Hypocrisy of Wikipedia

[Altai]

Wikipedia blocks people to change informations about Prophet Muhammad and shows its hypocrisy by conflicting its own principles. 


http://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/wikipedia-peygamberimizi-tasvir-etme-inadindan-vazgecmiyor-2544158

[Michael Hardner]

Trying to understand the point, via the translated page.

Are they referring to 'Censorship' as deciding to allow images of the Prophet Muhammad on that page ?  If so, isn't this a question of moderation rather than censorship ?  I would even think that refusing to show the picture is a question of moderation, since the image(s) can only be shown or not.

[Altai]

Nope, I cant change anything in the page. The page is locked. There is written that "This page is under protection to prevent any changes."

[kimmy]

12 minutes ago, Altai said:

Nope, I cant change anything in the page. The page is locked. There is written that "This page is under protection to prevent any changes."

I expect they have been forced to do this because Muslim-haters keep editing the page with inflammatory things.

Many other pages have had to be locked to edits from time to time as people have edited them to contain false or inflammatory or malicious information. Political figures and sports figures have often been targets of slander in this way. I suspect that pages for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are probably also locked from editing at the moment, for example.

I think this topic might be better suited to the "Media and Broadcasting" topic.

 -k

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Altai said:

Nope, I cant change anything in the page. The page is locked. There is written that "This page is under protection to prevent any changes."

There have been several controversial topics that have been locked in the past. I can certainly see many people wanting to make changes to the Prophet Muhammad that are very controversial. I believe there are different levels of protection for various pages. Have you been a wikipedia editor for a long time, and have you made extensive edits elsewhere? Generally for controversial topics you need to have a history of several days and a dozen or more edits before you are allowed.

[Altai]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

I expect they have been forced to do this because Muslim-haters keep editing the page with inflammatory things.

Many other pages have had to be locked to edits from time to time as people have edited them to contain false or inflammatory or malicious information. Political figures and sports figures have often been targets of slander in this way. I suspect that pages for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are probably also locked from editing at the moment, for example.

I think this topic might be better suited to the "Media and Broadcasting" topic.

 -k

But this is contrary to the purpose of establishment of Wikipedia. People should be able to change the context. For example I want to change/add informations about USA and I cant because its locked. I want to change/add informations about Britain and its locked too and many other countries are locked. 

[Altai]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

There have been several controversial topics that have been locked in the past. I can certainly see many people wanting to make changes to the Prophet Muhammad that are very controversial. I believe there are different levels of protection for various pages. Have you been a wikipedia editor for a long time, and have you made extensive edits elsewhere? Generally for controversial topics you need to have a history of several days and a dozen or more edits before you are allowed.

Yes I will add informations based on solid sources.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

But this is contrary to the purpose of establishment of Wikipedia. People should be able to change the context. For example I want to change/add informations about USA and I cant because its locked. I want to change/add informations about Britain and its locked too and many other countries are locked. 

This is a forum for dialogue and you have censored people responding to your threads.  Don't be hypocritical.

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

Yes I will add informations based on solid sources.

 Yes, but how does the community know that when there are many malicious users out there. Wikipedia has millions of articles, but a relative small number are consider vital. Those are divided into four hierarchical groups, and Muhammed is in third priority group. The community just wants to get to know that you are not a temporary malicious user. Spend some time editing other articles before heading for the big ones. Work on ones related to your community, hobbies, etc. Things that are not so high profile at first. Once you establish some credibility in the community you will be allowed to work on the higher profile stuff. This is not personal, it is an unfortunate consequence of the many malicious users out there. 

[Bryan]

For what it's worth, the english version of the Mohammed wikipedia page is not only still editable, they are specifically asking for people to fact check it in the editors discussions.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Altai said:

Yes I will add informations based on solid sources.

Given the only sources you seem to agree are reliable are the propaganda organs of the Turkish government, I doubt very much you want to add things to the entries on the United States and the United Kingdom other than nonsense and wildly biased accusations. What do you think you know about the US or UK anyway? You are no historian, and have never been to either country.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Argus