Wikipedia is hardly a bastion of freedom. Just look at the whole "Philip Cross" affair (still ongoing). Glass houses.... https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Cross
I remember watching a documentary about ex-members of an insular religious community. One of the ex-members who was deprived from all sorts of modernity, commented with extreme emotion how angry he was once he discovered Wikipedia. Of all the things he was deprived of, that one stood out... being able to find out factual information about almost any topic in an instant.
That stuck with me. For all of its faults, Wikipedia is amazing, and yes, it feels like depriving people of such a tool is a violation of human rights.
> If a right is something that makes society better if people have it.
That's not what a right is. Saying that access to Wikipedia is a right implies the ability to coerce somebody to give it to you if you lack it. At best it's a privilege.
8 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] threadThat stuck with me. For all of its faults, Wikipedia is amazing, and yes, it feels like depriving people of such a tool is a violation of human rights.
"One, a teenager, Ari, left as his thirst for knowledge came into conflict with religious restrictions. “Wikipedia,” he says, “was a gift from God.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/movies/one-of-us-review.h...
And in fact it falls under freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
That's not what a right is. Saying that access to Wikipedia is a right implies the ability to coerce somebody to give it to you if you lack it. At best it's a privilege.