Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Is that censorship ?
Well... self-censorship, perhaps.
But
* the day clitoris pictures are put on the english wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because clitoris are shoking and might get
wikipedia censored in schools)
* the day we can put ethnic statistics on the french wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because "races" do not exist and publishing stats
might get wikipedia shut down for publishing illegal information)
You should note that the clitoris pictures currently are, and have been
for upwards of a year, included in the English Wikipedia.
Also, nobody has seriously suggested removing them: the argument has
been over whether to have them inline or linked. There is no measurable
support for actually suppressing their availability, so I don't see the
similarity---they will be there in some shape or form regardless of
which side in the argument prevails.
-Mark
I saw with interest that they were online for the time being, which
doesnot hide the *true fact* they were rather heated discussions on this
topic several times for about 18 months as I remember it.
My memory is not so short :-)
But as you perfectly well say, a lot of the argument was whether they
should be inline OR linked. And it did appear agreeable to a *sizeable*
part of the community that the image should be censored INLINE, but
could appear as external links.
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a
"""short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the
board in
China) and invite the reader to have further information by following
external links ?
Especially if these links lead to the english wikipedia for example ?
There is no difference with a LINKED clitoris, since people can still
access the information.
Just as it is helping some american deal with a clitoris picture without
fully censoring the information, it might help the chinese government
without fully censoring the information. It might just help recognise
local sensibilities.
How different is that ?