Wikipedia talk:Censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Poll 2 2.1 Support (Poll 2) 2.2 Oppose (Poll 2) 2.3 Discussion (Poll 2) 2.4 Concrete example of why this would be bad policy 2.5 Academic study on media and sex 2.6 Images 3 Since Someone Asked Me To Come Here 4 Why bother? 5 Wikipedia is voluntary 6 I'm Confused 7 Knowledge is power, those who have power should not abuse it 8 Offensiveness 9 Proposal for an alternative, universal POV 10 opinion 11 This proposal does not actually discuss censorship 12 recent example of censorship - lolicon 13 The village pump says something about a new policy 14 General Broad 15 Rejected? 16 What does non-censorship mean practically? 17 "It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - Jimmy Wales 18 Possible censorship problem 19 About voting on policy 20 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage 21 List of films to censor 22 Proposal for the re-wording of the policy

[edit] Archives

Text from the 2003 discussion about the movement of this to Meta

Lots of stuff needs archiving: /archive03-2006.

[edit] Poll 2

The policy has been revised and now it does not prohibit moving images further down the page or replacing them with links to the image page. Please vote on this new policy.

[edit] Discussion (Poll 2)

[edit] Concrete example of why this would be bad policy

The more I think about the proposed policy, the worse I realize it is. As good as the intention of opposing censorship is, if it were adopted, this proposed policy would simply lead to more spurious claims of censorship, and to more bureaucractic quagmire on WP.

One page that I am a primary maintainer on is Tattoo; and I believe it helps illustrate the harm that would come of this policy. This article is quite prone to linkspam: websites that are generally topical, but that amount to advertisement of commercial endeavors without adding encyclopedic content, such as tattoo magazines, tattoo parlors, etc. When removing those, the editors who added them (and usually have some relationship with the advertised site) tend to complain of censorship. To a small degree, a policy that could be read very selectively would promote flame wars over this spurious claim.

However, a more significant issue for that page is the similar frequent addition of too many images to the page. The article is not, and should not be, a gallery of every editor's favorite tattoo, nor of the tattoos editors and their friends happen to have. Again, sometimes the censorship claim when I remove these (or other maintainers do). However, among these added images, a particularly common theme is images of semi-naked women, who have incidental tattoos (small compared to the amount of skin shown). The problem with these images is one of conceptual focus: they illustrate the overall beauty or sexual desirability of the model, the tattoo that is somewhat germane to the article is not the primary content emphasized. In these cases, the reason for removing the image really is largely because they are pictures of nudity; that's how it should be: this article is not one on "human beauty" or "sexual allure" or "nudity" or the like. In a sense it's just like the fact that not every photo that has a car in it is necessarily relevant to the article automobile.

Proponents of this policy will certainly equivocate that certainly such removal is not prohibited by the policy; in practice we need to use context to judge inclusions; other editing guidelines allow removal; and so on. These proponents are not exactly wrong, the policy is not 100% simplistically "don't remove pictures of nudity because that would be censorship." But I can 100% guarantee that if the policy were adopted, I would encounter many arguments from editors who interpreted the policy in such a manner. And explaining why "removing a picture because it's a picture of nudity (rather than a picture of a tattoo, even though the nude has a tattoo)" requires far more hermeneutic subtlety than many editors will "get" in such edit disagreements. In the end, the policy just hands gasoline to people engaging in flamefests, while never having any possibility of meaningfully answering any specific edit disagreement.

Sure, it feels good to say "I'm against censorship"... but other than promoting the self-image of the policy proponents, absolutely nothing on WP would be made any better by having this as policy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

An excellent argument. This policy would likely be used to lend spurious weight to many very weak contentions. Sumahoy 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting choice of arguments Lulu. I still think Tattoo needs more pictures, and I still think the one I wanted to add would benefit the article, but I think you are absolutely right that passing a policy like this would make it very difficult to ever remove any picture of questionable merit ever again. Johntex\^talk 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think this an excellent example. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic study on media and sex

