Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Dolphin42 »

The Turkish government recently blocked access to the whole of Wikipedia because it claimed that some information on two of its English language pages which linked Turkey with terrorism were false. That decision has recently been upheld and the Turkish government/judiciary has said that access will only be reinstated if the content to which they take offence is removed.

I presume that the initial reaction of most people who believe in freedom of speech will be to say that Wikipedia should absolutely not give in to this kind of pressure. But if they don't, and the ban stays in place, the end result will be that the Turkish people will have no access to a whole load of other information.

Given that it's only 2 pages out of millions, would it be more realistic of Wikipedia to comply with the demand and remove access to a tiny amount of information in order to grant access to a much larger amount? Or would that be the thin end of the wedge? Should this matter of principle be defended even if, on a practical level, it deprives a lot of Turkish people of a lot of valuable independent information? Would that be true no matter how small a piece of information is being objected to?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by LuckyR »

Dolphin42 wrote:The Turkish government recently blocked access to the whole of Wikipedia because it claimed that some information on two of its English language pages which linked Turkey with terrorism were false. That decision has recently been upheld and the Turkish government/judiciary has said that access will only be reinstated if the content to which they take offence is removed.

I presume that the initial reaction of most people who believe in freedom of speech will be to say that Wikipedia should absolutely not give in to this kind of pressure. But if they don't, and the ban stays in place, the end result will be that the Turkish people will have no access to a whole load of other information.

Given that it's only 2 pages out of millions, would it be more realistic of Wikipedia to comply with the demand and remove access to a tiny amount of information in order to grant access to a much larger amount? Or would that be the thin end of the wedge? Should this matter of principle be defended even if, on a practical level, it deprives a lot of Turkish people of a lot of valuable independent information? Would that be true no matter how small a piece of information is being objected to?
Well since Wikipedia is a community source there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Turkish governmental opinion is part of the community opinion. No one with an ounce of sense takes Wikipedia "facts" as absolutely factual.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Felix »

LuckyR: Well since Wikipedia is a community source there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Turkish governmental opinion is part of the community opinion.
They (Erdogan's government) do not want to add their voice to a community opinion, they want to dictate the opinion, which is censorship and contrary to Wiki's mission statement.
Dolphin42: Should this matter of principle be defended even if, on a practical level, it deprives a lot of Turkish people of a lot of valuable independent information?
That is Erdogan's goal: to deprive the population access to unbiased information. He wants to circumscribe foreign news services just as he has curtailed the freedom of the press in his own country. How could it possibly be a good thing for Wikipedia to accede to that?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by LuckyR »

Felix wrote:
LuckyR: Well since Wikipedia is a community source there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Turkish governmental opinion is part of the community opinion.
They (Erdogan's government) do not want to add their voice to a community opinion, they want to dictate the opinion, which is censorship and contrary to Wiki's mission statement.
Well, dictators will be dictators...
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by -1- »

The two pages are only an excuse. The real reason behind introducing the incommunicado in Turkey is to cut the population off of foreign news and information sources.

If we (Wiki) give in, and erase the pages, then the Turks will find another excuse to block the site.

This is a trigger, not a reason.

Let's not give in to the jaur dogs. This we can't win; the people of Turkey can only lose too.

You see, Edorkan and his gov sees their powerful position in Turkey as a turnkey operation in Turkey to establish a stronghold of Muslim rule.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Dolphin42 »

LuckyR:
Well since Wikipedia is a community source there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Turkish governmental opinion is part of the community opinion.
And in fact the natural Wikipedia reaction was for an article to appear describing factually what had happened. I can't link to it because this philosophy website actually bans links to Wikipedia (or at least it did last time I tried) because of the curious notion that, being community sourced, it is less accurate than other sources of information.
No one with an ounce of sense takes Wikipedia "facts" as absolutely factual.
Are there some sources of information that you do regard as "absolutely factual"? What do you mean by that term? What criteria do you use to judge the accuracy of a source of information?

When I have consulted Wikipedia on subjects about which I'm already reasonably sure I know the truth from other sources I've found it to be largely accurate and free from editorializing. And when I've experimented with editing Wikipedia articles myself to see how easy it is to corrupt them I've noticed that my efforts are corrected pretty quickly. I think it is unquestionably a fantastic resource and I use it all the time for all kinds of purposes, including technical information for my work. I suspect almost everyone does too.

