4 ms·

Interestingly, Wikipedia editors are aware that Wikipedia articles are used to find the current URL of sites that are forced to change URLs frequently due to le

Interestingly, Wikipedia editors are aware that Wikipedia articles are used to find the current URL of sites that are forced to change URLs frequently due to legal or moral issues, and they face the same dilemma registrars and service providers face.[0] So although it seems somewhat more resilient than search engine companies to demands from copyright holders, it's not uncensored, something to keep in mind if you're infrastructurizing it for that purpose. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan/Archive_2#Inclusion_of_the_link_to_8chan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan/Archive_2#Inclusion...

shp0ngle 2y ago
Yeah for example 8chan and kiwifarms are usually censored. I'm not that mad about it, some censorship is always necessary (you don't want links to child porn), but it's weird that Wikipedia pretends there is no censorship. And it's kind of arbitrary. Why is stormfront - an openly nazi forum (a really old one at that) - allowed, but kiwifarms - an anti-trans doxxing forum - isn't? It's both bad
- chownie 2y ago
  Do they pretend there's no censorship? I don't see that. They block spam and I'm certain no one objects to that, so the bare fact that they exclude some information clearly does not constitute the status "censored" I'd imagine the reason kiwifarms gets different treatment is because the site is a lot worse than the descriptor "anti-trans doxxing forum" might make you believe — it's a website designed specifically to facilitate long term stalking and harassment campaigns. Trans people are their flavour of the month right now but a few years ago it was anyone disabled.
  - shp0ngle 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_... https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controver... If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up. Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some. I see > Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. which seems to me against link censorship.
  - diogocp 2y ago
    > Do they pretend there's no censorship? Yes, they do. Censorship of official links is against explicit Wikipedia policy[1], but it doesn't matter because every policy can be overridden by consensus. In practice this means that a handful of professional activists can (and do) censor it as they see fit, since they can determine for themselves whether such a "consensus" exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Offic...
    - schleck8 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - shp0ngle 2y ago
        > If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble. Not really though. They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list. > "These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking" The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER > 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. > 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved. According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists. --- again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.
- tommica 2y ago
  > an anti-trans doxxing forum That is reductive. Kiwifarms is a shit hole for sure, but it has more than just anti-trans doxxing. It's like classifying 4Chan based on /b/
  - tired-turtle 2y ago
    It’s unclear how you meant this, but it reads as > Sure, the Klan has some bad hombres, but we also run Checkers Tuesdays, maths tutoring for underprivileged youths Friday mornings, and Bible study Sundays. That is, at some point, the bad overwhelms any good.
    - npteljes 2y ago
      And sometimes the good is used to spread the bad, or the whole. Cults sometimes recruit like this, abusive people can be nice at first, narcissistic traited particularly, violent fringe groups offer camaraderie, yakuza doing charity and relief supplies. So I agree 100% that it really matters where the good is coming from.
      - r3d0c 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - hakdbha 2y ago
    [dead]
