Talk:Internet censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neo-Nazi censorship

Someone in the article went through the trouble of listing that Google removed a Neo-Nazi webpage from its listings. Whoever you are, you're a weak-minded sack of shit.

[edit] Thailand

Thailand should be seriously moved to 'Pervasive'. Since Sept 19, the military coup, more and more goverment critical websites have been banned. http://www.2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml

Hey this section is missing something. There is no mention of indirect internet censorship. What is indirect censorship?

Forum: User can't discuss anything illegal(can't give explicit instructions on how to build a bomb for example), since it's against the forum rules. If he does, a moderator will reprimend him. Why is this against the rules? The company that hosts the forum will take the forum down if anything illegal is discussed. Why will they take the forum down? Because the government will punish the host for the illegal content of that forum!

ISP: Have to follow the ISP's terms of service. Which will always indicate that the service can't used for illegal purposes. The ISP has no moral substance, they just don't want to get in trouble with the government!

Huh? I don't follow. What exactly is it that you feel the article is missing? --Ardonik.talk() 19:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that what people are free to discuss on the internet is interfered with by the government indirectly. Basically, people can't discuss anything illegal(certain parts of illegal stuff anyways) on the internet. The government doesn't need to individually track down people and charge them for discussing illegal stuff. Website hosts, and administrators of chatrooms or message boards do this for the government(not charge individuals, just prevent them from discussing such topics). Not always because they agree with the law mind you, but they are simply protecting themselves from being sure

[edit] Article name

Cyberspace? That word is so 1990s. Would anyone object to moving Censorship in cyberspace to Internet censorship? Wmahan . 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. JonHarder 11:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. Haakon 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. Skinnyweed 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. – drw25 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dissenters, so I went ahead and moved it. Yell at me if I acted too soon :-) Haakon 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed up all the linking articles to use the new name. Wmahan . 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if the Indian govt have ordered all of blogspot to be blocked. News reports suggest otherwise.

The Indian governement has not ordered all of blogspot etc to banned. Details of the ongoing ban are available at http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship. Have included detail that point to this though and created a new page for "Internet Censorship in India". Shrichriswiki 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet censorship in Saudi Arabia

The Internet is also censored on a country-wide basis in Saudi Arabia, by means of proxy servers and content evaluation software. I would write about it, but currently I'm in Saudi myself and cannot properly research the subject, as most of the sites containing relevant information are blocked as well :) -- 198.36.32.21 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eventually I did find some useful info and put it into the article - expansion is of course welcome. -- 198.36.32.21 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of nations

I'd like to eventually reorganize the order of the nations list by the pervasiveness of their censorship according to the Open Net Initiative and Reporter's without Border's censorship map. Unless someone opposes this, I'm going to go ahead and do it at some point.--Daveswagon 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical Graphs

I think it would be great if we could find statistical surveys that we could organize into graphs. The Internet in China article has marking of internet penetration by year, but I think it would be great if we could do it by country. Ideas?--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of MySpace in Denmark.

I don't live there, nor do I visit MySpace, but I found that bit of information odd. A search for "myspace denmark" and related terms didn't bring up any relevant results. I also checked MySpace, and there are plenty of users from Denmark. Please don't re-add Denmark to the list of sites blocking MySpace unless you can confirm it. AnonymousOrc 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) І

[edit] Schools

Did I miss the point where allowing schools to make pornography, etc. unavailable for students became censorship in the same way as rounding up dissidents or fining users for looking at opposition parties? That sounds like hysteria - the kind that diminishes the cause for everyone else.

[edit] Small-scale censorship - should examples be listed here?

The Internet is rife with examples of small-scale censorship that isn't covered by the broad categories already listed. In 2005, the Canadian ISP Telus [blocked access to a union web site] over content related to a Telus/union labor dispute. There are other examples of ISPs and hosting providers blocking access to web sites by their customers, or blocking access web sites they host or provide direct connectivity to. I expect the count to run into the dozens if not hundreds going back to the early 1990s. Are such examples appropriate for this Wikipedia story? Is a complete list appropriate? Dfpc 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total censorship of the Internet

