Talk:Censorware

Those searching on the phrase "censorware" ought to be given information, not a redirect. The phrase is in common use both in political discussions of internet filtering and in the media. The page as it stands refers users to the more detailed article with the fuller discussion of the controversy.


 * Incorrect. The IP address adding this information must read the Talk page of content-control software, an issue discussed long ago, but I have already directed the IP address there in history, to no avail.  Also, history in the main page shows a personal attack against me because of my user page.  My user page is irrelevant to the discussion in the Talk page of content-control software.  Edits made to change links that are merely redirects to the actual links to which the redirect is redirected is not POV, as the IP address claims.  The IP address's only edits ever on wikipedia are on this one and only issue.


 * Since I have already reverted the page twice today, I'll not do it now for 3RR reasons. But help is obviously needed.


 * How does one request a block on IP address changes? Several IP addresses, all similar, have been used for the exact same purpose and method as the one involved here, so a general block on IP addresses, or on newbie edits, or both, may be needed.  But I do not know how to do that.  Anyone want to help? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement. Wikipedia should be about providing full information, not hiding the ball. Your own campaign to eliminate any appearance of the phrase from Wikipedia,even where appropriate and accurate, should be discussed, especially given your explicit biases set forth on your user page.

This entry provides information and directs the user to the fuller discussion, without engaging in excessive POV statements. It should stand.


 * Dude, you are out of control. You do not reveal who you are, yet you talk about "providing full information, not hiding the ball."  You then launch into personal attacks on me for no reason except to disparage me and my edits.  You claim I am on a "campaign to eliminate any appearance of the phrase" when I must be on a slow boat to a faw away land.  You claim my edits need to be discussed, yet my repeated efforts to get you to read the Talk page discussion at content-control software has apparently gone unheeded.  Dude, you are totally out of control.


 * Listen, everyone wants you to contribute. But this is not you against the world.  The Talk page I have refered you to repeatedly discusses this very issue repeatedly and over a long period of time.  After the discussion was over, everyone agreed the Censorware page should be changed to the Content-control Software page, and Censorware should redirect to Content-control Software.  This was long ago.  Since I'm not on a "campaign" as you claim, I only recently decided that it is totally appropriate and totally within agreed guidelines that general links to censorware should be changed to content-control software, in total keeping with the decision made long ago.  I did not change out specific references to the word used specifically, and where I did in error and you or other IP addresses (likely your sock puppets) reverted me, I left your reverts in.  Pobody's nerfect.  The redirect page was not even created by me.  My changing links as I have is totally in keeping with wiki policy.  Indeed, even before I had a chance to revert your reverts (and your sock puppet reverts), several other editors have revert your reverts as well since you are just plain wrong.  And you have to stop the personal attack thing.  No one is impressed and it does not help your case.  Facts help your case.  Wiki policy helps your case.  Going to the community helps your case.  You are free to reraise the issue asked and answered long ago, but you just can't go on a one dude crusade slashing and burning as you see fit, at least not without being reverted constantly.  Some of your edits have even been totally false.  Just out and out false.  Like your removal of "blocking software" from the Peacefire page.  So you have got to cool down and work with the wiki community, not against it or despite of it.  If you are truly interested in doing this, you will revert your own edits, then reraise the issue to see if you can gain consensus.  That will most convince people you are sincere in trying to help.  Newbies like yourself make errors, but no one will hold them against you.  But you have got to calm down and work with the community.  So please revert your edit here, and perhaps other places too. Oh, an apology would be appreciated as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no decision that cannot be revisited. Again: if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for information about the phrase "censorware," they should be able to find that information, without hiding the ball. I find it far more troubling that you appear to be engaged in a campaign to systematically eliminate any mention of the phrase "censorware" on Wikipedia, given the statements on you user page and website [having now visited your website.] Such systematic edits are at least worth a discussion, given that it smacks of, well, an attempt to censor the concept that filters can be used to censor Internet pages, or that the phrase even exists.