I'm not sure how a tenuous study suggesting that white kids who watch (perhaps seek out) more sexual media tend to be more sexual people is relevant to us whatsoever? I'm not even sure how this is a negative? --Oldak Quill 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The study is about the effect of sexual material in the media on the students. Wikipedia is part of the media and students are our natural readers. Similar studies show that unlimited sexual content harms mentality of young generation which is as unacceptable as physical harm. Unfortunately there are victims of sexual crimes in the society but the people who committed these kinds of crimes are also victims of mass media with unlimited sexual content. As part of the media, Wikipedia should be responsible and sensitive to the possibility of the materials in the articles being harmful to juveniles. This requires having some standards against unlimited sexuality and offense. 'No censorship' should not and cannot be interpreted as 'no editorial standards'. Resid Gulerdem 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Do you think wanting to have sex is a mental disorder or what? 24.224.153.40 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear 24.224.153.40, I can not see how you made that conclusion from what I said. I am saying that scientific studies show that unlimited sexual content harm mentality of people especially juveniles. Sexually highly stimulated people who are victims of the mass media are no good for a healthy society in many ways. As a part of the media, Wikipedia should be sensitive about the issue. Unlimited sexuality is actually bad for all from kids to adults, from illiterate to professors, as it numbs the brains and causes malfunctioning. People who are not able to think anything other that sexuality cannot be considered as healthy individuals. Permanent exposition to this kind of material force people in that direction. While being so sensitive on the physical harm, ignoring mental harm and the reasons for it is not understandable. Regarding your question: if one wants to have some private time with a partner upon mutual agreement, I do not know anybody who may disagree with it or am not aware of any wiki policy which may forbid from doing so :) Resid Gulerdem 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary says that the study found kids who are exposed to sexuality via the media are more likely to have sex in their mid-teens. Wanting to have sex in your mid-teens does not mean your brain is malfunctioning. Having sex in your mid-teens isn't bad.

And.. Wikipedia doesn't even glorify sex. We just explain it. If you think sexuality should be bowlderized from the media, you best start elsewhere. Kids are still going to see it, even if they can't learn about it from Wikipedia. 24.224.153.40 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Having (voluntarily) Sex in your mid teens (if you are able to) is not bad. Nature obviously made sure that you CAN have sex at that age. Mother Nature is never "doing" something without a reason. Having sex unprotected (disease) and careless (sex is for procreation after all) due to lag of sexual and social education is bad. This is true for any age, but especially for teens. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. JoshuaZ 13:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Correlation is one of the most important factor in qualitative reasoning in science that leads the researchers to causality. In the article the causality consideration is clear. Moreover correlation does not imly lack of causation either... Resid Gulerdem 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you list some of these studies that establish the "harm" caused by sexual content in media? Postdlf 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see below. Resid Gulerdem 03:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is well establised that WP is not censored for minors (there's even a userbox to that effect!) and so arguments about harm to children in seeing encyclopedic images are spurious. I am not denying that pornography or graphic violence etc. may cause mental distress to minors. However, we are not the guardians of the world's children and we are not going out of our way to harm children. We are creating an NPOV encyclopedia - this does not mean "no editorial standards" or "unlimited sexual content". If there are two images that equally well discribe the situation by all means chose the less offensive one. But if there is only one image or only one that is useful (but nevertheless offensive) it should be kept. I find the image of Phan Thị Kim Phúc highly offensive, as do most people, but no one would deny that it belongs here! Furthermore, our readership is not "victims of the mass media" but people wanting information. (quotes taken from Resid Gulerdem, above.) Witty lama 11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"I find ... highly offensive ...." The words chosen fort this sentence indicate the presents of "opinion", being "subjective" which is the opposite of "information". "Information" are purely "objective" in nature. The best source for "information" is 100% "objective", simply providing hard and indisputable facts. The more "complete", "accurate" and "objective" the source of "information" is, the better it can serve people to create their own, personal subjective "opinions" about a fact/topic. No source of information will ever be 100% objective because humans (who are the complete opposite of "objective") are always part of it's creation thus "subjective" contamination of information is something that can never be completely avoided. You can reduce the contamination to some certain degree if you are aware of its existence and it's influence on the "objective quality" of your collected Information. If you are not and/or don't care about it, start a Newspaper rather than a encyclopedia. The purpose of Newspapers is to provide Information enriched or even modified due to contamination by "subjective opinions" from the journalist, editor and commentator that generate the content of a Newspaper. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to avoid as much as possible opjective contamination of it's information (contamination is not just alteration which is easier to spot than removal of information and objective additions to them). An encyclopedia can't be "this" or "that". An encyclopedia can only be a good encyclopedia or NOT --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Only those resizes and moves that have, as their only rationale, the supposed offensiveness of the picture in quesion. Regular edits to increase the readability of the page, etc will not be affected. --AK7 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with linking images. Putting images behind a single click keeps them available for anyone who wishes to view them, without putting them in front of people who would prefer not to see them. Johntex\^talk 12:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that in starting this poll it is said that there is no provision against linking images, but there is still a section in the proposal about linking images and listing images on the bad media list. I also oppose the statement in this policy that would forbid choosing less offensive images to illustrate an article, if they are available. For example, to illustrate sexual intercourse, it is perfectly reasonable if the editors of that article want to use line drawings as opposed to full color pictures from an adult video. Johntex\^talk 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This concerns me also. Cedars 10:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An illustration is subject to the artist's taste and ability. For this reason an illustration can never live up to a photograph. The display of an illustration where a photograph would suffice demonstrates the editor's brand of prudishness. Linking to images would only be acceptable if, for some reason, all images on Wikipedia would be determined to be handled in this manner. I would accept non-default options in user preferences which would force-link to certain tagged images. Would you accept it if all images of women showing their (uncovered) faces were linked rather than in-line because this complements extreme Islamic censorship? How about removing a photograph showing two men engaging in a romantic kiss to accomodate for fundamentalist Christians? If we determine that one form is acceptable, I don't see how the other form can be rejected. Censorship is not subject to rational standards - it is forced expression of a particular culture (and normally its religion) on all readers. Wikipedia should do everything it can to ensure this form of POV does not enter our editorial process. --Oldak Quill 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Oldak. - Serodio 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

