Wiki Censorship

AntiPattern

WikiCensorship is what happens when a wiki contributor is convinced that he must prevent contributions with which he does not agree.

This can be accomplished through intimidation, content removal, content edits, or page deletion.

A person convinced that he must protect the other members of the community from possible persuasion (from viewing "unacceptable" content) will be driven to edit or delete such content, or to intimidate contributors into such edits or removal.

Since no single individual is "in charge" of the wiki (and its creator explicitly declines to do censorship), such an individual will simply declare that he is the only one qualified to determine what may be allowed.

This will typically happen in topics where the WikiCensor? believes himself to be an authority. Or even the authority.

Argument and discussion are not enough, since this would leave the original (unhealthy, subversive, irrational) content in place, and it still might be read by someone who (horrors!) might agree with it. Since this is simply not permissible, the content must be changed or removed, and if the author can't be intimidated into doing so, it is the duty of the WikiCensor? to do it personally.

The fact that the wiki community comprises some of the brightest minds in a broad spectrum of fields holds no sway. Even bright minds are at risk of contamination from "flawed" thinking.

It's for your own good, after all.

One of the forces I failed to consider when I wrote this page was invalidation through nullification.

The censor, in this case, recognizing that viewpoints that conflict with his own are unimportant, simply removes them.

This would also be applied to "meaningless" content that's left over after all the "useless" and "blatantly erroneous" stuff had been removed.

Since the authors of the deleted content are themselves unimportant, nothing they might say by way of reasoning, protest, or explanation would be worth keeping, so all further traffic from these unimportant people can simply be removed.

A reasoning process something like this might proceed:

    I am always right.
    Anything I disagree with is wrong, and therefore stupid and unimportant.
    Rodney writes something I think is stupid.
    Stupid stuff is useless and unimportant.
    Stupid stuff is only written by stupid, unimportant people.
    Rodney wrote it, so Rodney is stupid and unimportant.
    It's right and proper to remove stupid, unimportant content.
    It's likewise proper to remove any arguments in favor of keeping such content.
    Unimportant (stupid) people deserve no respect.
    Therefore
        Anything mean or insulting said to a stupid (unimportant) person is justified.
    Therefore
        If I don't like it I can trash it.
    and thus
        I can trash the guy who wrote it.
    and
        Any argument from the guy who wrote it
        is stupid, because it shows he doesn't
        recognize the rightness of what I'm doing.

Thus, it is not so much "censorship" as it is "cleansing" of the content.

-- GarryHamilton

Or in the verbatim words of a censor:

 If you haven't read and understood the entirety of this page and every page it links to, do not contribute.
 If you don't understand an issue or point, ask for elaboration at the proper location, proving you've bothered to read the page
 Don't claim that the definition is wrong, or that you've come up with a counter-example to it, because you haven't
 Don't claim or in any way imply that an alternative definition could serve just as well
 Don't ask for justification why the definition should match the everyday fuzzy concept of 'life' or in any way imply that such justification is needed
 Absolutely do not editorialize on this complex of pages

In other words, "I am not here to discuss this subject. I am here to prevent discussion of this subject."

Lets try a WikiCensorshipResolution.

Rest moved to WikiCensorshipDiscussion?.