The Mass Media, The Government, Wikipedia and other institutions are withholding information from the public about preventing violence or presenting it in a way that will not be effective.
The Mass Media and the government are the worst perpetrators of censorship but I am focusing mainly on Wikipedia on this page because they may be easier in the short term to influence and they are in a good position to set a good example for the government and the media.
My objective isn't to discredit Wikipedia but to point out flaws so that they can be fixed. Wikipedia is a new institution edited by the public so it is a work in progress and there is good reason to believe that these problems can be fixed if they are addressed before they become institutionalized.
The only reputation I can ruin is my own and I don't expect you to take my word for this without confirmation. My recommendation is that you try editing Wikipedia on a subject of your choice and develop your own opinion.
Wikipedia does have problems with censorship but it is also worth noting that they are doing a lot to get a lot of information to the public that other institutions aren't.
This doesn't mean we should look the other way when they are part of the problem though. The most powerful institutions should be held to the highest standards.
If Wikipedia addresses these problems they can be a major part of the solution rather than part of the problem but first they have to get over internal bickering and set up rules that prevent special interests from anonymously disrupting solutions.
There should be preferential treatment for scholars that have studied the problem over political points of view. In many sections of Wikipedia they already have that where there is little or no political opposition but unfortunately that isn't the case on the sections that address violence. In some cases they are allowing gun rights advocates to present their point of view and censoring points of view based on work from qualified academics. If anything it should be the other way around although I don't think that is the way to go either. They should present both points of view fairly. There should be more input from researchers who have looked into the subject and it should be linked up to the related articles so that if anyone wants to find out about prevention they can find it easily when looking at an article about a specific incident like Columbine.
I have Googled Wikipedia censorship and found that there are many other people who also believe that Wikipedia has problems with censorship although I'm not sure I agree with all their motives and reasons. In some cases they probably have legitimate complaints but in others the people complaining may be worse than Wikipedia in my opinion. Discretion is advised even with my concerns.
The strongest evidence for censorship or lack of censorship on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the subject of violence prevention is the quality of their work. If they did the best job possible that implies there is little or no censorship but if you look at the work of some of the most qualified experts and find that they did a much better job than Wikipedia and that there is an effort to minimize improvements this implies either censorship, incompetence or some other problem. Check the work and find out for yourself.
To read more about this see the following page:
https://zakherys.tripod.com/wikipedia_censorship.htm
