In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to
mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of
underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets
Does this information endanger and upset people? Yes, it endangers the
soldiers who committed abuse and their superiors who tolerated or ordered
it, and it upsets those who strongly believe that US troops don't commit
such acts of brutality.
Should it be removed? Of course not. It is education where it matters. It
is education that can prevent suffering. Similar information, where it
applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese
troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
You may call that "activism", and you do have a point. If you know
anything about the history of encyclopedias, you know that they were born
out of enlightenment ideals (and not very NPOV!). People like Diderot
deliberately tried to "upset" the status quo in many ways.
We are not like the original encyclopedias in that we don't deliberately
promote specific agendas (at least we try not to). But certainly it would
make us a parody of an encyclopedia if we went out of our way to prevent
information from being distributed that could lead to social change -- it
would be the exact opposite of what the original encyclopedists wanted.