Strange Censorship

[NeonSpider]

Try looking up Maria Jose Cristerna on Wikipedia. Or use what she's more commonly known as "Mexican Vampire" or "Mexican Vampire Woman". You won't find anything at all. Now go to Google, Youtube, etc... You'll find tons of stuff because she's actually very famous. She's practically a Mexican celebrity. Chances are you've seen her picture at some point before you even entered this thread. Why is she censored on Wikipedia?

Alright here's another one. Try looking up Psyclon Nine on Urbandictionary. You'll get a very strange error page which you should note is not the same as the page you'd get for a non-existent entry. Now try looking them up on Google, Youtube, etc... They're just a band. Why is this band censored on Urbandictionary?

Can't think of one off the top of my head but I know there's random stuff that is censored (again for unknown reasons) on Youtube but not elsewhere. And so forth. Weird stuff.

[generalwinter]

Good questions, I suspect it has something to do with the personal feelings of various moderators on each site.

[DarkMiasma]

On urban dictionary it just says it isn't defined yet... it's not censored

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 09:40 PM, DarkMiasma wrote: On urban dictionary it just says it isn't defined yet... it's not censored

Very interesting! I just checked and they must have changed that.
For a while there you would get a special error page rather than the generic "hasn't been defined yet" for that exact term.

It is censored. I guarantee if you try to define it you're going to have a hard time. Maybe they smartened up and just made it look "undefined".

[DarkMiasma]

At 8/1/14 09:46 PM, NeonSpider wrote:

At 8/1/14 09:40 PM, DarkMiasma wrote: On urban dictionary it just says it isn't defined yet... it's not censored

Very interesting! I just checked and they must have changed that.
For a while there you would get a special error page rather than the generic "hasn't been defined yet" for that exact term.

It is censored. I guarantee if you try to define it you're going to have a hard time. Maybe they smartened up and just made it look "undefined".

Why would urban dictionary go out of their way to sensor a random band? I've never even heard of that band, I don't think they care.

And as for that Woman there probably just isn't a wiki article made for her yet either... You're being paranoid.

[NeonSpider]

Also feel free to list any other strange censorships in this thread. That's sort of the point. Stuff that doesn't make sense why it'd be censored. Give me your weirdly-censored stuff!

Obviously typically-censored stuff doesn't count because its censorship reasoning is obvious. For example nudity being censored, illegal or legally questionable material being censored, and so forth.

Preferably from well-known sites, in the form of a) what is censored and b) what site it is censored on.

So obviously well-known sites like wikipedia, youtube, urbandictionary, google, facebook, yahoo, etc... Joe Schmoe's own personal site that no one's ever heard of obviously doesn't count.

[Th-e]

Hmmm...Using "Psyclon Nine" gets you no results, but "Psyclon 9" gets you a relevant definition.

As for the Mexican Vampire Lady, I don't see anything in the history of Wikipedia for this, and the deletion log is empty. Deletionpedia results are also empty. Probably just never had an article.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 09:59 PM, DarkMiasma wrote:

At 8/1/14 09:46 PM, NeonSpider wrote:

At 8/1/14 09:40 PM, DarkMiasma wrote: On urban dictionary it just says it isn't defined yet... it's not censored

Very interesting! I just checked and they must have changed that.
For a while there you would get a special error page rather than the generic "hasn't been defined yet" for that exact term.

It is censored. I guarantee if you try to define it you're going to have a hard time. Maybe they smartened up and just made it look "undefined".

Why would urban dictionary go out of their way to sensor a random band? I've never even heard of that band, I don't think they care.

And as for that Woman there probably just isn't a wiki article made for her yet either... You're being paranoid.

Wikipedia isn't censoring that band. And I'm not "just being paranoid". If you paid attention, Wikipedia is censoring that woman (she's well-known enough there should be an article or at least cross-reference somewhere). She's very well known in Mexico and among certain communities.

Usually with these weird censorships it'll be only one site that censors a particular thing, but then other sites (which censor other stuff) don't censor that thing and so forth.

I'm pointing out things which don't make any sense why they'd be censored in the first place. As to the woman, she is notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. As to the band, it is notable enough to have an entry on Urbandictionary (nevermind the fact that until recently you got a special error page for that *exact* term but not random undefined stuff).

As to why these things are censored, who even knows? Again that's why this thread is about weird censorships. Stuff that doesn't make sense why it'd be censored.

It'd be like if all of a sudden you can't find Michael Jordan on Wikipedia. Wouldn't you find that odd?

[Scintillating]

You fulping moron, not having an article on something doesn't equal censorship.

Why don't you try to create an article on Wikipedia for Maria Jose Cristerna if you think one is needed? It may be removed for not being noteworthy, but guess what, that isn't censorship either!

[Scintillating]

At 8/1/14 10:27 PM, Scintillating wrote: You fulping moron, not having an article on something doesn't equal censorship.

Why don't you try to create an article on Wikipedia for Maria Jose Cristerna if you think one is needed? It may be removed for not being noteworthy, but guess what, that isn't censorship either!

Actually, even better, there actually is an article for her on Wikipedia! It took me one second of googling.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulher_Vampiro

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 10:27 PM, Scintillating wrote: You fulping moron, not having an article on something doesn't equal censorship.

Why don't you try to create an article on Wikipedia for Maria Jose Cristerna if you think one is needed? It may be removed for not being noteworthy, but guess what, that isn't censorship either!

It does if there really should be. If it's noteworthy enough that literally every other major site has something *except* one should raise flags.

And apparently the Portuguese Wikipedia has an article as you've found, but the English Wikipedia certainly doesn't.