This article states matter-of-factly that total censorship of the Internet is close to impossible because of the nature of the Internet. This statement is POV. In many parts of the developed world where the Internet is already ubiquitious, this statement is true. However, the most effective way to restrict Internet access is to prevent people from owning computers or connecting them together in the first place. North Korea is an example of successful total Internet censorship. Internet restrictions also cannot be bypassed by most people in Cuba, because the Cuban government effectively limits the spread of the Internet itself by limiting who can own computers and by preventing people who do own them from even using modems. To most people in Cuba and North Korea and elsewhere, the internet is totally restricted. The Internet-based circumvention technologies listed on this page will not help those people because they don't have access even to a filtered Internet connection. (Sobesurfski 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I softened this language. Davidwr 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal Censorship

I created a Portal Censorship section. It needs revision to better reflect what Wikipedians think about portal censorship and whether it belongs in this article or in another. It also needs non-Google examples and official statements from other major portals that deliberately exclude sites that logically belong in their listings. Portals include: search engines, web directories, special-topic indexes, etc.

For this section, a portal

is an "entry point" to find other pages on the web, and
claims to carry a near-exhaustive list of web sites that meet a certain criteria, and
deliberately excludes one or more web sites that are in criteria #2 when the web site owner did not ask to be excluded. Davidwr 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absence of network neutrality = Internet censorship?

In response to a user trying to add savetheinternet.com (a pro-network neutrality website) to the external links section, I have to ask, is net neutrality an Internet censorship issue?--Daveswagon 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AGREE: Bingo, Daveswagon. The person who keeps adding it is a sock puppeteer who likely is also a member of a "charter member" of the savetheinternet link, and that violates conflict of interest wiki policy. Now I cannot revert the person due to the 3RR rule. Will you please do it? I concur it has nothing to do with the underlying wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Net neutrality, or the lack of it, enables internet censorship; it permits corporations that control access points to the Internet to extract additional costs from those wanting to publish on the Internet or face loss of access; if a corporate access provider decides that it doesn't like a particular publisher's message, it could block access to that website if there isn't an obligation to provide common carriage without discrimination. In particular, minority voices are often silenced; note that not only so-called liberal groups are concerned with this threat, but also conservative Christian groups, who fear that their message may be silenced if net neutrality is not preserved. -- Anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.2.202 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sock Puppeteer: you are raising speculative/future issues. Further, the claims you are making about what corporations might be able to do being tantamount to internet censorship are also speculative and represent your point of view, your POV. Even as you stated the issue, there are 2 POVs, and you are promting only the one, not coincidentally the one your organization promotes on the website your organization is a "charter member" of and on its own website.

Therefore, while your arguments may be perfectly legitimate and valid, they are not wiki worthy yet, and especially on this Internet censorship page. Perhaps on a Net neutrality page, if there is one, your arguments may be appropriate if a section is presenting the arguments by all sides of the issue. But not here.

You see the problem is not the content, rather it is the wiki policies that are designed to enhance the chances of getting really encyclopedic articles, not soapboxes for people to promote their own view of the world. Right now your edits are largely soapboxy here and in numerous other places you have edited as your various sock puppets. That is why person after person, besides myself, keeps reverting your edits over and over again. You see, this is wikipedia.org, not ala.org, where the ALA can say whatever it whats, for example.

No one, not even me, is doing anything other than complying with wiki policy when we remove your soapbox additions. Just look at Jessamyn, for example. She is openly an ALA supporter/member. She occasionally trims or removes my edits. Yet so long as she follows wiki policy, then she is right. I don't keep going back and adding back in what she removes. Simple. The rules make an even playing field. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Daveswagon just removed the link. Thank you, Daveswagon. Know this IP address is a sock puppet for a particularly single minded sock puppeteer and constant vigilence may be needed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon, what is the significance of "equal access" to net neutrality? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Would the anonymous poster(s) who keep reposting the link find an established editor to post the link for them the next time it is removed? Preferably someone who can write a good, concise argument in support of having this link here. Ironically, but for the recent edit war leaving a bad taste in my mouth I might be willing to do it myself. If this edit war keeps up I'm going to recommend the page be semi-protected or the principles in the edit war use the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. Davidwr 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And under a third sock puppet, 68.22.206.96, since this issue was raised on this talk page. I saw the edits here and on the Bess page and did not edit war them. I saw the reasoning he used in the history comment and that it was incorrect; I knew people could see that for themselves. It's getting to the point of plain vandalism. The person does what he wants and wiki policy need not be followed.

You know I went to see if there is a net neutrality page. There is. That's where the link goes, if added in a wiki-complaint manner, and not on this page. Even if added in good faith, it just does not belong on this page.

