>"Wikipedia has tried to block users coming from the Tor network since 2007, alleging vandalism, spam, and abuse. This research tells a different story: that pe

>"Wikipedia has tried to block users coming from the Tor network since 2007, alleging vandalism, spam, and abuse. This research tells a different story: that people use Tor to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, and Tor may allow some users to add their voice to conversations in which they may not otherwise be safely able to participate." A few philosophical observations: >"Wikipedia has tried to block users coming from the Tor network since 2007, alleging vandalism, spam, and abuse." Question #1. If let's say a country like China blocks users and/or content, citing "vandalism, spam, and abuse" as their reasons for doing so, then is this Censorship, or is this blocking content/users for "vandalism, spam, and abuse"? ? That is, how exactly does one distinguish blocking content/users for "vandalism, spam, and abuse" differ from Censorship -- if the net effect is the same in both cases? See, whatever reasons we give as criteria for this distinguishing process -- we must then be able to apply them equally to the other party. If we say that it's OK for a company to block users based on "vandalism, spam, and abuse" -- then how do we know that the Chinese government (or any other government that engages in censorship) does not apply the exact same criteria when it apparently censors, and if so, is it justified in those content takedowns? In other words, if we're saying that it's OK for Wikipedia to engage in its actions, then why is China not justified in doing the same thing? And if it's not OK for China to do, then why is it justified for Wikipedia to do? Disclaimer: I am neither for nor against China, and I am neither for nor against Wikipedia. I merely think it that it would make for an interesting philsophical debate as to why one's actions are justfied, and the other's actions are not, IF BOTH SETS OF ACTIONS RESULT IN THE SAME EFFECT. Help me to understand. Pretend I am Socrates, that is, I claim to know nothing, and it's your goal to educate me...