[WikiEN-l] Jimbo on Commons

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of
> birth
> > is still censorship.  Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship.
>  Even
> > removing illegal content is censorship.
> > The no censorship rule isn't, and never has been, an absolute 100% no
> > exceptions rule.  It's no different from any other rule in this regard.
>
>
> Well done, you've disproved the existence of the word "censorship". Or
> of the concept of editorial judgement. One or the other. I'm sure
> people will be convinced.
>

I thought his point was to disprove the particular definition of
"censorship" that David Goodman was using.

Of course censorship exists.  And of course editorial judgement exists.

I'd say the key distinction is that censorship is something that is done by
someone other than the authors.  Although by that definition, it can't exist
in Wikipedia, because everyone is an author.

I suppose "self-censorship" is done by the authors themselves, but still if
that is to have a meaning outside of that of editorial judgement, then it
must refer to omissions done due to the threat of outside censorship.  In
the context of Wikipedia, that basically means following the law, something
which I think everyone agrees is necessary at least with regard to the most
liberal laws available.