[Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> > entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> > itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> > whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
> > the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
> > into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
> > to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
> > abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
>
>
> It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
> neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
> doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
> reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
> that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.




And I still don't understand where all those IPs and single-purpose
accounts voting for the blackout came from, or why administrators were
directed to let their votes stand, when we regularly exclude such votes
from far less important community discussions.