return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square157fedilinkarrow-up1766arrow-down18
arrow-up1758arrow-down1external-linkMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square157fedilink
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down4·edit-217 hours agoNot bias, but I was surprised to find out how Wikipedia is censoring information surrounding ChrisChan. All of the articles mentioning him in English just say he’s an internet personality, and his English Wikipedia page has been removed. That kind of censorship doesn’t sit will with me. What else are they keeping from us?
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·16 hours agoThis is to stop a cyberbullying campaign against a disabled person That kind of censorship doesn’t sit will with me. What else are they keeping from us? probably other things to harrass individuals with?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·edit-216 hours agoYeah, no. It’s still censorship even if the person in question wants it to be censored. People shouldn’t get to dictate whether or not wikipedia articles are made of them.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·15 hours agoIf I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·15 hours agoWikipedia already doesn’t allow that, so your question is pointless.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-212 hours agofor the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns. both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·11 hours agoYou’re moving goalposts, but ok.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-210 hours agoMy point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying my goalpost did not move at all. you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agoGonna block you now. Some people just love to argue no matter what, lol.
minus-squareArmchairAce1944@discuss.onlinelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·16 hours agoThese people know the CWCwiki exists, right? I mean I was obsessed with CWC a little over 10 years ago, too, but I have long since lost interest in the whole matter.
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·16 hours agoThat doesn’t make it ok.
Not bias, but I was surprised to find out how Wikipedia is censoring information surrounding ChrisChan.
All of the articles mentioning him in English just say he’s an internet personality, and his English Wikipedia page has been removed.
That kind of censorship doesn’t sit will with me. What else are they keeping from us?
This is to stop a cyberbullying campaign against a disabled person
probably other things to harrass individuals with?
Yeah, no.
It’s still censorship even if the person in question wants it to be censored.
People shouldn’t get to dictate whether or not wikipedia articles are made of them.
If I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
Wikipedia already doesn’t allow that, so your question is pointless.
for the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.
both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons
You’re moving goalposts, but ok.
My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying
my goalpost did not move at all.
you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned
you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?
Gonna block you now.
Some people just love to argue no matter what, lol.
These people know the CWCwiki exists, right? I mean I was obsessed with CWC a little over 10 years ago, too, but I have long since lost interest in the whole matter.
That doesn’t make it ok.