3 ms·

I think this is highlighting an important point. People seem to be using different definitions of "free speech." It appears one side is arguing against what we

I think this is highlighting an important point. People seem to be using different definitions of "free speech." It appears one side is arguing against what we might call "Free Speech (tm)" while others are arguing in favor of the moral/ethical principle of not restricting the free exchange of ideas. Thus the two sides end up talking past each other.

dale_glass 4y ago
I'm not sure what is "Free Speech (tm)", but I'd say neither version belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts, not of self-expression. Eg, we see here on the front page that Fred Brooks passed away on Nov 18, 2022. That's either a fact or it isn't. If it is a fact, then that's what his article should contain.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. And what would that be? > If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. Eg, this is not "free speech" in any of its meanings: "New York, often called New York City (NYC),[a] is the most populous city in the United States. With a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States." That's a factual statement that can have been compiled by an AI. It's not an expression of the views or opinions of any single person, and one that can be extracted from maps and databases. > Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion. True, but the actual contents of Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to constitute exchanges of ideas.
    - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
      > This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/ Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact? I could argue that your NY reference is indeed free speech in that you are making a statement of fact or opinion in a public forum.
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        > Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact? By having free exchange of ideas allowed outside of Wikipedia, and forbidden on Wikipedia itself. I'm saying the free exchange of ideas doesn't belong on Wikipedia pages specifically.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        But the talk-page discussion of what is supportable and what belongs on those pages should not be censored by political opinion.

dale_glass 4y ago

I'm not sure what is "Free Speech (tm)", but I'd say neither version belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts, not of self-expression. Eg, we see here on the front page that Fred Brooks passed away on Nov 18, 2022. That's either a fact or it isn't. If it is a fact, then that's what his article should contain.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
"Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. And what would that be? > If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. Eg, this is not "free speech" in any of its meanings: "New York, often called New York City (NYC),[a] is the most populous city in the United States. With a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States." That's a factual statement that can have been compiled by an AI. It's not an expression of the views or opinions of any single person, and one that can be extracted from maps and databases. > Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion. True, but the actual contents of Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to constitute exchanges of ideas.
  - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
    > This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/ Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact? I could argue that your NY reference is indeed free speech in that you are making a statement of fact or opinion in a public forum.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact? By having free exchange of ideas allowed outside of Wikipedia, and forbidden on Wikipedia itself. I'm saying the free exchange of ideas doesn't belong on Wikipedia pages specifically.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        But the talk-page discussion of what is supportable and what belongs on those pages should not be censored by political opinion.