----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Gervai" <grin(a)tolna.net>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] French net censorship law
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:05:49PM +0800, Ruimu
wrote:
How might
this bill affect Wikipedia, if I go through with plans to
set up a French nonprofit?
Not much, I guess, except if Wikipedia becomes a den of negationists
(revisionist seems to be the only translation but I don't like it as any
historian is "revising" History), suicide apologists, or paedophiles.
Maybe you're low on imagination. For example what if there's an article on
a
politician which describes what he really have done,
but what he does not
like to have published? (Monsieur XY member of the parliament raped his 3
daughters and the dog of the neighbour at age 12.) Or criticising
(providing alternative points of view of) political moves, like cutting
countries apart, killing people, etc?
Oh well, maybe I get it wrong. It would happen in Hungary.
Well, erh... It's not my imagination. I listed those few topics (I may
have missed a couple more) that are actually under legal censorship in
France. (The law against negationism is, imho, a very awful law, one of the
worst in this country, but a necessary one in the context.) Censorship means
here that it is forbidden to publish a book that will be an apology of
suicide, paedophilia, or denying the reality of some crimes against humanity
(without having to prove anything). If you write a book stating that "Mr XY
raped Z...", you may face a libel suit, and have to prove your allegations.
(That's very different, as you can see.)
Censorship is a bad thing, but, except if you strongly believe that ALL mens
are good (at least "good enough"), it cannot be abandonned without being
replaced by something else. This "something else" could be (or has to be,
imho) replaced by self-censorship. Self-censorship is merely when you don't
reply to a Wikipedian that he is a pure idiot, even if you strongly think
that it is absolutely true. On usenet, I found an easy way to censor myself:
switch of "send immediatly" and always wait for the next day to send my
burning reaction. You can't imagine how many lines I have dropped this way
(and, incidentally, how many spelling and grammar mistakes that have been
fixed). That's self-censorship. Sadly, I don't see how to do this in a
simple way on Wikis.
Self-censorship is also here when one try not to push one's agenda too much,
or not to write on topic where it is too hard to achieve (as Uncle Ed said).
I used above the "good enough" expression: I think being "good enough"
on WP
means to be able to censor oneself (what is much harder than simply being
polite).
P.S. : I know that censorship is a widely hated thing, so my ideas here may
seem to be hateful for some of you. Please consider that I tried to soften
them as much as possible, and that I'm not helped 'cause I'm not using my
mother tongue. Many evil things are necessary (on WP, banning someone is
this way; in society, I could say cops, laws, ...). Most of those evil
things are bad (and rejected) when they come from outside, I mean from
someone else. When you internalize them, they may not be so evil--that's my
key point.