Talk:Censorship of Wikipedia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Improve this page with data table?

This page could be improved by presenting the data as a table with headings such as 'Country', 'current status', 'history of censorship' - that way it can be updated more quickly and a visual representation will give a clearer idea of what is blocked where (e.g. also WikiData?) Jack Nunn 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknunn (talk • contribs)

It could be combined or integrated with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_country#Internet_censorship_and_surveillance Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([[1]]) 01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

How to circumvent?

The article should contain a section on, or a link to an article on, how to circumvent censorship. - General approaches: tor, freegate, VPNs, .. - Mirror sites that may not be blocked - ... 81.204.67.92 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Erasure

Erasure of articles critical of politicians. Article change history was also erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.44.125 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By country

Turkey

A few hours ago reaching articles in turkish wiki such as vagina, human penis and female genitals is probably censored. http://imgur.com/sX2Ak97 in this caption same computer tries to access same article. The second one uses a proxy.

North Korea

Isn't Wikipedia censored in North Korea? I find it surprising this country is not mentioned here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, North Koreans generally don't get into the Internet in North Korea, they only get domestic-only network Kwangmyong. Without Wikipedia, sure. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

China

It's not entirely true that Wikipedia is unblocked. Certain pages are unobtainable, with a mystifying ethos. For instance I could never access Tacloban. Nor Paul Samuelson I think. NB The Great Firewall of China seems to block all sites with address which contains the word 'blog'. Note too that China now seems to be employing Wikipedia to distribute its own information. See for instance Port of Tianjin governance, traffic management and law enforcement.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 09:30, wikitime= 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Germany

In this section it says "Wikipedia.de [...] was prohibited from pointing to the actual Wikipedia content". I have no idea what that means. Can anybody clarify? Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The URL wikipedia.de redirects to de.wikipedia.org (in the same way wikipedia.co.uk redirects to en.wikipedia.org). This was redirect was temporarily disallowed. Thomytempo (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A section for consideration regarding the United States

The following are articles from reliable sources that cover suppression that took place with the knowledge and approval of the founder:

Please keep in mind that the suppression was done out of concern for human life, and also because no major news media had been reporting the situation. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm is a rejected principle of the English encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

In just a minute I am going to remove the following comment from the top of the article:

(WP:Wikipedia is not censored this slogan is just a shameless propaganda, many of wikipedia's administrators like censorship, they often used their power to control the content of the wikipedia articles, and block the dissident contents)

It turns out that I agree with the statement, but the top of this article isn't the right place for it. And, in fact, an article on Censorship of Wikipedia probably isn't the right article. There is an Censorship by Wikipedia page, but it is just a redirect to the main article about Wikipedia. I guess that the body of the Wikipedia article might be as good a place as any to put an expanded version of the comment. There is some mention of Censorship by Wikipedia there already, but it isn't very visible and is spread out in several locations and in some references. The top of this article does mention WP:Wikipedia is not censored and that might be another place to talk about this. I'm guessing that the mention of WP:Wikipedia is not censored is what caused the insertion of the comment in the first place. Other articles that talk about this include: WP:Censorship issue, Help:Censorship. There is also a semi-active WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can the gentlmen expand on this hot topic? I find out that there are countries and topics, where cliques of selfcalled admins, destroy any contribution that does not follow a precise political choice of theirs - and actual use the most primitive censorship. So in some respects, Wikipedia is the contrary of democratic: once in the hands of autoritarian thinking and acting admins, there is no instance of moderation that is publically known and one can turn on to, for complaining. One turns around in the midst of the same clique of admins - who are very probably payed by some interests. Worse than in a dictatorship. What does Wikipedia DO against this?PredaMi (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Still not quite right

The top still says, "For censorship of Wikipedia by Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored." That doesn't even make sense -- how does an inanimate object censor itself? - 2001:558:1400:10:81CE:3DD2:5FFD:5B7C (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is heavily censored by Wikipedia administrators and groups of users. The only solution of this problem is to have editorial boards elected on the basis of the academic background of their members. These boards shall have the last word about the articles quality. --X2Faces (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Village Pump (Proposals)

There is a proposal to enable HTTPS by default for all readers on Wikipedia at the Village Pump. This proposal directly relates to the censorship of Wikipedia by governments. Your input in the discussion would be welcome. Thank you, Tony Tan98 · talk 04:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Censorship by groups of users and administrators

RFC closed as it has nothing to do with the article. --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging NeilN to note update to this close:

Sockpuppet Investigation found RFC initiator is related to blocked Sockpuppet master account Velebit. Alsee (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet another proof of the censorship carried by an administrator!--X2Faces (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added this sentence to the article lead.

The most troubling part of the Wikipedia censorship is the one carried by Wikipedia administrators and groups of users led by specific interests outside the idea of encyclopedism.