I purposely did not edit war knowing someone else would do it now that it is becoming clear that what I have been reporting in the past is now happening before everyone's eyes. It is rather vexing. I like your idea of blocking IP addresses because of the constant sock puppetry, but this sock puppeteer has been doing this kind of thing for a very long time, much longer than it is reasonable to block IP addresses. I really don't know what to do other than sit back and let the person bury himself and let other people make some reversions as well. So if you have ideas, go for it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that anonymous editors are permitted and even encouraged under Wiki policy. If the edit is potentially legitimate, as Davidwr seems to concede, my anonymous status should have no bearing on any decision about the edit's propriety. Even more important, consideration of the link should not be based on LAEC's objection to one of the members of the coalition, or the fact he seems to believe that anonymous editors are not allowed under Wiki policy, or the fact that I disagree with his evaluation of the link's appropriateness (and indeed, if his objection is that one member of the coalition is the American Library Association, a group who he carries out a campaign against via his website safelibraries.org, one must question if the basis of his objection isn't POV and not based on the actual utility of the link.)

Ordinarily you are correct. However, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling claims the account is a Sock Puppet account. Assuming this is true, it is better if an established editor with no history of ties to web site or any of its "charter members" put their name on that particular link. This will avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and will hopefully end this edit war once and for all. If such a person is not available, an established user who does have ties to that web site but who has a demonstrated history of adhering to Wikipedia policies can restore the link the next time it gets removed. Davidwr 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the substance of why the link is useful, internet censorship can be undertaken by corporations as well as governments, a point I attempted to make in my earlier entry. If the telecoms that control the Internet aren't subject to common carriage regulations, a whole swath of the Internet may well go dark; and those messages that the corporation disagrees with could be refused publication altogether - the very definition of censorship -- even though the Internet is a public resource. -- Anon.

An additional note: I was not the editor who added the link in the first place. I happen to agree that it's useful. -- Anon

And now a fourth sock puppet, 68.22.205.150, also mapping to Richardson, TX per arin.net. On my Talk page, waiting Jessamyn revealing how she knows it's from Chicago, home of the ALA. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon, there you go again. This is a second time you are admitting/implying the harm you claim is something that may happen in the future. It is not the case now. It does not belong on this page. You can discuss what may happen in the future on the net neutrality page, but not on the Internet censorship page because it's your POV and it hasn't happened yet. Further, my problem is not with newbie edits. Rather, the problem is one that wikipedia has with members of organizations adding links to themselves. Before I was aware of wiki policy, I added links to myself too. They are all down now. And I don't add them back because I know the rules now. The problem with you is not your newbie status. Rather it is that your are a member of the ALA, and as such, you cannot add a link promoting the ALA of any group in which it is a member. That violates conflict of interest. Further, you have violated quite a number of other policies, and generally you do not work with the community. Rather you plow ahead and do what you want despite the community. Your edits have been reverted again and again by a number of editors. I don't even revert all your self serving POV edits anymore because people are catching on to your tactics and complying with wiki policy. And all my claims about you being a sock puppeteer? Well frankly you prove it again and again. Just during the course of this Talk section you have morphed 4 times! Exactly what is it you are trying to hide? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Morphing? A charitable explanation might be that he's moving from one library computer to another. :) Davidwr 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm curious as to how this person is gaming the system. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking how he is changing his IP address? That's not gaming the system, it's just par for the course. There are several obvious ways to change your IP address. You can go from one library to the next. You can take your laptop a coffee shop, where you will probably get a different IP address each day. You can use dialup, where ever-changing IP addresses are the rule not the exception. If you have DSL or Cable you can force a new connection pretty easily. Some ISPs will give you a new number when you do that. The last two were ATT, which points to dialup or DSL, so my guess is he's redialing or a new DSL IP address. Davidwr 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but how are the addresses so, well, confined to a certain narrow range? And as to gaming the system, this person has in the past admitted his actions and took on a real, though silly, name. Yet now this person is back to the ever changing IP addresses again. And Jessamyn revealed the addresses are in Chicago, but has not answered how she figured that out. Do you know? Do you know a way to narrow it down further? Legally, of course. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Many IP addresses have domain-names associated with them. 68.22.205.150 is adsl-68-22-205-150.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net. That looks like a DSL customer in the Chicago, Illinois area. The other 68.22 and 68.21 addresses are also probably DSL Ameritech customers from Chicago. 68.20 and 68.23 addresses also belong to AT&T and may also be Chicago-area addresses. Ameritech is part of AT&T, formerly SBC. I see no "gaming." Davidwr 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll only point out that the ONLY basis for LAEC's claim of sockpuppetry is the fact that 1) the editor is anonymous, and 2) that the editor disagrees with his edits. And the page includes information about both past and future threats to free access and free expression on the Internet, and corporate censorship is as much a threat as government censorship.

