Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship was started on August 20, 2005 to coordinate efforts to oppose censorship on Wikipedia. It was started as a response to WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency which aimed to remove images and text on Wikipedia which its members considered "indecent". This WikiProject addresses censorship of materials which some may deem indecent or offensive, but which are nonetheless encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia. It also addresses political and religious censorship.

Anyone who is interested in contributing, please sign up on the members page and post any ideas or suggestions on the Talk page. Also, feel free to edit this page and add any articles that need attention to the sections below.

Important note about scope: This project is not for your userboxes, categories and whatever other social-networkingcruft that people want kept. Posting notices about how your social-networkingcruft is being censored by evil old-timers at the project is more likley to get said evil oldtimers to notice and assist in your deletion. If you want to vote-stack for your userboxes, categories or whatever else you are here for, go find a new project.

Contents

[edit] Members

The membership list has been moved to its own page. Please sign up there if you are interested in contributing to this project. Feel free to add the freespeech template, {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}, to your user page once you have become a member:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.


[edit] Notice board

This notice board is intended to inform project members of current Wikipedia events related to censorship. Please list articles in need of attention, votes for deletion, votes for policy change, or other current and ongoing events which warrant the attention of the member base of this WikiProject. Once votes are closed or the event is no longer current, please move notices to the notice board archive.

Note: Personal attacks are not allowed on this notice board. Any notices not conforming to Wikipedia policies may be edited or removed. Discussions should be held on the relevant talk pages, not on the notice board.

[edit] 6 December 2006

[edit] Fair Use images pollcy

The Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 which states "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." This is un-fair and should be changed we need to take this to the attention of wikipedia staff to change the pollcy. I shall also bring this to the attention of WP:AMA Thank You, Cocoaguy (Talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck? It's against the law to use fair use images in a non-fair use way, which use on user pages most certainly is not. -Amarkov blahedits 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use law being "unfair" has nothing to do with censorship I'm afraid. This whole section should probably be deleted unless someone has a complelling example of actual censorship happening. Kaldari 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 December 2006

I'm not sure if this applies here, because it's not about an article, so tell me if I'm in the wrong place.
At the reference desk there is a very heated discussion going on regarding the growing problem of people deleting other people's posts. The central problem here (imo) is that the huge number of edits on the ref desks (close to 1000 per day - yes, that's one thousand) makes it impossible to keep track of deletions, so deletionism should be kept on a very short leash (unless there were a better way to keep track of alterations to existing posts). A major issue is if the ref desk should be treated as an article or a talk page, but there seems to be some concensus that it is Wikipedia's general talk page. Be warned, the discussions are extremely lengthy. A first one at the present unarchived talk page is Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Unilateral censorship, after which several others followed (see also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Funny answers), but after Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk the discussions really took off. DirkvdM 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 November 2006

There is a vote at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#The_table_of_contents regarding recent rearrangements to the article, which have pushed all non-critical views to a misnomered final section, while attempting to make it appear as if the first two sections are actually balanced. I only found your Wikiproject yesterday, but I am terribly outnumbered by pro-Israel editors, even an admin, who are eager to change and remove facts to begin with. Once the balance is tipped should they win this vote, they will only grow more emboldened. Please help. -- Kendrick7talk 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As expected, the usual suspects have arrived and are voting for the other side. I know the old saying there is no cabal, but this group seems to be the exception. Another user, User:Hossein.ir, has recently complained to me of similar flocking behavior on Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, where a section was repeated deleted until this group got their way. He came to me as if I could do anything, and I'm not sure what to do anymore. If I'm not just shouting into the void, I am open to suggestions from more experienced wikipedians. -- Kendrick7talk 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You could stop using this as a place to get more people on your side in a content dispute? Because no matter how you cast it, I have seen that page, and it is a pure content dispute. Isn't there a warning somewhere that frivolous complaints that evil old-timers are censoring you will lead to more evil old-timers coming against you? -Amarkov blahedits 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but I have accomplished no such thing, as far as I know. I guess I am just not as clever as everyone else here, and all the devious souls who have come before me daring to ask for help at this forum. I've grown tired of daily defending that article, on a subject I could at this point care less about, against repeated deletions of information. By all means, sit back in your rocking chairs and watch as the article is slowly destroyed. I seem to have confused you all with someones else. -- Kendrick7talk 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You did. Sorry, but this isn't the article dispute noticeboard. The title is "Wikipedians against censorship", not "Wikipedians against what you view as bad reasoning in a content dispute". -Amarkov blahedits 05:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 November 2006

