If you fold once then people will know they can push you around.
You have to be willing to be blocked every now and then if you want to win the larger anti-censorship game.
You have to be willing to be blocked every now and then if you want to win the larger anti-censorship game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
If you read the policy, you'll find that a government request is not a valid reason for a Wikipedia administrator to protect ("lock") an article.
I had some examples linked, but I worry their inclusion would derail the discussion. To be clear - I love Wikipedia, I use it every day. It's abundantly clear though that it doesn't represent anything close to a neutral perspective, it represents the exact politics of the kind of person who you would imagine would become a Wikipedia editor.
Like everything, wikipedia is certainly shaped, both consiously and unconciously by the people who write it.
Anyways, i think whether or not it is "neutral" is kind of the wrong question, because nothing really is in the absolute. The interesting question is how is it relative to other information sources. Ancedotally i think its pretty good, but this is a terrible question to answer ancedotally as that might just mean i agree with its biases or i just look at the right parts of wikipedia (wikipedia's quality is hardly uniform across all topics)
Not sure what's happening with the more usual discussions. Too tired to keep up with whatever's happening there.
I assume with the goal of the article being locked to before information you want to suppress got added, but that seems difficult to control. Unless you also identify and subvert moderators.
The moment someone leaks the jig is up, and at least some of the bribed group would probably be very ideologically opposed which makes them difficult to bribe.