Talk:Censorware

message: Wikitionary link added to Content-control software page to assuage Anonamaus - should stop edit war. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it fails to address the censorship inherent in the effort to eliminate any mention of this phrase on Wikipedia.  As I mentioned earlier, I am not seeking to change the content control software entry, but am advocating for providing the fullest information possible to the researcher who comes here seeking a definition for the phrase.  I believe the compromise is, in fact, providing the definition with the referring link to the content control software page.  Anonamaus 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Secretlondon, as a compromise, I'm trying to refine an idea that there be a "censorware" article as a word article - not the referent. That way there could legitimately be two separate pages. Please consider concept and add to it if you have additional thoughts. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood, Sdedeo, understood. I acknowledge those points, since I don't have the complete answer - but I do think there's potential solution in the general direction of word article, which isn't the same as dictionary entry, and isn't the referent itself. Yes, you're right also, it could be a POV fork, but while that's a problem, it's not necessarily a certainty. I don't think the current state of things is bad, but I do think there's something going on which is more than wheel-squeaking. I think there's been an expansion of interest from the COPA decision, and am trying to find the best way to fit those concerns into Wikipedia's structure -- Seth Finkelstein 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo Seth's call for a word article.  I believe that there should be more than a redirect given the use of the phrase in the news media and by advocacy groups.  CNET, a major news source, uses the phrase in its headlines and its articles; Seth's group is not the only advocacy group that uses the phrase to describe its projects addressing Internet censorship.  I am disturbed, as well, to observe that the fact of the redirect is being used as a rationale to erase the use of the phrase throughout Wikipedia, even where its use is appropriate, as in the article about Peacefire. As Seth points out, the COPA decision has brought new interest to the issue of Internet filters and the fullest measure of information and ideas should be available.  Anonamaus 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me add this.  Seth said, "I think there's been an expansion of interest from the COPA decision, and am trying to find the best way to fit those concerns into Wikipedia's structure."  This in response to why this subject has come up again.  Seth is correct.  I am not disagreeing with him.  However, I wish to point out that the sock puppeteer who has singlehandedly reraised this issue is likely a person who seeks to hunt down my edits and eradicate them.  He's the "expansion of interest." Almost all of the sock puppeteer's edits have been revision of my edits.  Frankly, I've felt sort of persecuted by the sock puppet.  So when Seth says there's been an expansion of interest, I would respectfully disagree as I feel the sock puppeteer is merely on a crusade against me personally, and no one else has supported him.  On the other hand, several people have reverted his edits besides myself.  So I say the COPA decision has absolutely nothing to do with this, a controversy caused by a sock puppeteer is not a controversy, and no separate page is necessary if the reason therefor is non-existent "expansion of interest" by a sock puppeteer on a soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because there's so much ferment from the COPA decision, I'm much less inclined to see any personal element at work here. Perhaps that's just an artifact of being on opposite sides of the topic. There's been many reactions. A little bit of editing-warring isn't really unexpected under such circumstances. It's just average contention, and not persecution. I think there's material that could fruitfully be added around the topic, but sourcing it within Wikipedia constraints, and the complicated politics, is daunting. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying. I am not opposed, not that that matters here where the community rules, not the one.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitionary link added to Content-control software page to assuage Anonamaus - should stop edit war