Wikipedia may be the world's largest reference source based on user submissions, but what rarely gets talked about is how many entries get deleted from the site. Editors often delete entries for a host of reasons - including copyright violations, pages with serious libel problems, and pages which set out to offend others. This may not be a surprise, except that they also delete entries for "being uninteresting" or if they're deemed "the result of manipulation by political and business interests".These are obviously criteria that are severely open to interpretation, so as a result, a new website called Deletionpedia was created to host all of the deleted Wikipedia articles. That way we don't miss out on gems like "List of Films with Monkeys in Them" But on a serious note, what's become a real point of contention is the actual Wikipedia article describing Deletionpedia . Some editors are trying to remove it, sparking a raging discussion on whether that's a wise move. As Cyndy Aleo-Carreira observes, "it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance... as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself."This opens a pandora's box of questions. Have the editors at Wikipedia taken on a censorship role? If so, how does that conflict with the website's characterization of being user-driven? To what extent does this case illustrate the ongoing inclusion vs. exclusion debate in cyberspace?Most people are completely unaware that Wikipedia even deletes entries at all, let alone that it's now. What we really ought to be asking is who exactly are these censoring editors and how did they obtain their positions of power over the rest of us?