Not surprisingly, there's been absolutely NO reasoned discussion about the actual substance of the link itself - just LAEC's unsubstantiated complaints about sockpuppetry because an anonymous editor disagrees with his edits (not to mention his ad hominem and unsubstantiated attacks on the editor solely on the basis of the editor's anonymity.)

I think the reason there hasn't been any discussion is because it's not in dispute. I think if this wasn't a sock-puppet case the link wouldn't have been edited away. Just a hunch. Davidwr 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If LAEC's so concerned about conflict of interest, he himself should immediately cease editing any and all pages to do with Internet filtering, ALA, and censorship, given his operation of a group that a)openly campaigns against ALA, and b)promotes both filtering and censorship in public libraries (safelibraries.org).

Whoa! I do not support censorship! You are displaying your bias! And you are attacking the person again! I do not necessarily support filters. What I support is people choosing for themselves what they want, not a policy being forced on them by the ALA, and not my policy which is irrelevant. This is particularly important where the US Supreme Court has ruled against the ALA yet the ALA continues to mislead people as to the facts and law surrounding filters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, you support forcing public library users to use Internet filters whether they want to use filters or not. That's not a choice. That's censorship.

Listen, the choice has to be up to the community, not the ALA. When Oak Lawn, IL wanted Playboy out of the library, and I mean the government asked the library to remove it, the library refused, and Judith Krug et al. got directly involved to ensure that. You are a member of the ALA, a high ranking member. It comes as no surprise to anyone that my efforts to educate people to make their own decisions instead of allowing the ALA to make them is construed by you as forcing public libraries to use filters. To this day, Playboy is still available in Oak Lawn, and children can still ask for any page range and it will be photocopied for them.

You know what else? The mayor of that town is afraid the only way to clean the ALA influence out is by suing you, but he is afraid of the cost of doing so. You, the ALA, has successfully forced its way into the local community, while claiming all the while that local control is key. Really, your actions and the actions of the ALA's OIF top leadership are reprehensible, to say the least. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As for conflict of interest, first, as I said earlier, I didn't add the original link; I simply agreed that it was useful. Second, I'm not a member of Save the Internet, but am thinking it must be useful to support them, since someone who promotes Internet censorship through filtering is so anxious to prevent anyone knowing about them. - Anon.

Since you claim the use of filtering is tantamount to Internet censorship, and since I am calling for compliance with constitutional filtering laws, you are therefore holding me in good company with the US Supreme Court. Thank you. Oh that's right, the ALA thinks the US Supreme Court's allowance of filtering is tantamount to Internet censorship. Isn't there a wiki policy that says wacky, way out policies like the ALA saying SCOTUS is wrong don't get included in articles? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet filtering imposed by the government, with the intent to block access to ideas or opinions that the government disagrees with, constitutes censorship.

And repeating: the only basis for the claims of sockpuppetry is that the editor (myself) is anonymous and disagrees with LAEC's edits. Anonymity is permitted on Wikipedia. Disagreements occur on Wikipedia. Neither are sockpuppetry. I've always spoken in one voice. -- Anon

