> When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.
That attitude is part of the problem. Or at least, it's why I've never wanted to contribute.
That attitude is part of the problem. Or at least, it's why I've never wanted to contribute.
For the first point, Wikipedia has pretty comprehensive guidelines around editing articles. Consider for example the guidelines around editing biographies of living people [1]. Pushback due to non-compliance with the guidelines isn't censorship.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...
> When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.
No, you probably did censor them. You wouldn't even need to promote their views. Just put it in the criticism section and be done with it. It may be value added for every reader, even if the editor already dismissed the opinion.
Wasn't the top admin banned by the foundation few days ago? Someone told me there were controversies... again...
The attitude is indeed disgraceful and pretty much against anything Wikipedia once stood for.
Yes. Here's the enormous discussion about the banning of Fram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...
Probably best to start with the two statements from the foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...
He was banned because he was abusive and harassing, and en:wiki couldn't or wouldn't control it.
There are a few people in the linked thread defending him while saying he's an arsehole.
That is a pro-Foundation stance. Fram was removed bypassing all existing community processes while there are no public complaints against him and with no rationale or explanation. It seems like he was just removed for being rude. Also note that Fram was a critic of the foundation.
In any case, this is a truly weird change of behavior from the Wikimedia Foundation, considering that they previously ignored even child abuse from admins, leaving everything to Arbitration committees. Awful administrator abuse on hr.wikipedia.org, which dissolved its Arbitration committee and is literally run, written and micromanaged by illiterate Nazis (and I do not mean grammar-Nazi or something like that) who behave MUCH worse than Fram was ignored.
I gather that's because making complaints public would arguably identify those who had submitted them. And still, with that there's zero public accountability.
The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good.
It's the Occam's razor, again: there's no censorship conspiracy and if anything of such user's comments got deleted, it probably insulted everybody under the sun.
Reasonable people argue on the relevant points they disagree with, and can understand when to stop if their idea simply doesn't get traction.
relevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
>The ones who raise this point 99% of the time _are_ up to no good.
In my experience, comments like GPs are working on the idealized assumption that sites/forums have unlimited resources for handling stuff like censorship, off-topic content, etc. Many communities consist of volunteers to moderate the content. We would love to have an unlimited pool of unbiased mods/admin to review every situation on a case-by-case basis. However, there simply isn't enough time or resources to do it. That's how we get heuristics like, "people complaining about censorship are usually up to no good."
I have no experience (other than very minor edits) with Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree with some of the stuff in TFA - I actually disagree with some of the points. Though I can mostly see where the author is coming from. Moderating can be a tireless and almost thankless job, but people do it to ensure that the communities they enjoy flourish.