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 (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, for example) pages for maintainance (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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