 * Hi anon -- do please see Content-control_software. Wikipedia follows a large number of media in using "content-control software"; we discuss in detail the controversy over the terms "web filtering" and "censorware", the former used mostly by corporations and the latter used mostly by critics of those corporations. Sdedeo (tips) 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sdedo. Let's reopen that discussion. I find it problematic that this redirect is being used as an excuse to eliminate the phrase throughout Wikipedia, even when appropriate (i.e., see the Peacefire entry.) I find it problematic that one cannot get a straightforward definition on Wikipedia of "censorware" as a phrase on Wikipedia, or even a page containing the link to the Wiktionary entry, even though the phrase is in common use, even in the media. If this topic is appropriate for mediation, I ask for mediation. I believe there can be a distinction between providing a definition for a phrase, and information about its use, and adopting or endorsing the phrase.


 * Wow. This IP address is definitely NOT a newbie.  Could this IP address be a sock puppet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The vandalism is continuing unabated. An IP address/newbie semi-protection measure should be considered. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To the vandal: Your claim that "censorware" is being censored out is wrong.  The page to which censorware clicks are redirected is the content-control software page. That page starts out with "Content-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software," so people will see censorware right up front and center stage.  Censorware is not being expunged from Wikipedia, as you claim.  Further, that page contains an entire section devoted to the content-control software/censorware wording issue.  In fact it is section one, Terminology. It makes no sense to have two separate pages for the exact same thing, only where the names are different depending on the POV one is promoting. Further, what the wiki community had done together is comply with wiki policy, including that contained in WP:REDIRECT.  Please read that policy carefully.  Bring questions to the community for discussion/consensus. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorware is a loaded word

 * "Censorware is a term used to describe content filtering software by its opponents." Emphasis in original. http://www.fact-index.com/c/ce/censorware.html
 * "For the past months, I've been focusing on trying to change some of the ways people think about censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box. I've changed the way people think about censorware before." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/06088
 * "Censorware is a term used pejoratively to describe software that filters out undesirable Web sites or content." http://whatis.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid9_gci896629,00.html -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * "Such is the rallying cry for this group of concerned netizens, acting under the loaded title of The Censorware Project." http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/1998-August/000399.html

I am adding these quotes for illustrations of why Content-control software is more appropriate for Wikipedia than is censorware. I'm sure there are more but that's enough for now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's me at the second ref there. Well, you know my views. I think "loaded" is a pejorative characterization of an accurate term. But I've said that before, and I know the arguments about it. By the way, the first ref seems to be an old scraped article from Wikipedia itself, so it's recursively not a proof -- Seth Finkelstein 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, Seth, I didn't know. Seth, everyone here knows who you are. Frankly, we likely look to you for some kind of guidance.  In my opinion, despite your bias, you are one of the leading experts on this very topic.  That's why you are discussed and linked in numerous places.  Someday I hope people may say the same about me -- despite his bias, he is one of the leading experts on the topic of library filters.  So I do not mean what I say in a bad way as I would hope it would apply to myself in the future.  Your help here is appreciated, at least by me, and I'm sure by others.  I only raise these quotes because, despite the issue having been discussed and closed long ago, the page has received recent attention by a series of IP addresses, etc., etc., all the same person, as finally admitted.  Of course the issue could be reraised, so I put these here in an effort to help that person understand why consensus was what it was.  I want to assure you I am not trying to rid Wikipedia of "censorware," only trying to be a good Wikipedian.  In fact I added the word to a title of one of your articles where it had been left out.  To that end, while I have your attention, let me ask a question.  The page Bess (Censorware), should it not be moved to Bess (Content-control software)?  Yes I know Bess has been controversial, but that could be discussed in the article, instead of embedded in the title.  What do you think about that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seth, the sock puppeteer just reverted the page again. What do you suggest be done to stop this back and forth and get the person to work WITH the community? You may be more persuasive than me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, very WP:AGF. Basically, in terms of consensus, I thought the main page name result was about the best mutual outcome we could all get. So while I wasn't thrilled with it, I didn't block consensus over it, perhaps the essence of compromise. Now, I'm wondering if there's something that can be done on this issue that's beter than either a pure redirect or a copy of a definition. But we're also not supposed to fork. So I don't have the optimal answer, though I think that's the direction to take it. Perhaps it works as a "word article", which goes into more details of origin and usage than would be relevant elsewhere. In fact, that seems to be more at what the other person is talking about, in terms of discussing more the word itself rather than the referent. Regarding Bess, again, my own view censorware is the best term, but it's now such a legacy product that I wouldn't get into a revert-war over it. I'm not inclined to either fight over it myself nor consensus-club someone on the topic. -- Seth Finkelstein 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Persons who use Wikipedia and search for an entry on the term "censorware" ought to be allowed to see the definition of the term provided by the Wiktionary and then referred to the article. That's what a good reference work would do - not hide the ball because of an editor's personal belief about the phrase (calling the phrase "loaded" is itself a judgment and a POV.) Why is it necessary to censor this phrase?  What power does it wield, how dangerous is it to let people have the information they seek?  (Note that I am not advocating for any changes to the content control software entry.)