An illustration is always inferior to a photograph. Like Oldak said, censorship is inherently a POV. Everyone says that they are against POV until it's their POV being discussed.--Frenchman113 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Illustrations are very often better as key details can be delineated clearly, colors can be enhanced etc. Scranchuse 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I made this policy on my own wiki. This is why I'm not voting, I just don't care! Gerard Foley 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for you. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us you don't care and you have your own wiki a few more times, I just can't get enough information about you. · rodii · 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would support this as a guideline, but not as a policy. Policies should be broadly worded and allow enough wiggle room so that everyone can agree on them. This seems much more appropriate as a guideline, which are more informal and do not require complete concensus. Kaldari 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. this is far too specific. It is almost case by case and if a new form of censorship is found, we'd have to edit the policy again. -- 127.*.*.1 01:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I choose to remain neutral in this poll, because while I support the policy, but I cannot accept some facts should be treated differently than the others. That's non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic. The only exception I could accept is linking or moving lower (with an appropriate warning box) limited only to images that should be disturbing to ALL human beings, like pictures of extreme violence (massacres, mutilations etc.). I would vote support for such policy. --Arny 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• (copied from above) Could you list some of these studies that establish the "harm" caused by sexual content in media? Postdlf 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I should say that scientific studies in this area do not date back to so early. Here are some more: Sexual Images Harm Kids, THE HARMFUL EFFECTS ON CHILDREN OF EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY, HARM AND OFFENCE IN MEDIA CONTENT: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. You can find some others from the net. Resid Gulerdem 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • These studies assume that sexual desire is a 'malfunction' if it occurs in anyone under the age of 18. I'm having trouble putting into words how extraordinarily stupid that idea is. One of them even talks about "children sexually assaulting other children," which in general usage actually means "children consensually playing doctor with their peers." And then all the nice, wonderful people send them to therapy to convince them that sexual pleasure is bad.
  • That's just fucked up. 24.224.153.40 03:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• perhaps we should have said, studies from a neutral point of view and not that old judeo-christian crap?--Frenchman113 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• By 'old judeo-christian crap' did you mean 'judeo-christian tradition'? Anyways it is nothing to do with the religions. These studies are done or reported by highly prestigious academic institutions, journals and people: Professor Sonia Livingstone, University of South Carolina, PEDIATRICS which is an official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Resid Gulerdem 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• and yet it asserts that sexual desire is a problem. clearly judeo-christian.--Frenchman113 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• We won't resolve the question of whether censorship is good in general, so we should focus on whether it's good for Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to provide access to all encyclopedic knowledge, editable by anyone. Children can't discern accurate postings from vandalism or more subtly inaccurate or slanted information, but an adult can usually discern obvious errors and correct them. Since Wikipedia isn't really for unsupervised kids anyway (except for those parents who don't mind their kids exposed to every idea in the world, good and bad, true and false), we shouldn't censor material on the grounds that it's "unsuitable for children". Still, we might censor images for aesthetic reasons that will allow Wikipedia's articles to appeal to a broader audience. Not everyone who wants to learn about autofellatio necessarily wants to see a close-up graphic photograph. Wikipedia can keep its mission to maintain access to all encyclopedic information by keeping only those nude or violent images that are directly relevant, keeping them sized just large enough to see without clicking, and maybe placed lower down in the article, leading with a "Warning: graphic images" just like we do with movie spoilers. Instead of taking hardened ideological positions, we should try to work out a policy that most people can live with, and I think we're getting close to it. Djcastel 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Here here! Witty lama 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since Someone Asked Me To Come Here

Let me know when "consensus" is reached on this, which different people will interpret differently and ultimately ignore to suit their whims, unless they ignore something that is against the wishes of someone who is higher up on the wiki-social ladder than they are, in which case they'll just issue threats, which some random admin can use as a bludgeon to get rid of those they don't want.

