If you mean documenting its existence, then no, because we have to learn from history. So I wouldn't have an issue with an article on antisemitism or the like.
But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening. If I suddenly ended up owning Stormfront or Kiwifarms, I would absolutely pull the plug and burn it all to the ground with no warning.
> But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening.
But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis. I would argue that censorship helps nazis. The real nazis were completely censored from Weimar radio and Goebbels touted Der Angriff as "the most censored newspaper" by the German government. What is our standard for "helps"?
Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk page, but retained with rather pointed language.
> But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis.
I'm a consequentialist. I'll make the decision based on the overall consequences. So for instance the internet helps nazis, but it also does a lot of good for a lot more people. Now if the effect of the internet was 99% to help nazis, that would be a problem.
> Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk page, but retained with rather pointed language.
Like I said, that's up to them to decide. If it was up to me, I would not allow that link.
That's how I lean too. I'm maybe just more leery of the long term consequences of censorship and proscribed ideas. I think they are ultimately poisonous.
> If it was up to me, I would not allow that link.
How would you write that policy for wikimedia, so your editors would know which articles could link to the website they describe, and which could not?
> That's how I lean too. I'm maybe just more leery of the long term consequences of censorship and proscribed ideas. I think they are ultimately poisonous.
Over the years, I figured that in practice pretty much nobody is truly willing to commit absolutely to their ideals. Everyone has a breaking point where if they have bad enough consequences, ideals will be discarded.
Musk is showing this on Twitter right now.
And I think most any sane person would do the same, because unyielding commitment can trivially be taken advantage of. Eg, if you open up your house to absolutely everyone, and hold steadfast when people start punching holes in the walls, eventually you won't have a house to offer anymore.
> How would you write that policy for wikimedia, so your editors would know which articles could link to the website they describe, and which could not?
That highly depends on my position, the leadership structure, the state of the organization, and so on. As per the above I have some moral flexibility and will compromise somewhat for the greater good.
