From: Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 0b8dfe7f2fc3ef7aa72e882894ea26b8@last-straw.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
At the end of the day this is about censoring images for the sake of the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of an individual, organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in our out. Censoring would be to delete all mention of a specific item including systematically deleting any reference or access to the subject matter. Censorship is not continuing to provide easy access to information or images while not forcing it on everyone. Read Farenheit 451 for (albiet extreme) real censorship - or other efforts in the past to systemically burn books to remove them from the library and prevent all access. Limiting access is often called censorship but is not.
As I have recently commented on the image in questions talk page - the intransigence of some to the completely reasonable proposal to exercise some discretion by making it a link just makes me want to the take the battle up a notch and just get rid of the picture from wikipedia - make it an external link (still not censorship - just what I would consider better discretion).
Jim
Jim Trodel said:
As I have recently commented on the image in questions talk page - the intransigence of some to the completely reasonable proposal to exercise some discretion by making it a link just makes me want to the take the battle up a notch and just get rid of the picture from wikipedia - make it an external link (still not censorship - just what I would consider better discretion).
If there is a consensus to delete the picture, it should be deleted.
On 17 Feb 2005, at 3:37 pm, Jim Trodel wrote:
Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in our out. Censoring would be to delete all mention of a specific item including systematically deleting any reference or access to the subject matter. Censorship is not continuing to provide easy access to information or images while not forcing it on everyone. Read Farenheit 451 for (albiet extreme) real censorship - or other efforts in the past to systemically burn books to remove them from the library and prevent all access. Limiting access is often called censorship but is not.
What you are pointing to are the different levels of censorship. This discussion may involve a proposal of low-level censorship but it is censorship none the less.
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
What you are pointing to are the different levels of censorship. This discussion may involve a proposal of low-level censorship but it is censorship none the less.
We're not individuals working on an encyclopedia, we're a community working jointly on an encyclopedia.
This isn't anyone censoring anyone, it's the community choosing not to do something.
Then allow me to be more precise: self-censorship.
Christiaan
On 18 Feb 2005, at 12:40 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
What you are pointing to are the different levels of censorship. This discussion may involve a proposal of low-level censorship but it is censorship none the less.
We're not individuals working on an encyclopedia, we're a community working jointly on an encyclopedia.
This isn't anyone censoring anyone, it's the community choosing not to do something.
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in our out. Censoring would be to delete all mention of a specific item including systematically deleting any reference or access to the subject matter. Censorship is not continuing to provide easy access to information or images while not forcing it on everyone. Read Farenheit 451 for (albiet extreme) real censorship - or other efforts in the past to systemically burn books to remove them from the library and prevent all access. Limiting access is often called censorship but is not.
What you are pointing to are the different levels of censorship. This discussion may involve a proposal of low-level censorship but it is censorship none the less.
If you use the word "censorship" so broadly, you rob it of genuine meaning. When we correct a grammatical error, are we censoring the error? When we decide that a picture of George Washington goes on the George Washington page, rather than the Thomas Jefferson page, are we censoring?
We make editorial judgments all the time, on all kinds of things. Should we put a scandal about a politician high in the article or further down? Should we show a picture at the top of the page, or the bottom? Should we show a picture directly or via a link?
If all of those things are censorship, then censorship doesn't sound so bad after all.
I don't care for this argument for another reason. Many of us who propose putting the image on a link are literally prepared to risk our lives to fight censorship, should be become necessary. We are extremely opposed to censorship. Calling us censors is a "low blow" then, because it causes us to fear that we have done something terribly out of line with our own principles.
This is why I think it is important to move this debate away from questions of "censorship" -- which is manifestly is not -- and towards "quality of presentation of information".
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
If you use the word "censorship" so broadly, you rob it of genuine meaning.
One does not rob "censorship" of its meaning by using one of its definitions; to remove or suppress information on moral or political grounds. In fact the very denial of this definition is to rob it of genuine meaning. What is being proposed is self-censorship. Indeed, institutionalised self-censorship. How one can deny this I find a little hard to grasp. I would in fact be hard pressed to think of a better example.
When we correct a grammatical error, are we censoring the error? When we decide that a picture of George Washington goes on the George Washington page, rather than the Thomas Jefferson page, are we censoring?
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc. we are not making a purely editorial decision.
We make editorial judgments all the time, on all kinds of things. Should we put a scandal about a politician high in the article or further down? Should we show a picture at the top of the page, or the bottom? Should we show a picture directly or via a link?
Yes we do make editorial judgments all the time. What brings them into the realm of self-censorship is the reasons for those edits. Some have grasped this point early on and attempted to frame their argument in terms of "aesthetics", which I find a little disingenuous.
If all of those things are censorship, then censorship doesn't sound so bad after all.
Yes but this is a straw man argument.
I don't care for this argument for another reason. Many of us who propose putting the image on a link are literally prepared to risk our lives to fight censorship, should be become necessary. We are extremely opposed to censorship. Calling us censors is a "low blow" then, because it causes us to fear that we have done something terribly out of line with our own principles.
Yes but you are using but one definition of the word to mean that of censorship imposed by authority. I agree, that's not the kind of censorship we are faced with.
This is why I think it is important to move this debate away from questions of "censorship" -- which is manifestly is not -- and towards "quality of presentation of information".
I think we should face up to what is actually being proposed and get on with deciding a very important question: is self-censorship a course we want to take or not?
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc. we are not making a purely editorial decision.
For me, this has about as much to do with morality as my dislike of carrots.
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050219 10:30]:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc. we are not making a purely editorial decision.
For me, this has about as much to do with morality as my dislike of carrots.
Your objection, as I understood it, was that it was disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but primarily you seemed to be disgusted.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050219 10:30]:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc. we are not making a purely editorial decision.
For me, this has about as much to do with morality as my dislike of carrots.
Your objection, as I understood it, was that it was disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but primarily you seemed to be disgusted.
Which has what to do with morality?
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050219 12:23]:
David Gerard wrote:
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050219 10:30]:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
These are done purely on editorial grounds. When we make a decision to hide or remove an image based on some people's moral objections that it is "pornographic", "disgusting", "sexually explicit", etc. we are not making a purely editorial decision.
For me, this has about as much to do with morality as my dislike of carrots.
Your objection, as I understood it, was that it was disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but primarily you seemed to be disgusted.
Which has what to do with morality?
That you seemed to be giving it similar weight as a reason not to have such an image on that article.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Your objection, as I understood it, was that it was disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but primarily you seemed to be disgusted.
Which has what to do with morality?
That you seemed to be giving it similar weight as a reason not to have such an image on that article.
The day I bring my moral values into a discussion on what should or shouldn't appear in Wikipedia and/or how it should appear is the day you have my permission to lock me up in an insane asylum.
My objections to the image being on Wikipedia and my referring to it as disgusting and crap had nothing at all to do with my morals