Talk:Censorship of Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

This article contains inaccurate graphics and charts that do not show the ongoing censorship of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation by an Indian court enforced without authority or sound legal reasoning by the cowardly, greedy and kowtowing WMF(which should resign immediately and surrender all assets to the editors to prevent such censorship from occurring in the future). Though they can thank the editors who continue to donate their free labor. Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You oversimplify a very complicated issue- which seems to be more what your post is about than inaccurate graphics. If you want to propose corrections, please do so. If you want to air your grievances with the WMF or their lawyers, this isn’t the forum. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and refer me for a ban on slamming the WMF in censorship. That will be a fun debate. So no, I will include comments in every edit I make in this site until the kowtowing of the WMF to India ceases or they have resigned.

It’s pretty darn relevant that an article that does not violate any United States laws and that was blocked without the filing of any legal paperwork in the United States remains blocked for months while the community sits in silence and pushes the issue to back pages so regular editors and especially donors remain unware.

but yes go ahead and protect the WMF by over complicating a simple fact “a page is banned by an Indian Court and the questionable actions of the WMF in kowtowing to that Court” it’s a major thing. Speaks to the core of the credibility and responsibility of the single most important information source on earth Slywriter (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the above heading the article says “Many countries block a range of articles on sensitive topics…” but earlier it said “Since then, the only censorship options have been to block one of the entire list of Wikipedias…” Are these statements consistent, or should the first statement be in the past tense? Explanation welcome. 180.150.39.14 (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated it to past tense. Vpab15 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, the world map includes countries that partially block Wikipedia “as of August 2024”, but the article still says (with no source) that partial blocks have been impossible since 2016. There’s still a contradiction.

OONI suggests Russia allows at least partial access to Wikipedia as of today: [1] For comparison, China: [2] Apfelmaische (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve resolved this contradiction by removing the world map. It provided no sources, and was added by a sock account in violation of a prior block. WP:BE. I’ll see if I can dig up sources for a similar map. Apfelmaische (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the new UK law count as censorship when it means WP will need to do age verification…? I know there was a lawsuit against the government on behalf of WP but I read that it got defeated, so…? 2600:6C56:6800:D5F:A8A3:2FDB:533E:9F20 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. FYI related info is at UK Internet age verification system and Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF). Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That law hasn’t done anything to Wikipedia yet. Would need to at least wait until the UK begins enforcing Category 1 on Wikipedia before considering inclusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]