The sentence above was deleted and qualified as a personal opinion. Based on the comments on this page, and many other comments on many other places, I see that this type of censorship is visible and the most harmful one to Wikipedia.

Initially I do not want to provide the examples. There are many. Leaving it to someone else to start with.

Proposal: The quality of Wikipedia articles shall be judged, approved, and guarded by editorial boards whose members shall be elected on the basis of proven and verified academic background.--X2Faces (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • If Wikipedia editors elect editorial boards, there is no reason not to expect they will represent the same abilities and problems as the general population. Both Veripedia and Citizendium attempted to improve on the problems inherent in Wikipedia, but neither was particularly successful. TFD (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
So, both failed to elect editorial boards or they elected but still it did not work?--X2Faces (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Would someone please close this pointless RfC. @X2Faces: Editors disagree about edit proposals all the time—that is not censorship. Please use another website to campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There certainly has been censorship of Wikipedia content by Wikipedia administrators - for example, administrators have, on their own initiative mostly, removed content related to UK events that have had UK court injunctions issued to suppress news reporting of that event by UK media, even though Wikipedia is hosted on non-UK based servers and is thus outside the legally enforceable remit of such court orders. One of the worst examples I recall was the deletion of content dealing with mentioning UK victims of kidnapping or murder by Jihadist groups in Syria because the UK Foreign Office had requested UK news sources not report such information. For example, see mention of the troubling deletion of material related to David Haines (aid worker) detailed at [2]. Given that the article title is "Censorship of Wikipedia" and not "External censorship of Wikipedia", this sort of material would be on-topic content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

New section: Censorship by groups of users and administrators

Opening Sockpuppet Investigation of brand new blatant sock account ranting about being persecuted for socking. Alsee (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Investigation found RFC initiator is related to blocked Sockpuppet master account Velebit. Alsee (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My proposal is to add the new section to this article: Censorship by groups of users and administrators. This type of censorship is based on arbitrary interpretation and use of

  • 3RR
  • NPOV
  • Disruptive editing
  • Sockpuppetry

against others.

There are countless cases where one user (say user A) changes the article content which then gets removed by other user (user B). If user A tries to put it back, then he will be warned by an administrator saying " you are about to violate 3RR, you will be blocked even if you do not violate 3RR" etc. If user A puts back his content and another user (user C) reverts it, then regularly, no matter what is the content change quality, the user A is always guilty party. The attempt to resolve dispute will fail along the same irrational line of the context change refusal.

The NPOV rule is in use if some administrator or group of users does not want accept the changes 'justified' by disqualifications of the user A (POV pusher, references are not neutral, etc)

Disruptive editing is a generic accusation against user A which regularly never gets justified or elaborated. It's an un-articulated, many times, irrational disagreement to the changes not acceptable by others which are always a small group of users.

Sockpuppetry is many times a tool to discourage or prevent support to changes not acceptable by a group or by an administrator. If there is no way to prove that the users are using the same IP address, then they might be accused for being in the same geographical area, or for sharing the same interest, showing the same behavior, or by grammar style. All these disqualifications are never elaborated nor proven.

Complaints against block and disqualifications of user A are almost regularly refused, ridiculed, or answered by additional accusations or pointlessly calling on Wikipedia rules and essays. The essays used against user A, like WP:DUCK, are qualified as not a part of Wikipedia policy and yet used as an ultimate tool against user A.--X2Faces (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to provide reliable resources. I think Wikipedia itself is the most reliable source of the censorship inherent to Wikipedia.

In addition, I collected a few found outside Wikipedia own realm:

Moreover, there is a number of links blacklisted (read censored) by Wikipedia; just remove the "dot." to get them and search for cursive text

  • www.dot.serendipity.dot.li Censorship (and Propaganda) at Wikipedia
  • www.dot.avoiceformen.dot.com Fighting Wikipedia Corruption & Censorship
  • en.dot.metapedia.dot.org/wiki/Wikipedia the so called "Arbitration Committee" which "decides the outcome of disputes between editors" "has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct" (such as ignoring "the consensus"). As such Wikipedia disputes are in the end resolved by character attacks (ad hominem) rather than by the scientific merits of arguments.

Comments(pro et contra)

  • X2Faces (talk · contribs) has a total of 20 edits. Please stop starting pointless RfCs. This can never resolve anything because there is no actionable proposal to edit the article—it's not actionable because nothing can be added until someone presents at least one plausible reliable source. WP:SOAPBOX is one of the things that should not be done at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The above comment is just an example of the censorship attempt and mindset. It would be interesting to learn a bit about this user (Johnuniq) age and academic background.--X2Faces (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Censorship of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

New relevant page on Nations and Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Nations and Wikipedia is a meta page to accumulate and help organize ways nations/governments and Wikipedia interact and for the Wikipedia community to establish relevant policies, guidelines, information and help. Attempts of censorship can be one such interaction. I thought you might be interested in this page. Please share your thoughts on it on its talk page.