  - npteljes 2y ago
    >That is reductive I agree, Kiwifarms is much more shitty than that. To quote from Wikipedia "It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people, people considered by Kiwi Farms users to be mentally ill or sexually deviant, feminists, journalists, Internet celebrities, and video game or comics hobbyists."
    - ybantafish 2y ago
- pseudo0 2y ago
  I'm a bit annoyed by it. Censoring "lawful but awful" speech is the thin edge of the wedge. An existing precedent of censoring legal websites reduces my confidence that Wikipedia will be able to stand up to censorship pressure (including from its own editors) in the future.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    So called "lawful and fine" speech don't need free speech protections, nor any protections for that matter. It's precisely the so called "lawful but awful" speech that do.
    - mrmanner 2y ago
      The category of speech most in need of free speech protection is "unlawful but fine".
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Let me put it this way: Nobody is going to censor fine speech, FSVO fine.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - Pxtl 2y ago
    I think the argument in this case is that it may cross the line into unlawful behavior. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides, and encouraging suicide is a crime. 8chan has similarly been linked to violent crimes. There are cases where speech is illegal, even in the USA, which probably has the strictest standards for protecting speech in the world.
    - pseudo0 2y ago
      If you think a website is doing something illegal, you can report it to the police or the FBI, depending on what type of crime it is. Kiwifarms has a US corporate entity controlled by a US citizen, it isn't like this is some tor darknet market hosted in Moldova or something. Generally though sites aren't responsible for their users' speech, so if someone does cross the line, that would be on the user, not the site. As long as the site responds to any lawful subpoenas, they would stay in the clear.
- rosmax_1337 2y ago
  I find it very disturbing that the Wikipedia thread posted in the post above discusses the topic like it's about CP. It's clearly not. It's completely about the political implications of 8ch, especially in the aftermath of the connection between the Christchurch shooting by Brenton Tarrant. I have browsed 8ch extensively in the past, and continue to browse 4chan. You'll be exposed to disgusting imagery from time to time, no doubt, but the idea that 8ch is censored because of illegal and disgusting imagery is so incredibly disingenuous, this is clearly about political censorship of right wing extremism. If I had a bit less faith in humanity I would even go as far as to suggest that the Wikipedia thread is crafted to be about CP and not politics for the sake of justifying censorship and rewriting history. 8ch was not controversial because of CP, it was controversial because of extremist politics, and attempting to rewrite history like this is just so typical of Wikipedians these days.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    This is an extremely dishonest and factually untrue comment.
    - rosmax_1337 2y ago
      No, it is not.
      - r3d0c 2y ago
        the guy who made it said that he found it reprehensible but wouldn't remove it, so yes promoted pedohilia by turning a blind eye in the name of "free speech"
        rosmax_1337 2y ago
        And the reason why they're even having the discussion is not because the site might contain CP. The reason they're having the discussion is because the board was host to a political discussion board which hosted right wing extremists, and various kind of censors in the west don't think these people should be able to act freely on the internet.
- jl6 2y ago
  Stormfront pushes white supremacism in a generic way, Kiwifarms targets individuals by name (and address and date of birth and…).
special-K 2y ago
The issue with most search engines is that on top of not showing the proper link, they push the malicious ones on top of the search page. Wikipedia can simply not link.

