> If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble.
Not really though.
They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list.
> "These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking"
The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER
> 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
> 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved.
According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists.
---
again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.
There's not a strong differentiation between "official" policies and guidelines and "unofficial" specific consensus on Wikipedia. Individual arguments are generally built out of policy and policy is just longer-standing consensus and can be changed. It's not like there's a different group of editors setting policy from those who argue on talk pages.
Wikipedia acting like it's not censorship is the standard method in which censorship happens in the west today. The people in charge here gloat and applaud the idea of democracy and freedom of speech, while they use dishonest tactics to censorship.
Here's the old joke:
> A Russian and an American get on a plane in Moscow and get to talking.
> The Russian says he works for the Kremlin and he's on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques.
> "What American propaganda techniques?" asks the American.
