I’m surprised that the general consensus on this topic is that free speech unequivocally overrides moral values. It’s easy to judge a moral that we don’t share, but how would Slashdotters feel about this situation if it were a stigma shared by the majority?

Consider a Western stigma such as cannibalism. What if someone created a Facebook page promoting cannibalism with a photoshopped image of a glutton eating President Obama? Should that be removed from Facebook? I think we would agree the page falls under free speech, however it could be seen as a threat against the President and get censored anyway.

What if someone created a Facebook promoting sex with children and incest? What if they posted a photoshopped image of President Obama having sex with his daughter? Should it be removed? I expect some Slashdotters would defend this, since the assault on free speech addresses the symptom rather than the root cause. At least a subset of Americans would disagree however, and existing laws would censor the page.

What if a foreign internet group then decided they would spraypaint this image everywhere on American streets, just to prove how stupid and ignorant Americans are about their censorship?

When South Park addresses the topic it can help push social boundaries and invite constructive thinking. When Slashdot posts promote decorating Islamic neighborhoods with Mohammed it crosses the line from discourse to hate. If you really want to address the stigma, discuss your views with local imams rather than judging your neighbors based on a distant theocracy.

It's clear from your post that you're passionate about math, and with the name ObsessiveMathsFreak I dare say obsessed. It seems editing Wikipedia on any topic that we're passionate about is a recipe for disaster. No offense intended, but your experience and many other similar posts about fighting for your edit make you sound almost as rabid as the editors that refuse your change.

I've updated a few hundred articles over the years, usually minor changes in topics where I'm no expert. If, as others have mentioned, 25% of my edits have been reverted then I wouldn't give a damn. I've never gone back to check. If I made a good change then others will make similar edits someday and hopefully the article will improve over time.

Religion, politics, business criticism, censored history: I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for any topic that has a passionate following. I never would have guessed that exponential functions have a passionate following, but maybe it's best that experts refrain from updating articles in their area. After all, the articles will never be flawless or complete. Wikipedia is just a great starting point to satisfy curiosity.

Comparing Red Dwarf to Monty Python, HHGG or The Office is an insult to Red Dwarf. The Office is best watched on a weekday evening after a hard day of work. Monty Python is great entertainment with friends on a Saturday afternoon. Red Dwarf is something entirely different.

Like many Americans I first encountered Red Dwarf on PBS late Saturday evenings. After seeing one episode (Demons & Angels) I was hooked. I was thrilled when Season 1 released on DVD and I watched it through that Saturday afternoon. However, it didn't seem to hold up over the years. I was watching a mediocre British comedy, and quite confused.

Eventually I realized that Red Dwarf needs to be enjoyed late at night. Like ATHF, it's bizarrely hysterical but only when in a certain mood. Red Dwarf is not meant to be analyzed for plot holes or comedic merit. It's meant to be watched in a dark room, late at night, and alone. Only then does it become a spectacle of incomprehensible British slang, something far greater than it was meant to be.

Red Dwarf is the only TV series I've purchased on DVD. I've seen the episodes so many times that I remember the audience's laughter. It's no exaggeration to say that it's the best show I've ever seen. But, I can understand that many consider it a mediocre sci-fi comedy. It needs to come with a warning label, "Only watch after 10:00 PM".