My particular interest in this topic was that I work quite closely with Turkish people but I haven't met with them in the flesh since this ban came into effect. Just talked by email and phone. I don't really feel that I can ask them what they think of it using those media. It will be an interesting conversation when they visit again and we can talk informally.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 10:16 am to add the following --

-1-:
You see, Edorkan and his gov sees their powerful position in Turkey as a turnkey operation in Turkey to establish a stronghold of Muslim rule.
Not really Muslim rule. Just good old fashioned authoritarian rule. Erdogan is, I think, motivated by the same things as Putin and Trump in wanting to have a media whose central purpose is to praise them and all their works.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by LuckyR »

Dolphin42 wrote:LuckyR:
Well since Wikipedia is a community source there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Turkish governmental opinion is part of the community opinion.
And in fact the natural Wikipedia reaction was for an article to appear describing factually what had happened. I can't link to it because this philosophy website actually bans links to Wikipedia (or at least it did last time I tried) because of the curious notion that, being community sourced, it is less accurate than other sources of information.
No one with an ounce of sense takes Wikipedia "facts" as absolutely factual.
Are there some sources of information that you do regard as "absolutely factual"? What do you mean by that term? What criteria do you use to judge the accuracy of a source of information?

When I have consulted Wikipedia on subjects about which I'm already reasonably sure I know the truth from other sources I've found it to be largely accurate and free from editorializing. And when I've experimented with editing Wikipedia articles myself to see how easy it is to corrupt them I've noticed that my efforts are corrected pretty quickly. I think it is unquestionably a fantastic resource and I use it all the time for all kinds of purposes, including technical information for my work. I suspect almost everyone does too.

My particular interest in this topic was that I work quite closely with Turkish people but I haven't met with them in the flesh since this ban came into effect. Just talked by email and phone. I don't really feel that I can ask them what they think of it using those media. It will be an interesting conversation when they visit again and we can talk informally.
A couple of things:

1- I am not an expert on Wikipedia

2- I agree with you that on subject matter that is either measurable or is universally accepted, that the chance of Wikipedia to get the length of the Mississippi river or who won the 1972 Best Picture Oscar wrong is remote.

3- Having said that, the relative chance that it would have that sort of simplistic information wrong is much, much higher than say an almanac or a single author website. It is much higher since the latter are essentially only subject to typos, whereas (as you demonstrated yourself) random troublemakers can (and do) mess with Wiki data semi-routinely.

4- As to subject matter with less concrete answers, in Wikipedia the opinion (which is what I am choosing to label less simplistically factual information, you are free to choose a different label) like any other source, is subject to the author's bias. But unlike other sources, the Wikipedia editor is de facto anonymous, so it is close to impossible to put the opinion in it's proper perspective. For example, Fox News can be a reasonable source of news data, even if the content is frequently factually inaccurate and openly biased. BECAUSE everyone knows Fox New's reputation, the presentation can be put in it's proper perspective. OTOH, if a news consumer was somehow blinded to Fox's reputation, they would likely decrease their information by tuning in.
"As usual... it depends."
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Dolphin42 »

LuckyR:
4- As to subject matter with less concrete answers, in Wikipedia the opinion (which is what I am choosing to label less simplistically factual information, you are free to choose a different label) like any other source, is subject to the author's bias. But unlike other sources, the Wikipedia editor is de facto anonymous, so it is close to impossible to put the opinion in it's proper perspective. For example, Fox News can be a reasonable source of news data, even if the content is frequently factually inaccurate and openly biased. BECAUSE everyone knows Fox New's reputation, the presentation can be put in it's proper perspective. OTOH, if a news consumer was somehow blinded to Fox's reputation, they would likely decrease their information by tuning in.
Actually I think that's a good point. One of the benefits of "proper" journalism over what is sometimes called citizen journalism is that it has a byline. Journalists are accountable for their words and, in theory, are trained to try to assess the veracity of their stories by doing things like cross-checking sources. And, as you've said, the known editorial bias of a particular news source is (to put it in statistical terms) a kind of "systematic error" that can be factored out.

