User talk:BobCMU76/Censorship

With respect to the a physical Wiki link, I've followed similar debates on the nature of the project discussed there -- specifically libelous or profane statements made in the name of Free Speech. This was to be a show-stopper, until someone suggested supplying erasers as well as chalk. I'm new to this place, but I thought the link relevant to the clitoris discussion underway. This is a mighty fine place, this Wikipedia. I won't mind if the a physical Wiki link is removed. I'd certainly like a place to vent concerns about the nature of speech constraints on Wikipedia. Speech constraints are entirely appropriate, and Wikipedia has a good system of due process to regulate them. I think that a censorship topic in name space can augment that system. BobCMU76 15:24 May 14, 2003 (UTC) copied from User Talk:Camembert

Hi Bob. I think it's fair to say that most people see the Wikipedia: namespace as being for things like indications of policy (Neutral point of view, for example) pages for maintainance (Votes for deletion, for example) and that sort of thing. If you want to make a subpage from your own user page (like User:BobCMU76/Censorship), most people would be OK with that, whatever you put there, and likewise if you wanted to explore the issue of censorship over at http://meta.wikipedia.org/ that would be OK, but - in my view at least - the Wikipedia: namespace is for things which are a bit more "official" and widely accepted. --Camembert


 * Is censorship not a matter of policy??? That's my whole point. I put the link on the Freedom of speech encyclopedia page.  On the Censorship page it was to make a point of policy, and I guess the point has been made, if not accepted. BobCMU76 17:59 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that Censorship (at least as it stood) could be regarded as a policy page, no, because it didn't actually have anything to say about policy. --Camembert