Today, my team visited Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia" and added www.MyCommunityLink.com to the known list of web-based social networking services. Afterall, MyCommunityLink.com is the patent-pending SSL-secure social networking service for neighborhoods since June of 2003 (pre Facebook, MySpace, Ning, etc.).

However, within moments, our entry was tagged for "speedy deletion". So, out of curiosity it was added it again and again by our team over a day... We witnessed each time it was added it was immediately tagged for "speedy deletion" by an anonymous "Wikipedia administrator" hiding in a dark censorship "backroom." After about ten deletes we received a threatening message about expected "Wikipedia civil behavior." I have these questions:

1) Has anyone encountered oxymoronic censorship tied to FREE "information?"
2) Does vested-interest exclusion of information discredit their "encyclopedia" claims?
3) Does providing a FREE service entitle the provider to "do whatever they want?"
4) Would you pay a small fee for complete information that has not been censored in any way?

Personally, I think this brute-level censorship is gutless, disturbing and red flags what the "powerful will dictate" once all competition is eliminated by their "FREE" offerings. What are your thoughts? I don't like "anonymous" censorship. I think it's dangerous. Please comment.

This question is no longer available

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...MyCommunityLink

That is the deletion history.

And don't show a deleted edit. Even suggesting that they might was enough to get a certain someone de-sysopped.

Whilst hypocritically Wikitruth isn't considered to be a BADSITE, even though it has deleted edits as the whole point of the site.

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/...h_TCH*4ITS*4ISC



?

Although this helps:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/080547.html