In that context, it'll be interesting to see how this new initiative by Wikipedia to fight fake news is going to try to work.
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Daviddunn »

Informative post Dolphin42. I would have missed that information if you had not started this thread.
Dolphin42 wrote:Given that it's only 2 pages out of millions, would it be more realistic of Wikipedia to comply with the demand and remove access to a tiny amount of information in order to grant access to a much larger amount?
Reading that passage of the OP, I got to think of something on similar lines of reasoning that I thought that I would share it with you, given that our exchanges had been fruitful in the past.

The thought concerned atheists and those who deny the existence and Oneness of God, the Almighty. To these people, God, the Almighty has promised eternity of excruciating pain in an intensely hot place called Hell. So the thought is this:

Given that this life is only on average about 70 years long (for men and some few more years for women), while eternity, well, is everlasting; would it be more realistic for humans to comply with the commands of God, the Almighty and start doing what He prescribes and staying away from what He forbids them? A few tens of years is tiny compared to eternity; would it be more reasonable to comply with the orders of the One Who is Almighty?

I think that we should. And similarly, I think Wikipedia, if it is the pursuit of spreading knowledge its main aim, it would remove the false information that it has had against the country of the Sultan ,i.e. Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Should this matter of principle be defended even if, on a practical level, it deprives a lot of Turkish people of a lot of valuable independent information?
If Wikipedia cannot be accessed in Turkey, I think it would not be a great lost for the Turkish people! As LuckyR said: “No one with an ounce of sense takes Wikipedia “facts” as absolutely factual.” There is some truth in that specific comment of LuckyR, and I think it applies to much of Western media outlet as well.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the common people. So for you and me, it might have some practical value, but Turkey is faring quite good intellectually, economically, militarily, and politically at the moment, so Wikipedia will not be a great loss to them!
_____________
Felix wrote:That is Erdogan's goal: to deprive the population access to unbiased information. He wants to circumscribe foreign news services just as he has curtailed the freedom of the press in his own country. How could it possibly be a good thing for Wikipedia to accede to that?
No, that is not Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan's (the Sultan) goal. In order to understand the Sultan’s goal, we must not appeal to western media. Before, the Sultan rose to power in Turkey, the Turkish government was run by a bunch of secularists (i.e. atheists) who had in horror anything religious. For example, back then the Muslims were not allowed to pray in public in an overwhelmingly majority Muslim country; while in Europe, i.e. non-Muslim countries, Muslims were and are allowed to pray in public! Also, at that time Turkish women were not allowed to wear headscarf in public, even if they so desired to do so. The result was that since it was a majority Muslim country, girls and women did not go to school or work so that they would not compromise their religion or they wore a wig over their headscarf.

The situation of Turkey back then was in a total mess; economically, sanitarily, religiously and the health care system, all were in a bad shape. When the Sultan slowly ascended to power in the beginning of this century, the situation began to change. He started little by little to apply the principles of Islam to the country to reform it. Islamic essential principles such as justice, charity, and cleanliness among others were slowly but surely coming back to the country. Turkey’s population is by 97% composed of Muslims, so it is normal that Islamic principles be governing these Muslims, with the rights of minorities being respected as was the norm in Muslim societies since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I do not think it wise, for example, to order the Pope to rule the Vatican by other than Christian principles or to order Christian nuns to uncover their heads and dress immodestly. This cannot be done and it would be wrong to do that. So too in an overwhelmingly majority Muslim country, Islamic principles should be governing the people if they so desire.

In any case, the Sultan was recently given another mandate by his people to pursue his reforms and it all went according to the democratic process, which is so much valued in the west. So, there is nothing to complain about here! The Sultan is loved by the overwhelming majority of his people, and that is quite understandable given the mess that he got his country out. And to be honest with you, I love him too, even though I am not Turkish! :)
Felix wrote:He wants to circumscribe foreign news services just as he has curtailed the freedom of the press in his own country.
Foreign news!! Come-on! Most of that is propaganda, not news. You being here leads one to reasonably imply that you like to think and reason! I believe you can see beyond these futile schemes of western media. They are like these atheists, who always try a way to sell their evolutionary nonsense and on the lookout for an opportunity to mock the Words of their Creator, The Most Merciful. Let them lookout, something is coming their way which they cannot miss! :lol:

Concerning the domestic crackdown measures that the Sultan took, I think it is completely legitimate and even necessary, and it would have been irresponsible of him if he had not taken them. For example consider the laws that is now in force in the US and many Western countries, concerning someone suspected of terrorism. These are extreme measures too which have and are continuing to receive the endorsement of these Governments and are being used at present. So, the Western media should concern itself with these tough measures too, if it is to restore its credibility status among intelligent people.
Another example, consider the freedom of conscience and expression. Did you know that in Europe there are certain opinions that you cannot have and express? For example, in many European countries one cannot hold and express views about the Nazi regime and its actions in Germany which goes against the mainstream views on the subject. Going against the mainstream view result in a criminal offense, and one can be jailed for expressing one's opinion on the subject. There are many other examples like this where freedom is curtailed in the West but no one talks about it. Wonder why! But attention is diverted to remote lands like peace seeking and respectful Turkey and its leader, the Sultan.

_____________________
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Dolphin42 »

Hi again Daviddunn. Long time no talk.
Reading that passage of the OP, I got to think of something on similar lines of reasoning that I thought that I would share it with you, given that our exchanges had been fruitful in the past...
In those first 3 paragraphs you draw a parallel between the Wikipedia situation and one of the central points of Pascal's wager. i.e. both could be argued to involve a relatively small present cost for a relatively large future gain.

I guess the first difference that springs to mind is this: the infinite future gain that you talk about (in the form of avoiding infinite future pain) is not actually promised by God is it? It's promised by human beings claiming to speak on behalf of God, such as yourself and the people who wrote any texts that you might be quoting from.

Anyway, this is an old, old discussion about Pascal's wager that has been had many times in these parts so I won't take it any further here.

Switching back to the Wikipedia issue, you say:
...I think Wikipedia, if it is the pursuit of spreading knowledge its main aim, it would remove the false information that it has had against the country of the Sultan ,i.e. Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
I presume the writer of the Wikipedia article would argue that it is not false information, but true information that the Turkish government doesn't like. I guess we'd have to pick over the article in detail to argue further about that.

After that you make the assertion that most of the content of "western media" is propaganda, not news. Again, we'd have to clarify which publications and stories you're referring to.
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Daviddunn »

[Deleted. Off topic. If you wish to discuss evolution then do so on one of the existing topics or start a new one if it introduces something new on the issue. Preaching not allowed]
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Dolphin42 »

@Daviddunn

It is a great, great pity that your entire post has been deleted. I skim read it earlier today while at work and was going to reply. I had hoped that since I started this topic I would be able to use it to diverge from the original subject if I wanted to. Apparently not.

If you still have a copy of it somewhere please re-post it under a subject line that the moderators might consider more appropriate. I know from reading this and many of your previous posts that some people would consider a lot of what you say to be "preaching" and that is against the letter of the forum rules. But I would beg people here to have at least some respect for the principle of freedom of speech. If we don't like preaching then we should argue against it, not censor it.

-- Updated May 17th, 2017, 7:06 pm to add the following --

I just want to re-iterate: when I came back to this topic and saw that an entire post, which evidently took a lot of work to write, had simply been deleted it made my opinion of this website plummet. I disagreed with a very large amount of what was in that post and now I have been robbed of my chance to say so. If this kind of thing really is the policy of this website then I don't think I want anything more to do with it.

-- Updated May 17th, 2017, 7:13 pm to add the following --

Daviddunn: If you are reading this and wish to communicate with me in an uncensored forum where we are free to discuss what we wish and you are free to try to convert me to Islam if you wish (and I'm free to tell you why, realistically, I don't think you'll have much luck), I suggest you join this forum again under a different name, PM me and then I will PM you my email address. Or you can suggest another public forum. I won't be posting on this one any more.

-- Updated May 17th, 2017, 10:25 pm to add the following --

Daviddunn: One more thing. I'm told you've now been banned so I can't send you a private message. If you see this before it gets censored: you can contact me by email at [email protected] if you want to continue our discussion without fear of censorship. If I don't hear from, good luck and goodbye.
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: Wikipedia's moral dilema in Turkey

Post by Daviddunn »

@Dolphin42
Relax my friend. Everything is fine. :D
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021