Talk:Censorship in Venezuela

Mark Weisbrot

Mark Weisbrot mostly writes op-ed and is mainly just a commentator. He does not provide much reliable data to the censorship article since it is mainly opinionated.--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reporters without borders

Reporters without borders is not an impartial source. They are in effect a propaganda tool for the US foreign policy agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.200.56 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems

• "In 2014, Reporters Without Borders added Venezuela back to its list of internet censorship after "several websites and social networks" were shut down."

The source seems not to be good. I checked the official Reporters Without Borders website and Venezuela is not in Reporters Without Border's "Internet Censorship" or "surveillance" list. Unreliable source of some random article with like 4 paragraphs. Please use a source from Reporters Without Borders if this is true. Otherwise this information appears to be false and should be removed.

• This happened after President Maduro threatened Táchira that he would "go all in" and that citizens "would be surprised".

Please find a better source for this, or remove it otherwise, because it appears to be either false or misquoted, and the source is not reliable, it is some random opinion blog on a site called "VICE". The other source for the sentence does not mention that Maduro made such comments. The source does not even directly state that Maduro said that but rather he is only relaying what someone else told him in that article: "-We know it was a government mandate because last night, President Maduro gave a speech (a mandatory broadcast in all radio and TV stations) where he (amongst many other things) threatened Tachira, saying he would 'go all in' and that we 'would be surprised' of what he would do, and then internet was cut and tanks went in,- Díaz told me over email."

• According to Spanish newspaper El País, National Telecommunications Commission of Venezuela (Conatel) warned Internet service providers in Venezuela that they, "must comply without delay with orders to block websites with content contrary to the interests of the Government" in order to prevent "destabilization and unrest". It was also reported by El País that there will be possible automations of DirecTV, CANTV, Movistar and possible regulation of YouTube and Twitter.

This is an absolute joke and ultra-biased, and simply consists of the opinion of whoever wrote that article in the biased El Pais, which is just one of thousands of sources. If the opinion pieces on Guardian (which is far more well known than El Pais) are not allowed here then some random piece from El Pais which clearly expresses opinions and not objective facts should not be allowed here.

Zozs (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Provide the link from RWB countering the alleged addition of Venezuela to the list of internet censorship.

• Vice is according to its article an "international magazine focused on arts, culture, and news topics". The Motherboard page that the source is on is part of the Vice Network which provides news. Vice has plenty of on the ground coverage of some of the protests such as this showing lines for shopping, protests, government supporters and is just the 6th video they made in Venezuela.

• El Pais is a reliable source no matter what your opinion is about it. No matter how funny of a joke it is for you, it is a source that has been trusted by many users for quite awhile now. To simply say that because The Guardian is more well known is not a valid reason. That's like saying because most people know that the Sun is a star, other stars are irrelevant. Plus, what was added was from The Guardian was from an op-ed journalist who has been criticized for sympathizing with the Venezuelan government.

I am glad you are able to provide more information from a different POV than others, but just remember to keep your personal opinion out of the work on articles. You accused me of doing this before when I have been only placing things from reliable sources since I have learnt my lesson.

Best regards, --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is Reporters Without Borders' Internet censorship list. As you can see, Venezuela is not listed in none of the "Surveillance", "Censorship", "Imprisonment" or "Disinformation" categories. Reporters Without Borders does not need to release a statement specifically countering that source so that false information from unreliable sources is removed on Wikipedia, that would be very silly.

• This looks like such dogmatism to the rules only in order to protect what appears to be false, but even so I really doubt that particular article is considered "reliable". If Maduro really made that statement, then why are there no more sources? Even if Maduro said that, it seems to be grossly misquoted and intentionally misinterpreted, and even if so it does not mean it would have a correlation to the unavailability of Internet access.

• Let's remember WP:RS, which says that reliability of a source depends on three things: the creator of the work, the publisher of the work, and the piece of work itself. Even if El Pais is considered a reliable source (which it is not and never will be, it is very biased), that particular article may be considered as not a reliable source, as it is clearly talking not about objective facts but about opinions. It states that the government is shutting down any web site which disagrees with its opinion. This is obviously speculation, bias, opinions, anything but objective facts and analysis. This is false because neither the media law allows the government to do that nor the government has ever done that. Another thing the Wikipedia page on reliable sources says is: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." and If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. It is not clear that the El Pais statement is just cited as an opinion: Even though it says that it is "According to El Pais", it implies that it is based on the logical consequences of an analysis of the law and not an opinion.

I have a personal opinion but I think my edits are not biased in any way, rather they fight bias, removing obviously false information which happens to have just one source which seems pretty unreliable to me has nothing to do with a bias. Zozs (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's better. Anyone can call something biased, speculation, et cetera. Let users decide here on the talk page what seems biased and such. That does not mean after one user claims it is biased that it can be removed, but rather after multiple users have had an input on the topic. I also want to apologize about the RWB list as I misread the El Universal article but it is now fixed with the correct statement that was made that had nothing to do with a list.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So do you have a response to my most recent points yet? Nobody else seems to input and false information seems to currently be in the article. Zozs (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very concerned at the highly asymmetric framing that Zozs applies to all content; if a reliable independent source says something critical of the Venezuelan government it gets framed with "allegedly" or "according to...", but anything that makes the Venezuelan government look better is presented at face value. Why is this? bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing your editing history I could easily call you a right-wing propagandist who also enforces censorship and information distortion. However, I will rather interpret you as someone who tries to improve Wikipedia and simply makes mistaken edits sometimes. I have no aim but to attempt to make the articles about topics I am involved in more neutral. Regards, and try to cooperate instead of accusing people. Zozs (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)