Categories for users born in years that would imply they are under 13 are being discussed at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, following deletion because of incompatibility with Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6. Amarkov babble 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30 October 2006

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family members appearing in adult movies where the reason proposed for discussion was a value judgement (essentially a request for censorship) rather than a matter of Wikipedia policy. I've cited the relevant part of WP:NOT. Barno 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 October 2006

Following the deletion of User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery in this AFD, several other userspace galleries containing pictures with nudity etc. have been nominated for deletion. It has been suggested that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery should be included in this deletion also.

[edit] 10 October 2006

A consoring proposal to move blue balls to vasocongestion which is less offensive and less accurate. Davodd 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A proposal has been made that all children should be prohibited from editing because Wikipedia is not censored.

[edit] 24 September 2006

The articles Iskcon, A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada (founder of said group), as well as related articles are being censored on a regular basis by Hare Krishna devotees. This includes removing links and information they deem unacceptable. Sfacets 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 22 September 2006

The proposed policies at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy have impications for censorship, with one proposal advocating blocking children who do not agree to be censored.

[edit] 17 August 2006

Do members know about the attempt by a former employee of Wired Magazine to censor information regarding the company's use of the Zippies to pump the magazine's hotwired news service? The whole thing seems to have turned into a revert edit war, with this person Ethnopunk 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any censorship here, this looks like someone with an obsession for an old Wired story in a revert war with someone equally set in their way. An admin will probably pick this up. Lomedae talk 09:30, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

It's not merely an "Old Wired Story", it's about marketing and the history of online media. Wired used the Zippies to market a host of online services, including various bots. The reason the story is being censored, is that nobody got paid even though this went past fairness to outright abuse of a public movement of techno-kids touted by New Times and other papersEthnopunk 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 2 August 2006

A user [1] is conducting a survey on his talkpage to "understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles. .... Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source? Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses here." [2]

I see this as a badly veiled attempt at censorship. By censoring Koenraad Elst from the Ayodhya related articles, one of the most important authorities on the Hindu side of the Ayodhya debate would be effectively silenced. The whole conducting of such a "survey" on wikipedia is just a replaying of the old Galileo affair, IMO it reeks of censorship, hate-mongering and attempted character assasination. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link [3] of a chapter by Elst to see a similar example. Or this link [4]. The use or non-use of a source or quote must be decided case by case, and according to WP:NPOV both sides of a debate can be quoted, not only the Muslim/Marxist side. This however is just an attempt to censor the Hindu side of the debate. --Soparnos 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 June 2006

I thought that everybody here would like to know that the Category: Wikipedians by politics and all its subcategories are proposed for outright deletion. I believe this is a major form of censorship of members' beliefs and may also be a dangerous precedent for the deletion of other categories, including the very category of Wikipedians Against Censorship!

So, I think this major notion which is currently under debate is worth our attention and I strongly recommend that everybody read the on going discussion and voting on the issue, form their own opinion, and make their voice heard before it is too late! Tal :) 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. This is not the appropriate venue for this. This project is about censorship in articles, not about people's crusades to keep their userpages and social networks
  2. Your notice is non-neutral, which is at the very least questionable, and possibly a blockable offence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For my response to the above accusation see the talk page. Tal :) 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 May 2006

All the people who have signed up to the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members between April 1st and May 22 have been removed. Josie dethiers 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Now fixed. Loom91 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19 May 2006

Please sign this page if you are against censorship of userboxes on Wikipedia. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fredil_Yupigo/CAUBXD. Help us fight abusive admins trying to silence us. --GorillazFan Adam 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 May 2006

  • I am concerned that editors on Juan Cole are resorting to censorship. Please see talk page of that article. elizmr 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 April 2006

[edit] 4 April 2006

  • Wikipedia:Profanity has been modified to include Sam Korn's justification for deleting the Lolicon image. Kaldari 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia_talk:Censorship. As the original, better policy did not manage to find consensus I revised it to accomodate some forms of censorship and the revised version is now open for voting. Please make your opinions heard there. Thank you! Loom91 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Korn. Request for comment after an image that was kept in an IfD debate was unilaterally deleted for being "gratuitously offensive", despite there being two active on-wiki discussions about it (talk:Lolicon and user talk:Jimbo Wales). Thryduulf 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 April 2006