Not discussing this method of deciding whether this should be a "policy", the very fact that this discussion was deemed necessary by someone is pitiful. How can you have a collection of all human knowledge when you don't allow certain parts of human knowledge to be in it? Wikipedia has to decide what it is, because it can't be a comprehensive source of information without offending some people, the truth is abrupt and harsh at times.

I've got too much on my plate, so I have Wikipedia on the backburner lately, especially considering that Jimbo seems to have written me off, but i'll be back after the elections to see if this place wants to be a collection of all human knowledge, or a collection of knowledge that fits into the views of those that run this website, and if the latter is true, to see if the aristocracy deems me worthy of the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why bother?

I don't think this has any chance of passing; the last poll was doing much, much better and that failed. I think it's time to burry this proposal. Gerard Foley 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The poll is 50/50 again (just like the last one). I'm going to pop the rejected tag back on the page if no-one objects. Gerard Foley 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is voluntary

People choose to use wikipedia. It's not part of children's textbooks. It's not supported by the government. It doesn't install itself as spyware. This is rather like the vegetarian going to a steakhouse or a pacifist joining the marines. Wikipedia strives to encompass all of human knowledge and activity. Some of this may be offensive to some people. If these people do not want to run the risk of being offended, they are free to use any number of censored information sources. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have to placate people that are offended by factual information. I would propose that people who are in favor of censorship and omitting information start their own wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irongaard (talk • contribs)

"Offensive" images are already being removed from Wikipedia. The controversial lolicon images were simply deleted, and got Jimbo's blessing. He also called the people defending the image pedophiles:

"It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles) will work hard to create 'facts on the ground' that abuse our default openness and trust".

This is the thanks we get for volunteering our free time to his project. And he also deleted the image from Autofellatio which now has a new image linked to. I think it is the people against censorship that need to start their own wiki. Oh look, I just did! Gerard Foley 21:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that the replacement image on Lolicon is also child pornography, right? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's about how things are presented. I know the kind of people who are behind this; those who think shocking people is cool. And don't tell people to go away. There is only one Wikipedia, and there most likely only ever will be one, so as far as possible it should be acceptable to everyone, not just those with gross-out tastes. Golfcam 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No matter what is written or pictured, someone is going to find it offensive. There is no such thing as not offending anyone. If we do censor ourselves, we will have to have a standard for what is offensive and what is not, and no matter how high our standard is, it's not going to be high enough for someone not to get offended. I don't think it's about shocking people at all; most people wouldn't look up something like penis and expect to be able to present it to a child. --Kahlfin 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo started this Wiki, and it is still his. Read his full comment at User:Cyde/Lolicon RFC#Outside view by Jimbo Wales -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't his, it belongs to a non-profit foundation. He could go to jail for exploiting it for personal advantage. Sumahoy 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Confused

This whole censorship thing is confusing me! What the hell is going on?Richardkselby 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• A violent clash of millennia of cultural norms. That help? Deltabeignet 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge is power, those who have power should not abuse it

Wikipedia should not censor because doing so only gives certain persons in positions the right to reinforce only views they like rather than being objective and looking at the big picture of each issue. To do so, it requires, images and words which others may not find to fit their own point of view but is neccesary to look at in order to get all sides of an issue or subject across. When one uses Wikipedia, they use it at their own risk, so not everything nor everyone is going to please them on here. Appeasing those who abuse power will not create objectivity or neutrality but suppress it and that is something that should not be done on Wikipedia. Zdunne. 5 April 2006 (UTC).