I just find that an odd omission. Nothing world-changing. Nothing hugely-important (it's not censorship of some important political movement or such). It's still a bizarre omission.

[DarkMiasma]

At 8/1/14 10:21 PM, NeonSpider wrote: It'd be like if all of a sudden you can't find Michael Jordan on Wikipedia. Wouldn't you find that odd?

But that isn't the case... you're using 2 pretty irrelevant examples.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 10:39 PM, DarkMiasma wrote:

At 8/1/14 10:21 PM, NeonSpider wrote: It'd be like if all of a sudden you can't find Michael Jordan on Wikipedia. Wouldn't you find that odd?

But that isn't the case... you're using 2 pretty irrelevant examples.

Well find me something you'd consider relevant then. That is the entire whole point of this thread. And just because you may not have been familiar with those doesn't mean they're not relevant.

But yes the point was less "Argue with OP" and more "Go find some weird censorship and share it with us".

So go find me something you consider strange that would be censored on some site. No big conspiracies or anything. Just something I find interesting.

[DarkMiasma]

At 8/1/14 10:47 PM, NeonSpider wrote: So go find me something you consider strange that would be censored on some site. No big conspiracies or anything. Just something I find interesting.

lmfao

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 10:49 PM, DarkMiasma wrote:

At 8/1/14 10:47 PM, NeonSpider wrote: So go find me something you consider strange that would be censored on some site. No big conspiracies or anything. Just something I find interesting.

lmfao

So .. basically you have nothing to contribute to this thread? If it doesn't interest you then why post?

I find apparent censorship to be interesting. I share that. It doesn't have to be some big government conspiracy and is most likely just up to individual site owners or moderators or such as one poster suggested. I still find it interesting.

If you don't find my particular examples to your liking, then find others or post in a thread which is of more interest to you.

[Skeptick]

Actually, Psyclon 9 does appear on urbandictionary.

But if certain pictures that used to show are no longer showing then it may have something to with Google's implementation of the new "right to be forgotten" which is having all kinds of shit pulled down based on the controlling factions opinions of whether or not something they find is "internet appropriate"

Bottom line, it's completely based on opinions... Therefore, it's completely unfair.

[Scintillating]

At 8/1/14 11:03 PM, NeonSpider wrote: I find apparent censorship to be interesting. I share that. It doesn't have to be some big government conspiracy and is most likely just up to individual site owners or moderators or such as one poster suggested. I still find it interesting.

It's NOT censorship. The editors of Wikipedia are just people like us. Wikipedia is open to the public. Someone would have to create the article before it could conceivably be censored. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states, "No article about Maria José Cristerna shall be created" Use your head. People just haven't gotten around to making an article about it, you subnormal halfwit.

[ThePulp]

I find it strange that the article about Slenderman was deleted, then reinstated when it became mainstream.

I guess it was because it was irrelevant.

Creepypasta's gone stale now, anyway.

[Ragnarokia]

At 8/1/14 11:18 PM, NGPulp wrote: I find it strange that the article about Slenderman was deleted, then reinstated when it became mainstream.

I guess it was because it was irrelevant.

Creepypasta's gone stale now, anyway.

I would prefer to think it was removed because they were hoping they could avoid people obsessing over it, but then once they realised they couldn't stop it anymore they gave up and just put it up.

Sadly your view is probably the right one though.

[Scintillating]

At 8/1/14 11:21 PM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 8/1/14 11:18 PM, NGPulp wrote: I find it strange that the article about Slenderman was deleted, then reinstated when it became mainstream.

I guess it was because it was irrelevant.

Creepypasta's gone stale now, anyway.

I would prefer to think it was removed because they were hoping they could avoid people obsessing over it, but then once they realised they couldn't stop it anymore they gave up and just put it up.

Sadly your view is probably the right one though.

Why would you hope for such a social engineering type reason for removing an article. THAT would be censorship. That would also be alarming.

[Ragnarokia]

At 8/1/14 11:25 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 8/1/14 11:21 PM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 8/1/14 11:18 PM, NGPulp wrote: I find it strange that the article about Slenderman was deleted, then reinstated when it became mainstream.

I guess it was because it was irrelevant.

Creepypasta's gone stale now, anyway.

I would prefer to think it was removed because they were hoping they could avoid people obsessing over it, but then once they realised they couldn't stop it anymore they gave up and just put it up.

Sadly your view is probably the right one though.

Why would you hope for such a social engineering type reason for removing an article. THAT would be censorship. That would also be alarming.

As it would show whoever moderated the board would have some standards for what they wanted to see there. It's their fucking website they can feel free to do what they want with it.

[ThePulp]

At 8/1/14 11:25 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 8/1/14 11:21 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: I would prefer to think it was removed because they were hoping they could avoid people obsessing over it, but then once they realised they couldn't stop it anymore they gave up and just put it up.

Why would you hope for such a social engineering type reason for removing an article. THAT would be censorship. That would also be alarming.

Rather alarming.

I think the Slenderman is a social experiment of sorts.
Memes in general are a social experiment.

Do something stupid, see how it spreads.

I for one would like to conduct a social experiment of my own someday.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/1/14 11:28 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: As it would show whoever moderated the board would have some standards for what they wanted to see there. It's their fucking website they can feel free to do what they want with it.

Thank you. This is exactly it. Owners of a website can allow or not allow whatever content they see fit. A problem comes into play when people assume certain well-known resources to be unbiased when they're not.

Sure, you may have a few innocuous censorships here and there, but if one thing can be censored anything can be censored. Slippery slope and all that.