 * And I must ask: is being a "good Wikipedian" erasing any mention of a term from Wikipedia that is in common use by advocacy groups and even the news media? A phrase that is as likely as anything else to be researched here? It's convenient, isn't it, that the absolute erasure of a term jives with the personal political views of the editor advancing that position.  But that's why Colbert came up with "wikiality." --Anonamaus (talk 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm reverting you (Anonamaus) again. Add what you want, but do it on the Content-control software page.  Maybe I'll do it for you.  Your other misleading statements I will not address as I have established you play fast and loose with the facts.


 * By the way, Seth and I are at total opposites on the issue. Yet the discussion between us is totally civil.  Do you see how it differs from your regular personal attacks on me and your general soapboxing?  Use it as an example of where we all want you to be.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Including the definition on the content control page doesn't solve the problem. As even the content control entry acknowledges, it is a phrase in common use among advocates and the news media.  An impartial reference work would provide information, not censor it. And "misleading," and "uncivil" here seems to be defined as any disagreement with your opinions. At least I don't engage in namecalling and disparagement.  Anonamaus 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikitionary link added to Content-control software page to assuage Anonamaus - should stop edit war
Wikitionary link added to Content-control software page to assuage Anonamaus - should stop edit war. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No - it fails to address the censorship inherent in the effort to eliminate any mention of this phrase on Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, I am not seeking to change the content control software entry, but am advocating for providing the fullest information possible to the researcher who comes here seeking a definition for the phrase.  I believe the compromise is, in fact, providing the definition with the referring link to the content control software page.  Anonamaus 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorware and content-control software cannot be separate articles. They are two different terms for the same thing and the one article should mention both terms and discuss with the naming issues. This means that one term is a redirect to another. Censorware is the more POV term so the article should be at content control software. Secretlondon 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence of content control software - "Content-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software, is a..". It is not being hidden or censored. You have now made 3 reverts, any more and you a liable to be blocked for 24 hours.. Secretlondon 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Secretlondon, as a compromise, I'm trying to refine an idea that there be a "censorware" article as a word article - not the referent. That way there could legitimately be two separate pages. Please consider concept and add to it if you have additional thoughts. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks -- wikipedia is not a dictionary; we don't have separate pages for words that are essentially synonymous. Meanwhile we're in danger of making a POV fork if we start separating out information into two articles. Why the current state of things -- the neutral term with extensive discussion of the two less neutral ones (censorware and filtering) -- is bad other than for a single squeaky wheel is beyond me. Sdedeo (tips) 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, Sdedeo, understood. I acknowledge those points, since I don't have the complete answer - but I do think there's potential solution in the general direction of word article, which isn't the same as dictionary entry, and isn't the referent itself. Yes, you're right also, it could be a POV fork, but while that's a problem, it's not necessarily a certainty. I don't think the current state of things is bad , but I do think there's something going on which is more than wheel-squeaking. I think there's been an expansion of interest from the COPA decision, and am trying to find the best way to fit those concerns into Wikipedia's structure -- Seth Finkelstein 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I echo Seth's call for a word article. I believe that there should be more than a redirect given the use of the phrase in the news media and by advocacy groups.  CNET, a major news source, uses the phrase in its headlines and its articles; Seth's group is not the only advocacy group that uses the phrase to describe its projects addressing Internet censorship.  I am disturbed, as well, to observe that the fact of the redirect is being used as a rationale to erase the use of the phrase throughout Wikipedia, even where its use is appropriate, as in the article about Peacefire. As Seth points out, the COPA decision has brought new interest to the issue of Internet filters and the fullest measure of information and ideas should be available.  Anonamaus 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think the push to fork the article (or move the "terminology" section to a separate article) is being made in good faith. It's because some people -- in contrast to all mainstream print publications, and most online ones -- want to use the word "censorware" instead of the more neutral term. Meanwhile, if you want to start changing "content-control software" to "censorware" elsewhere in the wiki (I'm not sure why, again, except for polemical reasons) you can always write censorware and it will redirect. I think, personally, that people who are objecting to you doing this have a good point, and you should listen to them. Sdedeo (tips) 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me add this. Seth said, "I think there's been an expansion of interest from the COPA decision, and am trying to find the best way to fit those concerns into Wikipedia's structure."  This in response to why this subject has come up again.  Seth is correct.  I am not disagreeing with him.  However, I wish to point out that the sock puppeteer who has singlehandedly reraised this issue is likely a person who seeks to hunt down my edits and eradicate them.  He's the "expansion of interest." Almost all of the sock puppeteer's edits have been revision of my edits.  Frankly, I've felt sort of persecuted by the sock puppet.  So when Seth says there's been an expansion of interest, I would respectfully disagree as I feel the sock puppeteer is merely on a crusade against me personally, and no one else has supported him.  On the other hand, several people have reverted his edits besides myself.  So I say the COPA decision has absolutely nothing to do with this, a controversy caused by a sock puppeteer is not a controversy, and no separate page is necessary if the reason therefor is non-existent "expansion of interest" by a sock puppeteer on a soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because there's so much ferment from the COPA decision, I'm much less inclined to see any personal element at work here. Perhaps that's just an artifact of being on opposite sides of the topic. There's been many reactions. A little bit of editing-warring isn't really unexpected under such circumstances. It's just average contention, and not persecution. I think there's material that could fruitfully be added around the topic, but sourcing it within Wikipedia constraints, and the complicated politics, is daunting. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. I am not opposed, not that that matters here where the community rules, not the one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about advocates injecting bias into Wikipedia entries
My concerns about Legitimate and Even Compelling's editorial work are based upon a larger pattern of behavior reflected in LAEC's ongoing disputes with other Wikipedia editors over injecting improper POV about the ALA, internet filtering, and censorship, in line with the strong partisan views reflected on his webpages safelibraries.org and plan2succeed.org. (For example, see the dispute over the content of the Wikipedia entry on Looking For Alaska)

