[Wikipedia-l] unproductive posts

Wed Nov 13 20:39:25 UTC 2002

Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:

> You have already been told that you can use your user page or Meta for most
> of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer you valid
> forums for this. 

And even if we didn't it *still* wouldn't be censorship.

There is a lot of twaddle talked about censorship,
Lets go to the OED.

CENSOR (n)
   a. transf. One who exercises official supervision over morals and conduct. 
   b. spec. An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all
    books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that
    they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the
    government. More explicitly dramatic censor, film censor.  

You see that word *official*?  Its important.  
What it means is this  *Only governments can censor*

If I take a book I've written to a publishers and they say "No, we'll pass" 
                                                   - thats not censorship.
If I print a magazine and a large chain of newsvendors refuse to stock it
                                                   - thats not censorship.
If I take a send a letter to the Times and they don't run it 
                                                   - thats not censorship.
If I publish a webpage and the webhosts say "we don't want to host this" 
                                                   -  thats not censorship.
If I write a wikipedia article and Jimbo, or the community say "No thanks"
                                                   -  thats not censorship.

As someone very wisely said -- just yesterday :
          "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"

Now, before people get their panties in a knot over the "repression"[0] of 
the majority, they should be forced to repeat that 3 times.
          "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"

Once more for luck?
          "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"

If someone has the ability to edit wikipedia taken away from them, we're not
harming them, we're not infringing on any right that they innately possess 
and we cannot -- by definition -- be censoring them.

[0] And what a feeble middle class repression to choose to kick against.  
    If you're so righteously angry, go channel it into something worthwhile
    -- like child poverty -- rather than defending your non-existent "right"
    to talk about politics on someone else's bandwidth.
-- 
Gareth Owen
"I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people
 on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really
 bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake." -- LP