[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Bishakha Datta]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at
> various places that the present resolution is justified as a
> compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of
> censorship.


This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
Everything remains. [1]

I am however
> going to ask whether the  fact that such proposals were entertained,
> shows the validity of the argument that we're on a slippery slope.
>

Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral
language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation?


> Once you admit censorship, it's hard to limit it; once you admit POV
> editing, it inevitable develops into arrant promotionalism.
> Censorship is inherently POV editing.
>
>
Are we really admitting censorship via the front or even through the back
door through the image hiding feature?

If everything remains on the site, and you and I can continue to see
everything that exists just as we do today, how are we 'admitting
censorship'? I have read the comments on meta, about the possibility of this
opening doors to government requests for removal of content - that, in my
view would be censorship. The Board resolution affirms that "Wikimedia
projects are not censored." [2]

Cheers
Bishakha

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
[2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content