[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Gabe Johnson]

On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at prwatch.org> wrote:
> > Jayjg wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, what astounding rhetoric. "Censorship".
> >
> > That's not rhetoric. It's precisely the right term to describe what
> > you're trying to do. The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines censorship
> > as the "act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is
> > considered subversive of the common good." Wikipedia defines it as
> > "the removal and withholding of information from the public by a
> > controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by
> > governments, religious groups, online communities or the mass media,
> > although other forms of censorship exist." Both of those seem to me
> > to aptly describe what you're trying to do.
> [snip]
> > What Jayjg wants to
> > do is forbid anyone else from ever posting a link to WR anywhere on
> > Wikipedia under any circumstances whatsoever. That's censorship.
> >
>
> Um, no. When I want you to be my spokesman, I'll let you know. Don't
> hold your breath.
>
> Back in the real world, someone claimed that links to sites like WR
> could benefit Wikipedia. I challenged him to provide examples of how
> they could do so. What followed was a paucity of actual examples, but
> an increasingly enraged set of posts, insisting that Wikipedia was
> being damaged, people were being censored, babies being murdered, etc.
>
> > Once someone has won a court judgment showing that WR has
> > engaged in illegal harassment, I would accept a policy saying that
> > Wikipedia should ban all links to websites whose owners have been
> > convicted of criminal harassment against Wikipedians.
>
> But Sheldon, Wikipedia has all sorts of rules about what kinds of
> websites it allows links to, both in the actual articles themselves,
> and even in the External links sections. The rationale behind these
> rules is that linking to these sorts of websites does not assist the
> purpose of  Wikipedia (which is to create an encyclopedia), and
> arguably detracts from it or damages it. I haven't heard you
> complaining about those rules, yet, oddly, you seem to have become
> incensed over even the suggestion that WR is also the kind of site
> that could not assist  Wikipedia in achieving its goals, and, in fact,
> would arguably detract from Wikipedia or damage it. This apparent
> double standard is troubling, and it seems that even discussing this
> topic is so dangerous that it must be shut down with bizarrely
> overheated rhetoric, and impassioned cries of "censorship" and "prove
> your claims in a court of law", often from people who don't appear to
> have any real idea regarding the actual issues on WR, but who
> nevertheless feel competent to wade in, with both fists swinging.
>
> > If, on the other hand, you can't prove in a court of law that
> > Wikipedia Review has actually done something illegal, you should just
> > grow a thicker skin.
>
> I think you are somehow imagining that the stuff WR writes about me
> actually upsets me. On the contrary, from what I hear, it's often
> quite amusing. For example, I understand that quite recently one of
> the posters there actually insisted that I had to prove that I wasn't
> a teenage boy. I laughed out loud at that one, but then my mom heard
> me and yelled that I had to take out the garbage and clean up my room.
> :-(
>
Okay. So then let us link there to laugh at the ridiculous things they say. ~~~~

> > As a very wise cop once told me, part of the
> > price of living in a free society is that you sometimes have to
> > tolerate unpleasant behavior by obnoxious individuals.
>
> Indeed; this thread is the perfect example of that, and I have been
> doing my best to tolerate them.
>



-- 
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y