2 ms·
> 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 c
by 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 agoBut the talk-page discussion of what is supportable and what belongs on those pages should not be censored by political opinion.