It is a fact that LAEC, an advocate for mandatory filtering, appears to be actively engaged in editing pages related to intenet filtering to reflect his opinions, and is engaged in an ongoing effort to entirely erase the phrase "censorware," entirely from Wikipedia (as reflected by his user history) despite the phrase's active use by advocates and the news media outside of Wikipedia. I would assume that Wikipedia would be concerned about the appearance of impropriety in having an advocate with very strong views on internet filtering and censorship edit related entries, especially given the Wikipedia community's desire to develop and maintain a reputation as an authoritative, non-partisan source of information.

If there is a better forum for raising these concerns, I would welcome direction. --- Anonamaus 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong completely. All other editors, including a significant figure named in the wiki page itself, have agreed with me (rather we all agree together in true wiki fashion) on the censorware/content-control issue that you raise again and again.  Using my work outside of Wikipedia as a sword against me personally, as you have done again and again here and on people's personal pages, is not viewed favorably by the wiki community.  They are not fooled and they repeatedly reverse your soapbox/sock puppet edits.


 * I am aware of your connection to the American Library Association and I am not intimidated one iota. I have encouraged you to become a part of the wiki community but your behaviour has continued largely unabated. No further response will be provided by me due to Troll here, but if you succeed in raising this issue in yet another forum, I will be required to again defend myself, and this time I will point to (and seek the assistance of) person after person who again and again has reverted your soapbox edits and warned you of your activities. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my view is that I have to step very, very, carefully in the matter of "an advocate with very strong views on [censorware] and censorship edit related entries" :-). There's some battles there that I just can't, or shouldn't, fight. LAEC, please note the distinction between accepting a compromise, and agreeing with you - they are subtlely different. Moreover, there are related contexts where I might believe you are mistaken, but that the matter is simply not worth an edit war or extended dispute (this might be an error on my part, but anyone can easily devote their entire life to Wikipedia disputes, so choosing the dispute threshold is a difficult matter). Politics is complicated - does one accept a balance of power, even if it's perphaps somewhat unfavorable, or blow it all up, for an uncertain future? -- Seth Finkelstein 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seth, that's exactly what I meant, and implied in the parentheses. Seth, do you know a good link for an HTML (not PDF) version of the recent COPA decision, ACLU v. Gonzales? All I have is a Google PDF conversion to HTML. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)