Censorship

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

see also Wikimedia_projects_blocks.

This page is obsolete or no longer maintained, and kept for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community discussion page.

This is a discussion page, not a Wikipedia policy page of any sort.

We can define censorship as an action that goes against the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech being limited by the respect, of course. It appears legitimate to say that anything reflecting basically the reality is respectful, as it shows things as they are. The censorship is not necessarily something so obvious. It could just be embedded in a cultural prejudice. This notion of cultural prejudice is quite important to understand censorship and how a text reflects reality as well. History shows clearly that contents were selected and removed according to what was commonly admitted or not. For instance, if you look up in the Britannica 1911, you won't find too offensive words like "fuck" or definition of sodomy. But, you can find a long text about "negro", [[1]] saying clearly that "negro" are people with a reduced intelligence.(which of course, I deny). Today, an article speaking about black people as Britannica 1911 did would be clearly censored, and this, is justified as it doesn't reflect reality. And today, people are more prone to define clearly the word "fuck" as it is, and there is no objection possible, as it's just a mirror of what exists. Unfortunately, some parts of the reality remains still unacceptable for people, as the cultural and religious heritage are still heavy. For instance, a picture of naked people is something that could be considered as offensive for people, for children, (which is immediately linked to porn) when it's only the reflection of our own humanity, that we have learned to deny.Why are you being unconventional?

Personally I find the taboos against nudity rather silly, and my only distress is that I've internalised the same taboos. --mrd

This is an interesting discussion that reminds me of a couple of saying that have become trite in some circles, the first is, 'freedom of the press is freedom for the owner of the press' and 'freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre'. In the American tradition the liberty interest has been held in the highest esteem, the expression of the individual voice, no matter how outrageous, as been held as sacred. This has lead to a free and open debate, but it has also lead to the American Civil Liberties Union defending nazi holocaust denial theorists. In other countries who owe their tradition of human rights to the more modern rights movement we see that there are recognized limits on freedom, as the will of the individual is balanced with the needs of society such as the w:limitations clause in the w:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In these systems that have been inspired by the w:Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is the balancing of individual and group rights that concerns the lawgivers. How to apply that to a collective endeavor such as Wikipedia. That is the question worth discussing. Alex756

[edit] Deletionistic or Exclusionistic?

On Wikipedia, due to the fact that Wikipedians who censor images, are in fact excluding them, some have called censorship a form of exlusionism.

Others, such as the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, claim censorship as a form of deletionism.

Wikiconservatives, advocates of exclusion of imagery considered inapproperiate, deny this.

Canadianism 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)