Wikipedia already doesn't allow that, so your question is pointless.

for the same reason they don't give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.

both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons

You're moving goalposts, but ok.

My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying

my goalpost did not move at all.

you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned

you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?

@wordmark @Valmond @FreedomAdvocate I agree that the mechanisms of Wikipedia to discuss, to argue and to find truth are not good. In the end it's an old website that hasn't changed much. The biggest innovation was WikiData, which isn't used as much as it should be in the Wikipedia.
So what we need is a system that works differently, but as centrally and openly as Wikipedia. We don't need another instance, where just a different group of people writes the texts.

The one Thing that Wikipedia absolutly needs is: much more contributors. The second most needed Thing is even more contributors.

100% this. They don’t want educated people. And the news/media that does exist they want to control.

Eugenics, segregation, Ford's assembly-line technique, and manifest destiny.

"youghurs"

I think they are trying to go back to before they were grown up and had to deal with adult issues. They idolize their innocent childhood and some how associated that as the time when America was great. They find it really confusing that the child's perspective of that time window was flawed. They also find it confusing that different age conservatives all imagine a different time window for when life was good.