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 to cause tooth loss.
Although banned from sale in Europe and the United States, an
aggressive marketing campaign has made it the best-selling soft drink
in the nation of Elbonia. Equally aggressive lobbying in the Elbonian
parliament has resulted it in being a crime to disparage Circletine in
any way, or even to mention the controversy in print.
And so we have our article:
'''Circletine''' is a <bannedin
country="elbonia">controversial</bannedin> milk flavoring product made
from malt extract, curds, and whey, <bannedin
country="elbonia">once</bannedin> extremely popular worldwide
<bannedin country="elbonia">Although it enjoyed several decades of
success as an inexpensive beverage marketed mostly for children,
concerns over an increased risk of tooth loss led to its withdrawal
from sale in most western countries.</bannedin>
(I think you can see where this is going.)
Censorship is awful, but partial censorship is worse than simply
saying "I'm not allowed to talk about it. Ask your government why."
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Yuri <y...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the
> articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those
> 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 countries that lack the freedom of
> (most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about
> materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find objectionable. The
> recent example, provided in the bug report above, is banning of any
> references of Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" in Russia. While this
> may seem not as important, but I don't see why users outside Russia
> be affected by such decision, when they may not even support any
> or values of the said government. Yet, everybody's version of
> is affected, and materials are hidden.
> My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of
> articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding
> court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original
> If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this
> effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of
> courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list