[edit] Call for immediate truce and dispute resolution

This sock-puppet-or-not/legitimate-edit-or-not fight between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and a few other editors on one hand and the anonymous Chicago-area DSL customer last seen at 68.21.161.170 over http://www.savetheinternet.com is growing weary and is not good for the article or Wikipedia. I looked into asking for the page to be semi-protected, but according to Wikipedia's Protection policy, Semi-protection should not be used: In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. This leaves two main options: Either a private agreement, or using Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution policy. Negotiation and mediation are also options. Please declare a truce and solve your differences. Thanks. Davidwr 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The only person supporting the sock puppeteer is the sock puppeteer. You are trying to be fair to both by suggesting that someone other than the sock puppeteer should add the link, if appropriate, because of the wiki policies involved that make the sock puppeteer's edit here on this issue a violation of various wiki policies. All other commenters are against the sock puppeteers edits. Further, other editors on other pages continually revert the sock puppeteer when violation of wiki policy occurs, which is rather frequent. Good wikipedians should not be held hostile to a persistent violater of wiki rules. There is no compromise here when violations of wiki policy are occurring as they are. Which wiki policy shall we uphold in the compromise and which wiki policy will we allow to be violated by the compromise? That's the problem here. I have no problem displaying the constant violations of wiki policy by the sock puppeteer. Further, I have no problem getting all the various editors who have reverted the sock puppeteer, in some cases over and over again. The differences are in whether to follow wiki policy or whether to violate wiki policy. I, you, and all other editors choose to follow wiki policy. The sock puppeteer choses to violate it again and again. That persistance does not get rewarded with a "compromise" where certain wiki policies of our choosing are compromised. The link sought to be added does not belong on this page at all, perhaps on the net neutrality page. Yet I see the sock puppeteer has not added it there. That's the compromise. Take the link out here and add it where it beleongs, if the people on the net neutrality page agree. And in respect of wiki policy, people must be advised of the person's conflict of interest problems, among other things.

All other commenters are against the sock puppeteers edits. All? Not true. I am not against the edit. I am just against him doing the edit. I am against rewarding bad behavior. If it wouldn't be seen as rewarding bad behavior, I might add the link myself. I still might but not before a few weeks of silence on the matter passes first. Davidwr 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we agree. What you said is the meaning I meant, not the other meaning. Agreed. So all are against his doing the edit, not the substance of the edit. Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: consider moving the link to net neutrality page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edit 11:52, 4 May 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Talk | contribs) (28,839 bytes) (rv - consensus has been reached - someone help stop this vandal) There are two issues here: The appropriateness of the link and the appropriateness of allowing this anonymous IP address with a likely conflict of interest to post this particular link. While the first is in dispute, it's not a heated dispute and that discussion seems to be on the back burner at the moment. More important right now seems to be the 2nd dispute: Should this anonymous editor be making this particular edit. The "vote" seems to be "everyone to 1" against allowing this person to post this link at this time. Technically this is not a 100% consensus but it's close enough for this issue. If the person using this anonymous address's goal is to have the pride of making the link himself, he should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process as outlined above. If his ultimate goal is to get the link added, his best course of action is to cool it for a few weeks, register an account and use it for non-censorship-related edits, then use this talk page to propose adding the link. If he already has an established account, then wait a few weeks to let passions cool down. At that time, he should propose the link here and discuss it. Why not add the link directly? Two reasons: One, the link itself is still the subject of debate. Two, there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with anyone associated with the ALA adding this link. Either case is grounds for discussing it here before adding the link. If nobody objects or you have a lot of people saying "yes" and few people objecting after a few days, then make the link. Davidwr 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me since it adheres to wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll point out again that the only basis for LAEC's accusations of sockpuppetry is the fact that the editor (myself) remains anonymous, and that I disagree with his edits of this page, specifically, his elimination of a link that others believe is useful, in in part (if not in whole) because an organization he politically opposes is a member of the coalition represented by the link. I believe his reasons for removing the link are POV and wrong, but we don't discuss that.

I don't know why the numbers change each time, but they do. I don't control it. Also, I've never represented myself as more than one person.

My understanding is that Wikipedia policy not only permits, but encourages anonymous editors, and that anonymity alone should not be the basis for removing an editor's contributions.

I think what would be far more useful is a SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION about the link's merits, rather than accepting at face value LAEC's accusations, which, as I said, have no basis other than the fact that the editor is anonymous. I'm ready when you are.

Okay, but link stay off until the discussion is over. And you are wrong about other things you said but I'll let it slide this time out of mere time constraints. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed bot to auto-revert anonymous edits that post the disputed link

I'm not proposing we do this today, but if this dispute continues, it is likely he will eventually be blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, and/or this page will become semi-protected. I would prefer an alternative: Request a bot that will block this IP address range from editing this article. Even better, a bot to block this IP address range from posting that particular link to this article. Either way, other anonymous users will be able to edit this article and this anonymous user will be able to contribute to the rest of Wikipedia. What do you guys think? Has anyone here ever written a Wikipedia bot? Davidwr 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've proposed a generic bot that meets these requirements. Unless a coder steps forward, it won't happen even if the idea is approved. Davidwr 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems like overkill for a single dispute on a single article.--Daveswagon 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking no position on this since I'm not technically smart enough, let me just say this single article is but one of a number the sock puppeteer edits, and those pages often include similar wiki policy violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: A bot is ready should the need arise. If most of the editors want a bot to auto-revert the savetheinternet URL, it can be done. Personally, I hope we don't have to resort to it. We are adults here and we should be able to solve disputes without resorting to force. See User_talk:Shadow1#Can_shadowbot_be_limited_to_a_particular_page.3F for details. Davidwr 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say, from a technical point of view, that sounds quite interesting. As in how the programming is done to implement that. And I asked some admins for help. Here's some guidance from an admin: "Well you can bring it up on WP:ANI and/or get the socks declared socks, which makes the blocks easier." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the numbers change each time, but they do. I don't control it. Also, I've never represented myself as more than one person.