--Fixuture (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Censorship of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

More details would help comparability

Both the overview and individual examples need a bit more detail to make them usefully comparable:

  • One-page vs whole site?
  • http vs https?
  • Temporary vs long-term?
  • Which language?

Currently the info is a bit patchy, so its hard to see which examples of censorship are/were the most impactful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia by Wikipedia (and via the US government)

this is an interesting angle of discussion but unfortunately it’s buried under a WP:SOAPBOX wall-of-text

This article should not just present censorship as an external force. This article doesn't mention, for instance, Wikipedia's own admission that it complies with US laws. That alone is an admission of censorship, by the US government and by Wikipedia. It's rather a chicken-egg thing, which is one of the benefits of censorship for the powerful. It is most effective when people censor themselves proactively. Let's look at some of the methods of censorship, other than this law compliance. For instance, the archiving of Talk pages can be seen as an example of Wikipedia censoring itself, along the lines of the claim that Talk pages aren't a place where people should talk. The archiving of talk pages hides discussions. Hiding information = censorship. The claims that talk pages "aren't a forum" and "are for editorial discussion" are censoring claims. What is and is not editorial is subjective, an invitation for censorship. Different people have different ways of communicating, as has been shown in scientific studies of cultural communication patterns. So, not only is censorship an issue here but also cultural bias censorship. Very basically, calling something "Talk" is an invitation for people to do that, to talk. So, Wikipedia blames its users for its own faulty UI.

I suggested splitting the "Talk" into two pages. That is probably a better solution than the current shoddy implementation, where Talk means don't talk. The archiving of discussions is a red flag, especially since Talk pages have traditionally gotten vastly less attention/hits than main articles. I was even once under the impression that there was concern that not enough people paid attention to them in the first place. Why is there this tremendous need to hide those discussions? Why should people reinvent the wheel because they don't know what has been said? I've seen examples of this archival and deletion process on talk pages as being a way for certain editorial points of view to "win" over others. Basic censorship patterns in action. The expression is that history is written by the victors but shouldn't Wikipedia be written, not by those with the most stamina for fights, but, instead, by the largest plurality of viewpoints possible? I've been through the wringer with so-called editors who did things like delete entire sections, like themes in films. The desire for censorship, no matter how reckless, is strong for many. Wikipedia should be mindful about how it censors itself at all times and make that censorship for the good of humanity via the expansion of knowledge — and not just superficial knowledge, either. I've seen plenty of arguments in favor of keeping articles very shallow, as if people don't have high-speed Internet and computers that are very capable of handling text. Oddly enough, there seems to be a strong preference for allowing scientific articles to be as detailed as they need to be. A bit of a STEM bias, perhaps? One of the pro-shallowness bits I just read said articles shouldn't usually have sections labeled "controversy" or "criticism". That, right there, is a censorship regime. Critical thinking is supposed to be a value and yet Wikipedia wants critical thinking to not even get its own section. Embedding criticism within sections can work sometimes but why should that be privileged, instead of merely used only when it's most efficient/effective? Headings typically make it easier, not more difficult, for people to get the information they're looking for.
Instead of deleting things and hiding things away in databases there are ways to collapse text, so people can click it open if it interests them! One of the biggest fallacies on the Internet is the "necromancy" fallacy — the idea that just because something isn't brand-new it's no longer relevant enough for people to read and respond to. The archiving on talk pages seems to fed the problem, which the creator of the Internet Archive highlighted — the constant destruction of Internet content. People should always remember that it is, indeed, far easier to destroy than to create. Not having the prior work of others to build upon makes it even tougher. What is to be gained by having people reinvent the wheel constantly? A final complaint pertains to the the complaining about the use of weak sources when there are articles that lack sources dramatically. Instead of focusing on improving these unsourced or poorly-sourced articles, too many editors prefer to play the revert game on new content. I've even seen people attack scientific journals in their desire to block content that doesn't suit their agendas (e.g. steviol and DNA damage), or just for the sport. Making it more difficult to add (to create) than to revert makes censorship easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.192.36 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Picture and text are not in agreement

File:World-wiki.svg suggests, contrary to this article's text, that Wikipedia is fully blocked in Saudi Arabia (our text only suggests parial block), Syria (our text suggest no ongoing block), China (again, partial block), maybe some other countries are off too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

en-wiki also censored

lede's biased w rgd the en-wiki . /see eg here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=941121865 (@Jimbo Wales:)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

HTTPS-only block?

