no coherent information of use to anybody).
The wording you are looking for is the first sentence under [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]]: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." That is, content is not censored because some people don't like it, but it can be *removed* if it does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place.
Counter-argument: I can set up a telephone directory on Wikipedia and cry "censorship!" when it's deleted, but it wasn't censorship -- it was the removal of information inappropriate in an encyclopedia.