On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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 and
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.
It should not be our job to censor our own content.
We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
the sites. 
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 use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
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
But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or James
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 me.
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