You're hearing a slogan, not seeing the reality. Censorship isn't something you are either totally for or totally against, it's a bundle of subtleties and judgements. We already have enough policies to decide what to do on an article by article basis, and we don't need this bludgeon.Golfcam 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with you here. While censorship isn't something you have to be completely for or against, it is possible to be so. I, for one, am completely against it.--AK7 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Do you think people should be free to say in public that all the blacks in the United States should be lynched for example? Or that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be resumed right now and completed as soon as possible? Or that raping new born babies is a fine hobby? Or you only against unfashionable forms of censorship, which is what most people mean when they say they are opposed to censorship. Calsicol 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm strongly opposed to this WP policy proposal, I am also strongly supportive of the rights of people to say all of those offensive things Calsicol gives as apparent attempts at reductio ad absurdam. In the US context, I'm a Justice Black-style first amendment absolutist. However, I have trouble imagining how any such advocacy would ever be encyclopedic in any WP article. Not because the opinions are offensive, but simply because they are opinions. Even if you sort-of transform the advocacy into a factual statement (e.g. instead of "I support raping babies" the (false) factual claim "Babies are unharmed by rape"), none of those statements are remotely supportable under WP:V). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensiveness

Although I support the heart of this policy, I'm confused whether this policy allows for consensus discussion about offensiveness at all. If say, we have 30 people saying something is offensive, and 1 person saying otherwise... can this policy be used to say, "tough luck, it has to stay, it's policy -- because you can't delete something you find offensive." If that's the case it seems to oppose WP:CON. Is that the intention here? Does this policy allow that the ideas of non-censorship and offensiveness can co-exist? Or is it a presupposition of this policy that:

• freedom from censorship and freedom from offensiveness are mutually exclusive concepts, with absolutely no middle ground for discussion.

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a really intolerant policy that shows no respect for variety of opinion. Golfcam 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that this policy says if 100% find something "offensive", that is still no reason for editorial action. The point is that the concept "offensive" is unproductive for editorial discussions in a world wide every-culture-on-Earth encyclopepedia when there are plenty of other editorial criteria to use to deal with whatever needs to be dealt with. WAS 4.250 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we have 30 people saying something is blasphemy, and 1 person saying otherwise? Should blasphemy be a permissible basis for deleting content if a consensus finds something blasphemous? Postdlf 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point of this policy: morals, blasphemy, offensiveness, whatever is "bad" SOLELY due to culture value judgements is to be dealt with using OTHER terminology. Editorial judgements are, by their nature, subjective and difficult to express and get consensus on. Just don't try to "trump" others with a "moral highground" card. Get it? WAS 4.250 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In the context of society and free speech, I completely agree with you. In the context of writing an encyclopedia, I believe we could allow minor discussion of offensiveness. This policy effectively censors discussion of what people find offensive completely. I don't see how that is good. I think the policy could be written to allow for some discussion of offensiveness, as long as offensiveness isn't the determining factor in removal of content.

For example, if someone says, "I find that picture unencyclopedic because it's offensive." Then, what do we classify their opinion as? This policy would say it's censorship. Whereas it might merely be a breakdown in communication. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Metta Bubble. Also, there are already enough "no" votes so this is not consensus. I created a derivitive proposal that removed the word "censorship". I bet you can do better than me. When the dust settles, look at the comments, and create a proposal that to you seems might win consenus. People playing the "I'm more moral than you" trump card in a debate is less than optimum. WAS 4.250 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link me to your derivative proposal. I'd like to read it. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offensive WAS 4.250 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, read it. It doesn't address my point. Sorry. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Postdlf.

The difference between a group of editors claiming something is offensive and a group of editors claiming something is blasphemous is quite large. The latter group can be traced back to a cabal. When a group of otherwise unrelated editors 30:1 agree something is offensive (therefore meaning they think it is unencyclopedic) I say they have a legitimate (non-censoring) consensus. However, if the group of editors all happen to be Christians, or Muslims, or whatever group, we have a censorship problem because they are using a cabal to achieve a goal unrelated to writing an encyclopedia.

I believe our censorship policy should be more concerned with the methods editors are currently using to create authority mechanisms on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be so concerned with whether or not people are debating offensiveness. When users try to create authority mechanisms that undermine consensus, that's when we have a real censorship issue.

Some of the mechanisms I'm talking about are:

• forming cabals with user boxes
• forming cabals with user talk pages. i.e. spamming
• petitioning users on external web forums
• using admin privileges for content decisions
• sockpuppeting to falsely represent consensus
• ...

These are things that are unfortunately rife on Wikipedia. I think they are ethically dubious. However, it's only when these actions coincide with discussions of offensiveness, that we actually have a censorship issue.

