> If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble.

Not really though.

They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list.

> "These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking"

The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER

> 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. > 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved.

According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists.

---

again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...

https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controver...

If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up.

Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some.

I see

> Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable.

which seems to me against link censorship.

your friend should stop seeing "girlfriends".

Yeah for example 8chan and kiwifarms are usually censored. I'm not that mad about it, some censorship is always necessary (you don't want links to child porn), but it's weird that Wikipedia pretends there is no censorship. And it's kind of arbitrary.

Why is stormfront - an openly nazi forum (a really old one at that) - allowed, but kiwifarms - an anti-trans doxxing forum - isn't? It's both bad

Everyone steals in Vietnam.

Every time the communists change positions in the politburo, the new communist in charge arrests the previous one for corruption. And so it goes.

(Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the one who was hailed for zero covid previously, was later arrested for... stealing covid funds. Oh wow, who knew)

There is 0 trust between actual people for the party. People just shut up because the economy is doing fine and people have jobs.