return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square155fedilinkarrow-up1734arrow-down18
arrow-up1726arrow-down1external-linkMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square155fedilink
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-25 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-down1·4 hours agoIf I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 hours agoWikipedia already doesn’t allow that, so your question is pointless.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-256 minutes 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-up1·11 minutes agoYou’re moving goalposts, but ok.
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.