  • The Game, an article about a well-known topic, is up for restoration. It would be good if this article was uncensored. Sasha Slutsker 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This does not appear to be a example of censorship, but a debate about notability and encyclopedic merit. Kaldari 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 March 2006

  • Straw poll at Talk:Lolicon regarding linking a drawing vs. displaying it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since no one is proposing censoring Wikipedia, this entry seems inappropriate here. I see one editor has voted who has never posted to the talk page. I presume he come over because of this call for votes. -Will Beback 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This project was formed as a side effect of Autofelatio. Readers of this project are well aware of our policy with respect to linkimage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

****For anyone involved in the lolicon article image fresco: The disputed image on the article was deleted on the sole decision of a single adminstrator. This issue is currently in WP:RFC for the adminstrator's action right now, which can be found [here] Never mind, matter is over. The authority figure has already spoken. --Jqiz 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 March 2006

Also note that that user has been banned: WP:LOBU. 68.39.174.238

[edit] 18 March 2006

[edit] 14 March 2006

  • Controversy in Talk:Justin Berry has largely subsided. Reverts of attempts to rebuild the article have ceased, and edits to the new version have mainly focused on better sourcing. HolokittyNX 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Part of the controversy was over the temporary (now indefinite) banning of User:Rookiee, author of the original article, for comments on Talk:Justin Berry which did not violate policy.
(Link to admin notice board discussion)
Upon review of User Talk:Neutrality, it also appears that Neutrality has not responded to admin Theresa Knott's email of 11th March concerning this block, despite having time to make 76 Wiki edits since 11th March.
HolokittyNX 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The block of user Rookiee hs been lifted by admin User:Zscout370 (see block log). HolokittyNX 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 March 2006

  • Justin Berry article is in an edit-war over how much sensitive information to include about a living person. (original notice is still availabe on talk) ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given by admin for the removal of the original article was a complaint by Mr. Berry, apparently concerning the sexual orientation of the article's author. HolokittyNX 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given was "I'd like to see this article totally rewritten by uninvolved wikipedians." Metta Bubble puff 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the above implies that TheresaKnott was responsible for the deletion of the original article or subsequent WP:OFFICE actions. She was not. I was trying to avoid pointing fingers at an individual, but I guess I should clarify the situation. The original article was deleted by Jimbo Wales, and the above quote by Metta Bubble is his stated reason. HolokittyNX 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 05 March 2006

[edit] Open tasks

[edit] Defend policies against modifications that encourage censorship

Current policies:

[edit] Educate those who want to censor Wikipedia

Many new Wikipedia users are unaware of the policies and guidelines concerning what types of content are appropropriate for Wikipedia. Before engaging in lengthy debate with users who are attempting to censor content, it is always a good idea to first point them in the direction of the appropriate policies. Some users, however, may object to these policies. Here are some common objections, and appropriate responses:

Statement: Wikipedia must be censored to conform to laws against obscenity; in particular, laws of the United States, or of the state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers reside.

Responses:

  • In the United States, obscenity is defined under the Miller test, which states that a work cannot be considered obscene if, taken as a whole, it has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Since Wikipedia has literary, artistic, political, and scientific value it would be very difficult to charge it with obscenity, no matter how graphic a particular piece of it was. According to Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia could display full-blown pornography on the main page 24/7 and still not be in violation of U.S. obscenity laws. As far as state and local laws in the U.S. are concerned, if they do not conform to the Miller test, they are unconstitutional. The oft-quoted Florida Obscenity Law has the Miller test explicitly written into it in order to avoid being overturned as unconstitutional.

Statement: If Wikipedia is not censored, then schoolchildren will be forbidden from using it in research, for instance by school policies, or by censorware programs blocking the site because of "pornographic" or "adult" (i.e. sexual) content.

Responses:

  • There have been no documented cases of school policies forbidding the use of Wikipedia because of sexual content.
  • There have been no documented cases of censorware programs used by schools blocking the entire site, as opposed to merely blocking specific articles or images.
  • Censorware programs do not target only sexual content, but also (e.g.) "cult", "extremist", and "violence" content. They also target not only images, but also words and textual content. A desire to avoid being blocked by censorware would exclude Wikipedia from covering new religious movements; terrorist organizations and extremist political movements; wars, weapons, and incidents of violent crime such as mass murders; and other topics of encyclopedic importance.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship_8a2d.html"