On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at > various places that the present resolution is justified as a > compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of > censorship. This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed. Everything remains. [1] I am however > going to ask whether the fact that such proposals were entertained, > shows the validity of the argument that we're on a slippery slope. > Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation? > Once you admit censorship, it's hard to limit it; once you admit POV > editing, it inevitable develops into arrant promotionalism. > Censorship is inherently POV editing. > > Are we really admitting censorship via the front or even through the back door through the image hiding feature? If everything remains on the site, and you and I can continue to see everything that exists just as we do today, how are we 'admitting censorship'? I have read the comments on meta, about the possibility of this opening doors to government requests for removal of content - that, in my view would be censorship. The Board resolution affirms that "Wikimedia projects are not censored." [2] Cheers Bishakha [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
