 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
and Spanish-language Wikipedia
editThis --
- In 2008, Rebelión.org was included in the Spanish-language Wikipedia spam blacklist. Rebelion.org accused the Spanish-language wikipedia of banning them, allegedly charging some administrators of right-wing bias[1], since other Spanish sites, with similar content but from right-wing perspectives, were not banned. The software freedom activist Richard Stallman complained about this decision.[2]. Presently, Rebelion.org is still blacklisted.
was recently removed, in this edit.
I'd have used a different edit summary, but I too would have been happy to delete this.
Does this mean that I dismiss the criticism as trivial or fictional? No. I merely say it's less about Rebelión.org than about Wikipedia. Perhaps what's already written about this in the article "Spanish Wikipedia" should be amplified: I don't know and am not the best person to judge, as I don't read Spanish. But if it is amplified there, then yes it would deserve a mention in this article too. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Hoary, your proposal to translate/amplify from the Spanish Wikipedia makes sense. Let me to point the deleted text is a translation from the section "Polemicas" (Controversies) of the Spanish article, except for the last sentence: "Presently, Rebelion.org is still blacklisted". Hopefully, another Spanish reader could verify my assertion.
- On the other hand, imho the deleted information is about Wikipedia, yes ... and Rebelion is too. Block Rebelion.org from Wikipedia.org is a relevant information about both. Likely, we agree Wikipedia is not a simple blog from an individual; therefore such a block is a relevant, quite relevant, information about Rebelion.
- It was a relevant information. Also, it is a relevant information now because block goes on.
- Blacklisted as spam is an incredible tag (spam???) to circumvent the taboo word: censorship. I understand you, ... it is too hard to accept a controversy about political censorship in the Wikipedia, in the past and at present. Too hard.
- But the controversy is there. Censorship goes on, many people state it, Richard Stallman stated it (likely, you agree without Stallman the MediaWiki software and the own Wikipedia would have had to wait several decades). Yes, too hard to accept, not only the fact, even the controversy: i.e. many people state that for three years, political bias of the Spanish administrators keeps Rebelion.org censored.
- Finally, I propose to restore the deleted text and mark it as info under discussion. I feel particularly uncomfortable because an one-click action (deletion) to have to cope with a complete discussion. What about if somebody else undo it without discussion?
- your proposal to translate/amplify from the Spanish Wikipedia makes sense: But I made no such proposal. All I said was that if this material (or something like it) should go anywhere within English-language Wikipedia, then it should go in the article titled "Spanish Wikipedia". -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Hoary. The material about something the Spanish Wikipedia did belongs in the article on the Spanish Wikipedia, if it belongs anywhere. I'm not convinced that it belongs there, either, but certainly not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- your proposal to translate/amplify from the Spanish Wikipedia makes sense: But I made no such proposal. All I said was that if this material (or something like it) should go anywhere within English-language Wikipedia, then it should go in the article titled "Spanish Wikipedia". -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
References
- ^ (in Spanish) Carlos Martínez, La web de Rebelión.org bloqueada desde Wikipedia, Rebelion.org, 19 June 2008
- ^ A War of Words Over Wikipedia’s Spanish Version, The New York Times, 27 de agosto de 2009
"Stallman"
editHey guys! :) I just wanted to point out that the caption supplementing the image in this article refers to "Stallman" - presumably Richard Stallman - yet he is not mentioned in the article in any capacity. Thus, the unfamiliar reader sees the last name of an apparently unrelated person, and as such is doubly misinformed. I contemplated altering it to include "Richard", but that would fail to address the lack of context, which entails, perhaps, some affinity with the topic. By the way, this is User:Psychonavigation, not logged in - as usual. No wonder my edit count is so meager. I'm PATHETIC! Waaaaahhhhhh! *bawls 'is bluudy eyes out! ALL night!* Haha. Peace. :) 149.135.146.67 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)