Active censorship attempt at Wikipedia

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Uhh, I don't like this:

"written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

There is tactile prose all over wiki commenting on the "goods" of people no matter how subjective they are, but you're not allowed to mention any of their "bads".

So basically, you're allowed to tell mistruths until the cows come home as long as they are niceties, but if you ever mention something bad about a person you have to be textbook perfect. i.e. If you ever want to say something good you can just write a few nice words, but something bad requires layers of sourcing and referencing and zero discretion by the author. It would be a much better place if they applied those standards across the board.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
I actually had a look at the wiki page and it looked pretty decent. It mentions the doping allegations in some detail. Anybody wanting to dig further has a great start with the material provided there.

If you're seriously getting your knickers in a knot over Wikipedia admins resisting your attempts to expand the doping section beyond what's there, I'd say it's not Wikipedia having an over-inflated opinion of itself.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
Ferminal said:
Uhh, I don't like this:

There is tactile prose all over wiki commenting on the "goods" of people no matter how subjective they are, but you're not allowed to mention any of their "bads".

So basically, you're allowed to tell mistruths until the cows come home as long as they are niceties, but if you ever mention something bad about a person you have to be textbook perfect. i.e. If you ever want to say something good you can just write a few nice words, but something bad requires layers of sourcing and referencing and zero discretion by the author. It would be a much better place if they applied those standards across the board.

I don't like gross exaggerations. They're dumb.
 
yourwelcome said:
If you're seriously getting your knickers in a knot over Wikipedia admins resisting your attempts to expand the doping section beyond what's there, I'd say it's not Wikipedia having an over-inflated opinion of itself.

It's about a deletion request. The original link is to that specific discussion.

yourwelcome said:
I don't like gross exaggerations. They're dumb.

This is relevant or just an ad hominem?
 
yourwelcome said:
I actually had a look at the wiki page and it looked pretty decent. It mentions the doping allegations in some detail. Anybody wanting to dig further has a great start with the material provided there.

If you're seriously getting your knickers in a knot over Wikipedia admins resisting your attempts to expand the doping section beyond what's there, I'd say it's not Wikipedia having an over-inflated opinion of itself.

By the wiki page do you mean the article about Lance Armstrong or do you mean the subarticle about the doping allegations?

If the former, then your point is that what's in the short doping section in the Armstrong article is good enough? I disagree. It's not even a good summary, and it doesn't give the full picture at all.

If the latter, I agree it looks decent, which is why I hope they don't decide to delete it. The voting right now is close enough to go either way.
 
Sep 27, 2009
117
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Good Call.

I really wish there were harsh penalties somehow for raising elaborate defenses in bad faith.

And I really wish there were harsh penalties for libel, slander, defamation, and providing false tainted evidence.
On the internet the accuser is always right.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
guilder said:
And I really wish there were harsh penalties for libel, slander, defamation, and providing false tainted evidence.
On the internet the accuser is always right.

Your 'accusation' is wrong.

Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger.
"Justice Joan Madden rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting”, and should not be treated as factual assertions."
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
guilder said:
And I really wish there were harsh penalties for libel, slander, defamation, and providing false tainted evidence.
On the internet the accuser is always right.

Let us know when you find an example of this here.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
guilder said:
And I really wish there were harsh penalties for libel, slander, defamation, and providing false tainted evidence.
On the internet the accuser is always right.

There are harsh penalties, however Truth is an absolute defense to all of those crimes.

oooo i weeeaalllly wwwishh therrree wwwerrre hharsh. Give it a rest fanboy.
 
Apr 11, 2009
315
0
0
buckwheat said:
How they gonna get around the conviction and prison stay?

The trial will be in Northern CA? What Federal Pen is around there? Lompoc? Is that where he'll be?

Maybe Vaccaville. I've been inside there. Oh, not as a "guest" of the state but as a construction claims analyst at the end of the construction. Amazingly dismal place.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
laziali said:
Wikipedia = Epic Fail for anything other than entirely uncontroversial pap.

Nothing like having a 'dictionary' that's edited by the knuckle-heads who happen to be online. What a stupid idea, can everyone say 'revisionist history'?
 
Jul 15, 2010
66
0
0
wikipedia is nothing more than a comment wall for pseudo-intellectuals. Any idiot can attempt to edit an entry either the truth or lies. The person who manages the page can ban anybody whose edit disagrees with their opinion. There really should be a movement to expose wikipedia as a source of nonsense that is being used by students, journalists, teachers and forum posters as a source of facts and truth. It's like relying on every comment and post in this forum as being factual.

Wikipedia is OPINION not fact.