4 ms·

> 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 ever

> 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 3y ago
[flagged]
- shp0ngle 3y 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.
  - rosmax_1337 3y ago
    Wikipedia acting like it's not censorship is the standard method in which censorship happens in the west today. The people in charge here gloat and applaud the idea of democracy and freedom of speech, while they use dishonest tactics to censorship. Here's the old joke: > A Russian and an American get on a plane in Moscow and get to talking. > The Russian says he works for the Kremlin and he's on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques. > "What American propaganda techniques?" asks the American. > "Exactly!" the Russian replies.
  - dylnuge 3y ago
    There's not a strong differentiation between "official" policies and guidelines and "unofficial" specific consensus on Wikipedia. Individual arguments are generally built out of policy and policy is just longer-standing consensus and can be changed. It's not like there's a different group of editors setting policy from those who argue on talk pages.
psychoslave 3y ago
The Mediawiki environment became increasingly hostile to "the external world" though. I am making a research project on grammatical gender in French, that I host on Wikiversity (there is a dedicated research space there). Lately I get an increasingly large number of rejection of saving my contributions, because some sites are considered "unreliable sources". But in my project, I am looking to document what people use in practice in their written exchanges. That they express lies or try to spread disinformation is irrelevant from the linguistic perspective I’m conducting this project. But due to this software enforced policy, I get prevented from documenting my sources from time to time.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  If they're spreading disinformation, obviously they also aren't accurately representing their own speech patterns. That's just common sense.
  - joshuaissac 3y ago
    > If they're spreading disinformation, obviously they also aren't accurately representing their own speech patterns. But GP is not documenting the 'true' speech patterns of the people spreading the disinformation, but rather the speech patterns they use when they are spreading disinformation (which, as you pointed out, might be different from their normal speech pattern). So the sources are still good enough for that.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
Is it really true that Wikipedia doesn’t have a formal, credible, method of determining whether a “consensus” exists?
- jl6 3y ago
  It’s true that there is nothing which should work in theory, and yet mostly does in practice.

schleck8 3y ago

[flagged]

shp0ngle 3y 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.
- rosmax_1337 3y ago
  Wikipedia acting like it's not censorship is the standard method in which censorship happens in the west today. The people in charge here gloat and applaud the idea of democracy and freedom of speech, while they use dishonest tactics to censorship. Here's the old joke: > A Russian and an American get on a plane in Moscow and get to talking. > The Russian says he works for the Kremlin and he's on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques. > "What American propaganda techniques?" asks the American. > "Exactly!" the Russian replies.
- dylnuge 3y ago
  There's not a strong differentiation between "official" policies and guidelines and "unofficial" specific consensus on Wikipedia. Individual arguments are generally built out of policy and policy is just longer-standing consensus and can be changed. It's not like there's a different group of editors setting policy from those who argue on talk pages.

psychoslave 3y ago

The Mediawiki environment became increasingly hostile to "the external world" though. I am making a research project on grammatical gender in French, that I host on Wikiversity (there is a dedicated research space there). Lately I get an increasingly large number of rejection of saving my contributions, because some sites are considered "unreliable sources". But in my project, I am looking to document what people use in practice in their written exchanges. That they express lies or try to spread disinformation is irrelevant from the linguistic perspective I’m conducting this project. But due to this software enforced policy, I get prevented from documenting my sources from time to time.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
If they're spreading disinformation, obviously they also aren't accurately representing their own speech patterns. That's just common sense.
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  > If they're spreading disinformation, obviously they also aren't accurately representing their own speech patterns. But GP is not documenting the 'true' speech patterns of the people spreading the disinformation, but rather the speech patterns they use when they are spreading disinformation (which, as you pointed out, might be different from their normal speech pattern). So the sources are still good enough for that.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Is it really true that Wikipedia doesn’t have a formal, credible, method of determining whether a “consensus” exists?

jl6 3y ago
It’s true that there is nothing which should work in theory, and yet mostly does in practice.