The article discusses that China blocked HTTPS access to Wikipedia, but not HTTP, and that at some point it blocked it completely. I can reach en.wikipedia.org and wikipedia.org from Mainland China by HTTP "just fine". Then it gets the redirect to the HTTPS version, which is actually blocked. So the site is inaccessible in practice. Does anyone know about up-to-date reliable sources about the whole HTTP/HTTPS blocking status? --MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked the sources and fixed the paragraph (diff). China did not impose a full ban on Wikipedia as a result of the HTTPS redirect; China govt applied new blocking measures to Chinese Wikipedia on May 2015, and Wikipedia forced HTTPS on June 2015, which rendered the site inaccessible. --MarioGom (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of mention about Sedlmayr murderers (Germany)

The section about Germany reads "A 2009 court order forbade German Wikipedia to disclose the identity of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, two criminals convicted of the murder of the Bavarian actor Walter Sedlmayr." There is no source listed for this. Wikimedia recieved a cease and desist letter from their lawyers (which is not a court order). Following court rulings by German and European high courts were about various media outlets publishing their name not Wikipedia or Wikimedia. I think the mention of this case should be removed from this article. It is inaccurate and relates to the dispute of two individuals with Wikimedia rather than "censorship".Thomytempo (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Map incorrectly indicates that there has been censorship of Wikipedia by the UK government

The world map at the top of the article shows the United Kingdom in light green, which the key indicates as meaning "Countries where some content of Wikipedia was previously censored by government". However, the only incidence of censorship given in the United Kingdom section was the inadvertent temporary blocking of some UK users from viewing or editing Wikipedia due to a blacklist of child pornography maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation. As the IWF is a non-government organization, Wikipedia was not censored by the government, and so the map is incorrect to show the UK in light green. Could someone please correct the map accordingly. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As I undestand it (correct me if I am wrong) the UK government has decided that sites blacklisted by IWF should be blocked. In practice that is a blocking sanctioned by the government, so I think it is correct as it is. Vpab15 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Government censorship would be the deliberate blocking of Wikipedia or Wikipedia pages by the UK government. As I understand it, the blocking of Wikipedia pages in this case was an inadvertent side-effect of an image being included on a blacklist maintained by a non-governmental organization (IWF), and the issue was resolved within a few days. It is really stretching the imagination to consider this an example of governmental censorship of Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete Canada section?

Doesn't really seem like censorship. Also not intentional or volitional on the part of the government. Seems like COI editing by some rogue government employees that got caught and fixed. Thoughts on deleting? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, by that logic any Wikipedian who removes content is engaged in censorship. Should be removed. ––FormalDude talk 10:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I have deleted the section. What about the Australia one? It seems no actual blocking took place. Vpab15 (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Australia section, Wikipedians appear to have self-censored there. They interpreted reporting on something under a gag order as violating WP:BLP. Sounds like the government of Australia never called out Wikipedia specifically by name and never charged us. It's an interesting story, but could probably also be deleted. By the way, is there a good home for these two stories in a different Wikipedia article? Wikipedia controversies or something? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Crimea?

Crimea shows as part of Russia on the map. It is part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia. Should the part of Russia explain this extends to Russian occupied areas or another section on Ukraine noting that Crimea follwoing Russia's rules when occupied? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(This presumably referred to File:Wikipedia website blocks.svg, which has since been removed from the article for other reasons.) Galaktos (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Present?

@Galaktos: Thanks for your update re. Pakistan and China. I have one quibble: I do not think anything in Wikipedia should say, "present": That may be correct when you write it, but it may NOT be correct when someone reads it. Wikipedia articles are not dated, so it's not clear what "present" means. The situation could change, and no one might take the time to keep Wikipedia current, thereby making the claim wrong.

Can you change "present" to something like ?<ref>Wikipedia block in China/Pakistan current as of 2023-02-04; for details see [[ ... link to section below ...]]</ref>

DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: You can change it yourself, I won’t mind ^^ I just copied the “– Present” from another row and then noticed the capitalization was inconsistent; you’re probably right that it would be better to change it to something else. I’m not sure the ref approach is ideal, though – MOS:DATED and MOS:TOPRESENT suggest some other approaches. I think “since date” is probably best in this case. Galaktos (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Galaktos: or "starting" and give a date without an end date?
This would allow someone like me to fix all the other uses of "present" without researching them.  ;-) Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
"Starting" is the right way. The RSes that we cite were published on a particular day, so they cannot be used to verify "- present". A source written last week can't verify that something is still happening today. What we can report, cited to a source, is that a government announced a certain action on a certain day. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Status table or map

Most readers, I am guessing, are interested in one thing: the blocking (yes v no) of Wikipedia per country. The rest of the history and discussion is nice for scholars and those curious about details, but a status chart or map would be of most interest. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_of_Wikipedia/Archive_1&oldid=1157481325"