Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's a casual reductionist definition of censorship.

Community edited wiki != Censorship

Centrally administered information channels == Censorship

The state has equal power as citizens to make edits. Meanwhile the state has exclusive power to shut down network access, persecute people for publishing edits or providing access to censored information, chilling effects, etc. Pretty big difference.



That really depends on the community and the nature of their editing. What if Westboro Baptist Church members decided to do nothing but en-masse gradually edit their Wikipedia page? You would probably categorize their actions as an attempt at propaganda and censorship. (On a short term, of course.) It ultimately wouldn't work, since they are such a small group. However, if a large enough segment of the populace decided on a program like this, which also included an infiltration of the higher-level of Wikipedia's organization, such a program would probably work.


Content addressing means that all versions of the page remain available so long as one node hosts it, and they are easily differentiated.

On the internet 1000 voices don't speak 1000 times louder than one, it would be relatively easy for a small group to widely advertise that there is a discrepancy.

Effective propaganda would only be possible where any contradictions are unable to provide evidence, causing an appeal to authority to become one of the most viable means of resolving the dispute. This is where the majority - but not all - of our current propaganda sits.

IPFS would help. It wouldn't solve disinformation but it would tidy up the game.


On the internet 1000 voices don't speak 1000 times louder than one,

In a limited context, for a limited time, they can. There are many situations where this is all that's needed. (Like, the run up to an election.)

it would be relatively easy for a small group to widely advertise that there is a discrepancy.

A large enough, well established enough group would be able to discredit this discrepancy.


Yes. A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

For the second case, this is why I talk about the nature of effective propaganda. Evidence is the only reliable way to fight against an authority, as the larger group would be significantly less able to censor evidence they are forced to use unverifiable propaganda - this is much less effective for them.


They'd likely eventually get blocked and the page would get edit protected. Wikipedia is not a moderation-free environment.


They'd likely eventually get blocked and the page would get edit protected.

As I said, this would only work in the short term.

Wikipedia is not a moderation-free environment.

Which is why I pointed out that a large enough group would still have to infiltrate the Wikimedia organization.


It's brigading, not censorship. Nasty, but it can be mitigated- that's what Wikipedia editors are for.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: