the is a mediat system in wikipedia - have you used it?

No Wikipedia article is ever finished, all writing submitted is subject to "merciless editing". That's how it has managed to be as successful as it is.

The article has been edited because someone thought the comments were un-encyclopedic and too "point-of-view".

A note was added to the talk page explaining the reasoning behind the edits.

You disagree with the actions, but instead of working with other Wikipedians to improve the article you rush over to Indymedia shouting "Censorship".

Sorry, no. This is trivial even in terms of WP conflicts and should be dealt with on that site. There are plenty adequate mechanisms there for dealing with disagreements.

'Merciless editing' is one thing, Censorship another.

What took place on Indymedia was censorship becuase someone called Watson did not like the content.

He removed it even though he lacks local knowledge.

There were pictures, there was references, but this was not good enough for Watson.

What was there was a fair and accurate portrayal of Aldershot.

It may offend some people's sensibilities, but that is Aldershot for you.

This sordid little episode has done nothing for the credibilty of Wikipedia.

How many other pages has Big Brother censored, because the content is not liked?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aldershot

Highly amusing is the comment by Watson (the pesron who vandalised the Aldershot page) ...

'As you should be aware, all editors are free to be bold in making changes to articles. Specialist knowledge of a subject is not essential, though obviously beneficial'

One would hope that all those contributing to a page have expert knowldge, otherwise the page content is worthless, but to Watkisn, this is not important!

Ignorance is bliss!!!!

Watkins lives nowhere near Aldershot

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DWaterson

but thought he knew best.

He did not like the page content, threw a childish tantrum, and vandalised it.

The page has been restored to something as it was, once again Waterson vandalises it.

Accuracy or fairness does not seem to matter.

As a result, people are no longer getting a true picture of Aldershot.

Wikipedia can have no crediblity if morons are allowed to vandalise a page for no other reason than it offends their sensibilities.

Big Brother knows best!

Somewhat ironic, the lastest issue of the Surrey Hants Star (Thurs 11 May 2006), the local newspaper for Aldershot, has a letter entitled 'Aldershot is a dump' describing how bad Aldershot is, people fear to go out on the streets, abusive yobs, racial abuse etc etc.

What eveyone who either knows or lives in Aldershot knows to be the truth.

What was on the Wikiepedia page on Aldershot, was a fair and accurate description of Aldershot, that is until the page was vandalised by Waterspoon who decided to strip out everything he did not like.

It is people like Wankerspoon who are giving Wikipedia a bad name.

He should be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia.