31 December 2008

As an atheist, I don't really have...

...a god, er... dog in this fight... but what's fascinating here, is the larger issue here of ad hoc censorship.

The casual elimination of information that interests scores of internet users by anonymous individuals confirms the worst about Wikipedia and explains why most university professors strongly discourage their students from relying on a source which can be altered at whim by anyone with a modem.

A small handful of anonymous internet users have made an editorial decision, leading to the deletion of key information about Canada’s past on one of the world’s most frequented websites.

To make matters worse, they have done so based on spurious logic that the religious views of politicians have never been at the centre of Canadian political discourse.
(via sda)


Philanthropist said...

Google can't even be trusted, Wikipedia isn't a source for anything, except maybe mainstream 'journalists' lol, lol...

Neo Conservative said...

and that uber-maven of the demented leftosphere... "stoogeleft".


djb said...

It's not censorship. It's a private organization's right to decide what they do and do not publish.

What it is, is idiotic, damaging to what's left of Wikipedia's reputation, and bizarre.

Bit it's not censorship, unless a newspaper editing a letter to the editor is censorship.

Neo Conservative said...

"djb says... it's not censorship."

sorta like airbrushing people out of old politburo photographs isn't, huh?

not to harsh your mellow, dude... but wikipedia is to scholarship... as "string theory" is to "one potato-two potato".


Rick said...

Wiki is ok to do a quick check, but as a single source, nah...

I prefer to trust my 1997 edition of the Canadian Encyclopedia, and my 2007 Britannica.

Neo Conservative said...

in truth, single-sourcing anything these days is a risky business.

anybody who uses wikipedia as more than a rough, quick check tool can't be taken seriously.