It was intended not just to challenge the US government, but to be an
example for elsewhere,and it has been that.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Seb35 wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri a écrit :
> >
> > On 03/1
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Seb35 wrote:
> Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri a écrit :
>
> On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
>>
>>> Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn't (shouldn't) depend
>>> in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differentl
Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri a écrit :
On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend
in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed
differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question
On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend
in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed
differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question
not related to censorship.
Moreover it would be a censo
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend in
any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently
from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question not related to
censorship.
Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Mini
Exactly this.
If the government of any given country wants to redirect certain articles,
or all of Wikipedia, to a page saying "This content blocked by the Ministry
of Knowledge", people will know they're being censored. If instead they
reach a "sanitized" version of the article reflecting the gov
I think that if you stop to think about it another way, you'll find
that this would do the opposite of what you intend, to wit: allowing
"various courts" to impose editorial control.
Imagine Circletine, once a popular childhood beverage but now the
issue of some controversy regarding its tendency
On 03/04/2014 10:50 PM, Yuri wrote:
> But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.
I haven't opined on the specific bug, but I would also have rejected it.
The reason why is simple: it goes exactly opposite everything the
projects stand for.
Our mission isn't "collect all of the knowl
I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the
articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those
parts illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.
The problem is that there are co
