741
MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs
(gizmodo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
741 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
74585 readers
3448 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, no.
It's still censorship even if the person in question wants it to be censored.
People shouldn't get to dictate whether or not wikipedia articles are made of them.
If I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
Wikipedia already doesn't allow that, so your question is pointless.
for the same reason they don't give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.
both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons
You're moving goalposts, but ok.
My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying
my goalpost did not move at all.
you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned
you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?