Log in

No account? Create an account

The Big Yellow Book

Seeing the World from Both Oculars-- a Bananaslug's Journal

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
NY Times and Wikipedia conspire to censor a story
From a Gartner Blog Network entry by Anthony Bradley:

"Recently the NY Times and Wikipedia conspired to keep a story on the kidnapping of a Times reporter off of Wikipedia.

"A “sanitizing” team of Wikipedia editors, led by Jimmy Wales himself, worked to keep the story from posting by deleting, blocking and freezing. The story quotes Wales as saying, “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.”

This seems like a convenient excuse to me..."

It seems like bucolic endproduct to me. Quis custodiet, Mr. Wales, ipsos custodies?

One of the most important tenets of journalism has been objectivity. Much observed in the breech, objectivity is a hallmark of scholarship, and encyclopedia management is scholarship writ large.

I find it incredibly reprehensible that, regardless of the circumstances, Wikipedia's guiding leadership practiced outright censorship. What comes next? You can't write that, because it isn't politically correct???

  • 1
I can understand why they did it, but I agree with your take. The ends never justify the means.

What, you hadn't figured out that Wikipedia practices selective censorship based on the management's political leanings?

Wiki is ok for pointers to certain information, but... Jimmy Wales needs sold his soul long ago.

I'm utterly unsurprised, mostly because my expectations were already pretty damned low.

  • 1