4 ms·

Still, free speech is what allows such a project. And Wikipedia also explains philosophical opinions, political positions, NSFW concepts, etc., which is only po

Still, free speech is what allows such a project. And Wikipedia also explains philosophical opinions, political positions, NSFW concepts, etc., which is only possible to that extent due to free speech. So I would disagree both that Wikipedia has nothing to do with free speech, and that it’s not about anybody’s opinions or ideas.

Clamchop 3y ago
There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech, but that's not the same as having an editorial policy that contributors are allowed to express themselves on the platform, which would obviously be inappropriate. Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies but that's not the same as supporting the expression of the opinions and ideologies of its contributors. (See above.)
- foverzar 3y ago
  > There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. As an individual, sure. But it's still a massively "go to" source of facts for billions of people. > Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech Do you really feel like Wikipedia has unpopular opinions? My impression is kinda opposite. > Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies It would have been awesome if it was actually plural.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    I'm _not_ claiming that Wikipedia has or doesn't have unpopular opinions. I'm making a distinction between the legal framework in which Wikipedia exists (they _can_ publish unpopular or controversial speech) and what Wikipedia does (they intend not to express their own opinions at all; whether you believe they succeed is immaterial). OP was conflating the two, but Wikipedia has no obligation or principle to be a platform for free speech. It's completely irrelevant.
    - foverzar 3y ago
      Ah, I get it. I think the OP was referring not to the legal definition of free speech, but rather to the spirit of it.

Clamchop 3y ago

There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech, but that's not the same as having an editorial policy that contributors are allowed to express themselves on the platform, which would obviously be inappropriate. Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies but that's not the same as supporting the expression of the opinions and ideologies of its contributors. (See above.)

foverzar 3y ago
> There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. As an individual, sure. But it's still a massively "go to" source of facts for billions of people. > Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech Do you really feel like Wikipedia has unpopular opinions? My impression is kinda opposite. > Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies It would have been awesome if it was actually plural.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  I'm _not_ claiming that Wikipedia has or doesn't have unpopular opinions. I'm making a distinction between the legal framework in which Wikipedia exists (they _can_ publish unpopular or controversial speech) and what Wikipedia does (they intend not to express their own opinions at all; whether you believe they succeed is immaterial). OP was conflating the two, but Wikipedia has no obligation or principle to be a platform for free speech. It's completely irrelevant.
  - foverzar 3y ago
    Ah, I get it. I think the OP was referring not to the legal definition of free speech, but rather to the spirit of it.