Timeline for Why edit out inflammatory language? Is that censorship?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 5, 2011 at 17:45 | comment | added | The Unhandled Exception | It's not hostile. The site works in a certain way. We're explaining to you why it works this way. It's not censorship, it's collaboration. We're not telling you to leave, we're just saying that this is not the venue for one to speak freely with the understanding that they can say anything. What you say on these sites can and probably will be edited to fit in line with the nature of the site. If you want a place where you can say what you want and nobody can change what you say, then that sort of speech should occur on another site. That's all I'm saying anyway. | |
| Feb 5, 2011 at 11:01 | comment | added | chibacity | The faq says what it says - let's not fool around imagining things it does not say. I do not appreciate the insinuation that I should leave if I do not like my content being edited especially as I have not made this point. Several users have posted answers that insinuate if I don't like the way things work I should sling my hook. The thing they have in common is that they are for reasons that have nothing in common with anything I have said. Maybe it is unintentionally hostile, but I do not appreciate it at all. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:54 | comment | added | The Unhandled Exception | True, SO and MSO operate differently, the primary difference being that MSO has it's own unique culture, and votes mean a very different thing on Meta. But aside from that, I believe the point still stands: buth sites are essentially Q&A wikis, and since everything is collaboratively edited, there is no censorship. What he said is still in history. I don't understand how it matters that you're uncomfortable with his content being edited. The FAQ entry could just as easily read ** If you are not comfortable with the idea of questions and answers being edited by trusted users [...]** | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:50 | comment | added | chibacity | The question was also intended to be aimed at Meta and not SO. I didn't make that distinction clear. Some people seem to think that Meta and SO operate in the same way. Doesn't look like it to me. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:47 | comment | added | chibacity | Good point about a wider remit for reasons to edit posts. I strongly agree with this, have edited many posts, but I have failed to articulate this. However, this post is in no way questioning the fact that content can be edited, it is describing a type of edit and opening that up for discussion. Secondly, the faq entry you point out and insist on "reiterating" is aimed at users being comfortable with having their own content edited. This question is not concerned with how people feel about having their content edited, or wider issues of perceived ownership. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 17:29 | history | answered | The Unhandled Exception | CC BY-SA 2.5 |