
What Wikimedia's Daily Mail “ban” tells us about the future of online censorship - laurex
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/10/what-wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-tells-us-about-the-future-of-online-censorship/#28e544785c36
======
laurex
Interested in thoughts on this. I agree that using data to support decisions
generally is good practice, and that the makeup of decision-making bodies
generally plays a role on the cultural mores of an organization, but is the
term "censorship" really valid?

------
MrZongle2
Niemöller's statement comes to mind.

I've seldom, if ever, been impressed by what I've seen from the Daily Mail.
But does anybody honestly think that this ban ( _which is what it is_ ,
despite the Wikimedia Foundation's semantic games and hand-waving) ends with
that publication?

~~~
laurex
That's a valid point-- I wonder if that would be OK if there were in fact data
to support the idea that a publication wasn't prone to be a factual reference?

~~~
MrZongle2
I think such transparency would be great, especially if it were applied to all
references. DM is almost certainly to fare poorly in such a situation, but
such a framework would hopefully also call out the Jayson Blairs, Buzzfeeds or
Dan Rathers, as the situation warrants.

