Wikipedia censorship

From NewgonWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia - an online encyclopedia website that claims to be "consensus driven" frequently deletes material and bans editors seen by its creator Jimbo Wales and select administrators to be politically unfavourable. This flouting of principles is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of child sexuality and paraphilia, and users who frequently edit them.

Whilst much of the material now removed from Wikipedia appears to be legitimate, sourced content from a neutral or contrarian perspective, previous bans on a small number self-identifying pedophile editors (in late 2006 and early 2007) seem to have exacerbated perceptions of any editing that may be considered similar in style. Currently, users who "may bring the project into disrepute" are blocked "per directive"[1][2] by the arbitration committee - a select group of site administrators who converse in private.

In practise, it is common for anti-pedophile administrators to simply block editors who they dislike (or deem to be pedophiles), with the full knowledge that ArbCom will not oppose their actions. For example, the Administrator seicer re-affirmed an appealed block on 12 February 2009 by simply stating that he did not like the editor involved. Although this did not work towards justifying the (unsupported) original justification for the block (sockpuppetry), the block remained. This is not exceptional behaviour among Wikipedia administrators.

Timeline of events

NewgonWiki: Call for input!
This article has only limited information on a subject which should be covered in greater detail. If you have information to contribute, please consider getting involved or contacting us.

Commentary

Anonymous (probably Enrico Dirac):

"It seems to me that characterizing criticism of the plethora of biased and misleading Wikipedia articles on sex and kids as "editors claiming adult/child sex is not harmful to children" just mirrors the tactics used by those pushing the CSA moral panic in regular society. Publish a paper debunking bogus numbers on the incidence of child porn and child abuse, propose a population-based peer-reviewed study which might produce an unpopular result, or suggest a change in the extremely value-laden terminology presently used in the CSA field, and no matter what your academic reputation, the usual Dr Lauras and Judith Reismans and "family values" organizations of the world will bombard the media with claims that "so-and-so says sexual abuse isn't harmful" and "so-and-so is pro-pedophile" and "so-and-so wants to legalize adult/child sex." This is always tremendously successful, and the resulting noise completely obscures any attempt to discuss the research on its merits.
Given that tremendously sucessful political strategies generally manage to get adopted in new venues, it's hardly a huge surprise that Wikipedia now has its own little cadre of True Believers, beating their little sex abuse drum, and running around shouting "pro-pedophile activism" every time they see something which violates the party line on the topic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that what currently passes for NPOV* in some of these articles reads like a press release from some conservative religious pressure group.
Sexual abuse is certainly a bad thing, but the type of hypervigilance that leads to sex abuse witch hunts like Wenatchee and the daycare scandals of the 1980's, which put scores of people in prison based on fabricated evidence, is also a bad thing.
I can't ever remember anyone getting banned from Wikipedia for turning a sex abuse article into a hateful pejorative-laden rant. But I've seen a lot of people banned after their edits annoyed the current Kiddie Sex Cabal that has arrogated to themselves the right to make sure that all such articles on Wikipedia contain the approved amount of anti-pedophile innuendo and vitriol. Some are banned with vague references to Pro-Pedophile POV, whatever that is. Others just disappear at the hands of Arbcom after secret proceedings. Entire articles which have been worked on by hundreds of editors, and which certainly represent community consensus, just arbitrarily disappear if someone high up decides they don't have enough anti-pedophile innuendo in them. This isn't an open and transparent process, where actions may be reviewed and commented upon. It is a fiat process in which talk pages get protected, and replaced by Wikipedia's version of what Wikipedia alleges transpired.
Now Wikipedia is a privately owned resource, with complete and total control over what it publishes. Oh, there's a lot of handwaving about consensus, and how it's actually run by the editors, and editorials making fun of anyone who suggests a Cabal exists. But in point of fact, Wikipedia has a certain political tone, and although anyone is free to contribute, it is a hierarchy of plebian editors, admins, Arbcom members, with Jimbo Wales at the top, and each level learns what the level above it wants, and exerts veto power over the levels below it.
NPOV is in reality the official Wikipedia POV, and the official Wikipedia POV on Child Sexual Abuse is fully supportive of the current hysteria and moral panic, and cares not a whit about what the actual facts are, and will always favor innacurate "mainstream perspective" over the truth. Wikiality and Truthiness aren't just amusing words on late night TV. They are an accurate description of what is produced by the Wikipedia process"

*The term "NPOV" (Neutral Point Of View) refers to a Wikipedia policy whereby encyclopaedia content must be nonpartisan, even in relation to moderate or centrist points of view.

See also