My understanding is that Wikipedia policy not only permits, but encourages anonymous editors, and that anonymity alone should not be the basis for removing an editor's contributions.

Perhaps you have a dynamic IP. At any rate, you could add strength to your argument by simply registering for a user name. Technically that is more anonymous than your current technique since your ISP, geographic location, etc can't be seen.

Anyway, I would support adding a short blurb about how anti-net neutrality may qualify as Internet censorship, but I don't think an external link is appropriate.--Daveswagon 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China blocking Wikipedia

I am currently in Beijing and for the past two days I have been able to access wikipedia, except for a few entries regarding the Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwanese independence and internet censorship in China. I'm not sure if this is a legitimate reason for changing the section about Chinese censorship, which says that wikipedia is blocked in China, but I thought I should mention it. I also apologize if this post does not meet talk page guidelines, I am new to wikipedia. 219.238.118.226 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I am actually a member of wikipedia, I just messed up and wasn't signed in when I wrote the above post. Sorry. Jacda1313 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody dissappear this guy or his/her account? no evidence of the account or even the IP? it is so spooky Taprobanus 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship in Sri Lanka

The statement is backed by RS. Even the one quoting the minister of asking to hire hackers to hack the website. Wikipedia editors document what RS say and is not up to us to judge who is joking and who is not. If there is other RS saying that that it was a joke then that could also be added. Watchdogb 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. not some silly blog. The minister was joking [1]. We don't include such trivial information here. And again. there is no proof the government is blocking Tamilnet. just allegations. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement I have added comes from a reliable source, the international Herald tribune. If it is believed that this is a false or even controversial statement please provide reliable source for that believe. Same thing goes with the hacking statement by the minister. Do you have a statement by the minister that it was really a joke? Watchdogb 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I would really like to cease this edit war with neutral statements like According to CPJ, ARTICLE19 and FMM, Tamilnet.com a website known for its pro rebel stance has been blacked by the government of Sri Lanka . I think in a civil war situation a government has the right to do what it wants especially with respect to pro rebel websites but that cannot be equated with wholsale internet censorship in Sri Lanka. Thanks Taprobanus 18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Internet Censorship

To all, be aware that in Italy, with the excuse of fighting online money betting (online sport betting websites and online casino hosted outside italy - where the govenament cannot enfoce direct supperssion of websites), and fighting websites with pedopornographic contents, italy has laws that force internet provider to apply DNS filtering and IP filtering to users.

the banned ip addresses are listed publicly when it comes to online gaming (http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093339418) but are not available those of the filtered IPs of website with pedopornographic contents. It has been proved that between those banned IP there are some without pedopornographic content (political? personal opinions on istitutions as the church?).

So, I would really suggest to move Itlay at the very top of the list, because Italy do apply real censorship.

[edit] Brazil

I did some editing on the Brazil segment. Considering the major occurrence to date - the Youtube ban - was partial in its reach, occurred solely to protect someone's (supposed) lawful right to privacy, and that it was corrected by the courts after a couple days, I don't think Internet censorship in Brazil is harsher than in Thailand or Fiji, for example. Also, I fail to see why Senator Azeredo's bill should even be mentioned here, when it never went beyond the "proposition" stage in Congress, and was broadly criticised by the public. Missionario 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page censored!

Interestingly Vodafone's "Content Control" blocks this page, but not the rest of Wikipedia (that I can see). It doesn't block the articles on Censorship in the UK, or Internet censorship in the UK. I think it is keywords maybe? Secretlondon 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequently censored websites section

This section is so broad with topic that it serves no purpose in the article. If no one objects to removing it within a week im going to do so. Just let me know otherwise because there are no statistics out there that claim more websites are censored then others. Unless you can find one within a week, it's going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)