shp0ngle 2y ago

Yeah for example 8chan and kiwifarms are usually censored. I'm not that mad about it, some censorship is always necessary (you don't want links to child porn), but it's weird that Wikipedia pretends there is no censorship. And it's kind of arbitrary. Why is stormfront - an openly nazi forum (a really old one at that) - allowed, but kiwifarms - an anti-trans doxxing forum - isn't? It's both bad

chownie 2y ago
Do they pretend there's no censorship? I don't see that. They block spam and I'm certain no one objects to that, so the bare fact that they exclude some information clearly does not constitute the status "censored" I'd imagine the reason kiwifarms gets different treatment is because the site is a lot worse than the descriptor "anti-trans doxxing forum" might make you believe — it's a website designed specifically to facilitate long term stalking and harassment campaigns. Trans people are their flavour of the month right now but a few years ago it was anyone disabled.
- shp0ngle 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_... https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controver... If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up. Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some. I see > Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. which seems to me against link censorship.
- diogocp 2y ago
  > Do they pretend there's no censorship? Yes, they do. Censorship of official links is against explicit Wikipedia policy[1], but it doesn't matter because every policy can be overridden by consensus. In practice this means that a handful of professional activists can (and do) censor it as they see fit, since they can determine for themselves whether such a "consensus" exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Offic...
  - schleck8 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - shp0ngle 2y ago
      > If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble. Not really though. They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list. > "These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking" The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER > 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. > 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved. According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists. --- again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.
tommica 2y ago
> an anti-trans doxxing forum That is reductive. Kiwifarms is a shit hole for sure, but it has more than just anti-trans doxxing. It's like classifying 4Chan based on /b/
- tired-turtle 2y ago
  It’s unclear how you meant this, but it reads as > Sure, the Klan has some bad hombres, but we also run Checkers Tuesdays, maths tutoring for underprivileged youths Friday mornings, and Bible study Sundays. That is, at some point, the bad overwhelms any good.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    And sometimes the good is used to spread the bad, or the whole. Cults sometimes recruit like this, abusive people can be nice at first, narcissistic traited particularly, violent fringe groups offer camaraderie, yakuza doing charity and relief supplies. So I agree 100% that it really matters where the good is coming from.
    - r3d0c 2y ago
      [flagged]
- hakdbha 2y ago
  [dead]
- npteljes 2y ago
  >That is reductive I agree, Kiwifarms is much more shitty than that. To quote from Wikipedia "It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people, people considered by Kiwi Farms users to be mentally ill or sexually deviant, feminists, journalists, Internet celebrities, and video game or comics hobbyists."
  - ybantafish 2y ago
pseudo0 2y ago
I'm a bit annoyed by it. Censoring "lawful but awful" speech is the thin edge of the wedge. An existing precedent of censoring legal websites reduces my confidence that Wikipedia will be able to stand up to censorship pressure (including from its own editors) in the future.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  So called "lawful and fine" speech don't need free speech protections, nor any protections for that matter. It's precisely the so called "lawful but awful" speech that do.
  - mrmanner 2y ago
    The category of speech most in need of free speech protection is "unlawful but fine".
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Let me put it this way: Nobody is going to censor fine speech, FSVO fine.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- Pxtl 2y ago
  I think the argument in this case is that it may cross the line into unlawful behavior. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides, and encouraging suicide is a crime. 8chan has similarly been linked to violent crimes. There are cases where speech is illegal, even in the USA, which probably has the strictest standards for protecting speech in the world.
  - pseudo0 2y ago
    If you think a website is doing something illegal, you can report it to the police or the FBI, depending on what type of crime it is. Kiwifarms has a US corporate entity controlled by a US citizen, it isn't like this is some tor darknet market hosted in Moldova or something. Generally though sites aren't responsible for their users' speech, so if someone does cross the line, that would be on the user, not the site. As long as the site responds to any lawful subpoenas, they would stay in the clear.
rosmax_1337 2y ago
I find it very disturbing that the Wikipedia thread posted in the post above discusses the topic like it's about CP. It's clearly not. It's completely about the political implications of 8ch, especially in the aftermath of the connection between the Christchurch shooting by Brenton Tarrant. I have browsed 8ch extensively in the past, and continue to browse 4chan. You'll be exposed to disgusting imagery from time to time, no doubt, but the idea that 8ch is censored because of illegal and disgusting imagery is so incredibly disingenuous, this is clearly about political censorship of right wing extremism. If I had a bit less faith in humanity I would even go as far as to suggest that the Wikipedia thread is crafted to be about CP and not politics for the sake of justifying censorship and rewriting history. 8ch was not controversial because of CP, it was controversial because of extremist politics, and attempting to rewrite history like this is just so typical of Wikipedians these days.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  This is an extremely dishonest and factually untrue comment.
  - rosmax_1337 2y ago
    No, it is not.
    - r3d0c 2y ago
      the guy who made it said that he found it reprehensible but wouldn't remove it, so yes promoted pedohilia by turning a blind eye in the name of "free speech"
      - rosmax_1337 2y ago
        And the reason why they're even having the discussion is not because the site might contain CP. The reason they're having the discussion is because the board was host to a political discussion board which hosted right wing extremists, and various kind of censors in the west don't think these people should be able to act freely on the internet.
jl6 2y ago
Stormfront pushes white supremacism in a generic way, Kiwifarms targets individuals by name (and address and date of birth and…).

special-K 2y ago

The issue with most search engines is that on top of not showing the proper link, they push the malicious ones on top of the search page. Wikipedia can simply not link.