24 ms·

I participated in similar communities and would kindly disagree with you. The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good. It's the Occam's

by rathel 7y ago

I participated in similar communities and would kindly disagree with you. The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good. It's the Occam's razor, again: there's no censorship conspiracy and if anything of such user's comments got deleted, it probably insulted everybody under the sun. Reasonable people argue on the relevant points they disagree with, and can understand when to stop if their idea simply doesn't get traction.

raxxorrax 7y ago
There are bad opinions if you allow everyone to speak. relevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- mirimir 7y ago
  Sure, but everyone can comment on them. And one can imagine, for example, having alternative versions of contentious articles. The existing disambiguation setup could easily handle that. Agreeing on tags might be nontrivial, but I'm sure that it's doable.
noxToken 7y ago
>I participated in similar communities and would kindly disagree with you. >The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good. In my experience, comments like GPs are working on the idealized assumption that sites/forums have unlimited resources for handling stuff like censorship, off-topic content, etc. Many communities consist of volunteers to moderate the content. We would love to have an unlimited pool of unbiased mods/admin to review every situation on a case-by-case basis. However, there simply isn't enough time or resources to do it. That's how we get heuristics like, "people complaining about censorship are usually up to no good." I have no experience (other than very minor edits) with Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree with some of the stuff in TFA - I actually disagree with some of the points. Though I can mostly see where the author is coming from. Moderating can be a tireless and almost thankless job, but people do it to ensure that the communities they enjoy flourish.

by rathel 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

There are bad opinions if you allow everyone to speak. relevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

mirimir 7y ago
Sure, but everyone can comment on them. And one can imagine, for example, having alternative versions of contentious articles. The existing disambiguation setup could easily handle that. Agreeing on tags might be nontrivial, but I'm sure that it's doable.

noxToken 7y ago

>I participated in similar communities and would kindly disagree with you. >The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good. In my experience, comments like GPs are working on the idealized assumption that sites/forums have unlimited resources for handling stuff like censorship, off-topic content, etc. Many communities consist of volunteers to moderate the content. We would love to have an unlimited pool of unbiased mods/admin to review every situation on a case-by-case basis. However, there simply isn't enough time or resources to do it. That's how we get heuristics like, "people complaining about censorship are usually up to no good." I have no experience (other than very minor edits) with Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree with some of the stuff in TFA - I actually disagree with some of the points. Though I can mostly see where the author is coming from. Moderating can be a tireless and almost thankless job, but people do it to ensure that the communities they enjoy flourish.