On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and
precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments
and censorship are the same.
I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go
by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is
it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are
independent and it has not editorial control over what the community
decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial
judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different
communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an
already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by
editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial
control? What about editorial independence?
It should not be our job to censor our own
We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
the sites. 
No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that
can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial
regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the
last one is not us) from its people.
Mediawiki also works in a similar fashion, it hides revisions rather than
delete it outright when an article is deleted - Irony?
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
they decide on removing things that make them flinch -
how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict
access to Wikipedia for
all the people that do flinch?
There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it,
it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images -
those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing
I never said there was. I said "restrict access to Wikipedia for all the
people that do flinch". There is a big gap on how this system would be
implemented, if we go by the proposed system in the mock-up, it would be
using categories to implement what is deemed offensive. The problem is, when
you click on a filter the decision on what is offensive might not be a users
alone, but a standardized one across the board.
But when the Indian government bans Salman
Rushdie's Satanic Verses or
Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.
I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know
more about them than
Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor
2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by
Depending on the perspective, one can argue that they only wanted the
content hidden, not visible to those who do flinch. Would it be different if
they argued that they were only exercising editorial control? for the
children, the general public and all the people who do flinch.