4 ms·

>I don't get why they would do this to so many topics. It's a form of censorship, hence a form of thought control.

by Jerry2 4y ago

andrewljohnson 4y ago
It's mostly a form of spam-control.
- practice9 4y ago
  well, isn't most of free speech just de-facto spam?
  - macintux 4y ago
    Sure, which is why no one is legally obligated to host it.
- Jerry2 4y ago
  >spam-control Can you explain what was so spammy about this one? https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hunter-biden-firm-rosemont-seneca-partners/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hu...
  - striking 4y ago
    First off, it's now a redirect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemont_Seneca_Partners&redirect=no https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemont_Seneca... Second, the article links to the archived comments about the deletion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemont_Seneca_Partners https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_delet...), wherein an editor explains > This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, from whom it cannot inherit notability per WP:NORG. Every single source is a trivial mention in an article about the founders; that means it fails WP:GNG as well. Keeping it around additionally risks WP:BLPVIO, as this is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Write the parts that deserve to be in the Hunter Biden page in the Hunter Biden page. Don't make a stub article just so you can mention an otherwise unnotable company.
pavlov 4y ago
It’s crazy how people feel entitled to have somebody else host their “thoughts” on the Internet. As the project at hand shows, if Wikipedia doesn’t want to host your page, you can simply publish elsewhere.
- xigoi 4y ago
  Nobody is posting their “thoughts” on Wikipedia, it's for encyclopedic articles. By controlling the content of those, you control what many people consider the truth.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    An encyclopedia is by definition curated and controlled. The brilliance of the Internet and open content licensing is that you can fork Wikipedia if you don’t like their editorial choices. This wasn’t possible with a thirty-volume print edition of Britannica. Of course if you want to make people look to your version instead of the one at wikipedia.org, you probably need to invest in marketing. In theory nothing stops you from becoming the new source of authority — after all Wikipedia has only held this role for less than twenty years, and nobody remembers what was the #1 result site for these search queries then.
Dylan16807 4y ago
Sure, in the sense that literally any text is thought control.

>I don't get why they would do this to so many topics. It's a form of censorship, hence a form of thought control.

by Jerry2 4y ago

>I don't get why they would do this to so many topics. It's a form of censorship, hence a form of thought control.

andrewljohnson 4y ago

It's mostly a form of spam-control.

practice9 4y ago
well, isn't most of free speech just de-facto spam?
- macintux 4y ago
  Sure, which is why no one is legally obligated to host it.
Jerry2 4y ago
>spam-control Can you explain what was so spammy about this one? https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hunter-biden-firm-rosemont-seneca-partners/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hu...
- striking 4y ago
  First off, it's now a redirect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemont_Seneca_Partners&redirect=no https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemont_Seneca... Second, the article links to the archived comments about the deletion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemont_Seneca_Partners https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_delet...), wherein an editor explains > This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, from whom it cannot inherit notability per WP:NORG. Every single source is a trivial mention in an article about the founders; that means it fails WP:GNG as well. Keeping it around additionally risks WP:BLPVIO, as this is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Write the parts that deserve to be in the Hunter Biden page in the Hunter Biden page. Don't make a stub article just so you can mention an otherwise unnotable company.

pavlov 4y ago

It’s crazy how people feel entitled to have somebody else host their “thoughts” on the Internet. As the project at hand shows, if Wikipedia doesn’t want to host your page, you can simply publish elsewhere.

xigoi 4y ago
Nobody is posting their “thoughts” on Wikipedia, it's for encyclopedic articles. By controlling the content of those, you control what many people consider the truth.
- pavlov 4y ago
  An encyclopedia is by definition curated and controlled. The brilliance of the Internet and open content licensing is that you can fork Wikipedia if you don’t like their editorial choices. This wasn’t possible with a thirty-volume print edition of Britannica. Of course if you want to make people look to your version instead of the one at wikipedia.org, you probably need to invest in marketing. In theory nothing stops you from becoming the new source of authority — after all Wikipedia has only held this role for less than twenty years, and nobody remembers what was the #1 result site for these search queries then.

Dylan16807 4y ago

Sure, in the sense that literally any text is thought control.