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for an alternative, universal POV

Knowledge is not created by man. It is discovered. Truth cannot be censored. Censoring is foolish.
Time, space and (other) things, including thoughts, are illusions for none of them is immortal / permanent. Thus one can come to the conclusion that all things happen at the same time in the same place. Nothing can be created which has not been before sometime. All attempts to limit one's own absorption of things can be done to avoid distraction of mind - on the other hand, destroying the completeness of things, limiting the emission of would-be knowledge is actually the same as lying.
But the minds and senses of man are limited themselves. Furthermore speech and languages, words, are limited. We do not know if anything perceived by our senses is real and therefore can only try to state truth in all conscience possible.

Unflawed gathering of knowledge is, in my understanding, Wikipedia's mission statement. If we allow limiting of publicly available knowledge, be it in active or passive manners, we have failed. If we allow cancer-like religious views to spoil the absorption of knowledge, we've lost. If we allow the specifics of human being, feelings, to spoil knowledge, we are doomed.

Conclusion:

• Write content to the best of your conscience
• Do not limit content to avoid feelings being harmed - neither your own feelings nor others'
• Oppose laws which are based on ethics at all cost, do not try to elude confrontation

"The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! Refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell." -- Liber al vel Legis 1:41

-- e-user 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are lots of forms of media that attempt to preserve media and educate people. The most respected ones are careful in what content they choose and how they write about that content. They avoid nudity and profanity unless necesarry. They attempt to avoid offense where possible. Most of them write in a fairly formal style. These are hallmarks of respected sources. To work towards that style is not censorship, and it is not POV, it is common sense. Johntex\^talk 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said Johntex. Decency and restraint are not censorship. Piccadilly 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Second the "well said". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Respected by whom? People whose ancestors started crusades in the name of all Good Things. I wouldn't want to expose my children to information "avoiding" nudity because the world is, in fact, nude. Truth is neither profane nor offensive. However: Black to the Blind. -- e-user 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying that nudity is "indecent" is not a statement of fact, just an expression of feeling or taste. Postdlf 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

As much as I oppose censorship, I do not support this policy. This policy is too specific, too strict, to allow for deletion of inappropriate pictures in the wrong articles. For example, the Lolicon article should not have a hard core image on it. Instead, a better idea would be to have a subpage entitled Lolicon Images for those who want to see it. Osbus 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The new policy does not prohibit hiding the image behind a link or moving it further down the page. --Kahlfin 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This proposal does not actually discuss censorship

Censorship is bad. Censorship is tyranny. Then why am I against this proposal? Because it does not address censorship. Censorship is the action by a person in authority to restrict the speech of other persons by means of that authority. Using the term "censorship" to describe anything else is inappropriate, and will tend to produce inappropriate reactions. The point of this section is that the structure of Wikipedia makes true censorship vanishingly rare.

If an administrator used his authority to delete potentially offensive material in defiance of a practical consensus, that would be censorship. Such an action could only be justified by legal or practical necessity, but I see no allegation that administrators are acting (as administrators) without cause.

On the other hand, all Wikipedia editors are equal, including administrators when acting as editors. When any of us act to change an article, we are exercising our individual judgment, flawed as it is, about what is relevant, interesting, verifiable, and NPOV. How much detail will our readers find useful? Which illustrations, if any, are helpful? Which positions are worthy of inclusion? How much space to spend on each? The list of editorial judgments is nearly endless.

Consensus (or supermajority) does not change this fundamental fact. The group is exercising its collective judgment, which wikifaith tells us will tend to be better than any individual judgment. This judgment applies as much to the question of the year a battle took place as to whether a nude photograph is appropriate in a particular place.

The question of whether to offend readers comes up all the time, and not just in sexual contexts. It is one of the reasons for NPOV. We don't use racist language because it is not considered appopriate for academic discourse. One of the reasons it is inappropriate is that one cannot expect people to take you seriously if you are needlessly offending them. While we have a special policy to cover the case of racist remarks, and we empower administrators to act swiftly in blatant cases, there is really no special power involved: administrators may act to stop any clearly disruptive behavior, including too many reverts or patently original research.

None of this is censorship. We are the authors and the editorial board. The mechanism and the fact of judgment is the same for decisions about whether to include Pamela Anderson's astrological sign as it is for a decision about whether to include stills from her sex video.

This is not just a semantic point. Because we are all the editors, and because we are exercising individual and collective judgment at all times, there is simply no reason to pull the emotional strings that are connected to the word, "Censorship." If there is a consensus that the article on penis should contain certain photographs, they should be included. If there is a consensus that they are not useful, or offensive, or too large, or badly placed, or whatever, then that should rule. If there is no consensus, then we have to get along the best we can with supermajority or an RfC or whatever. The type of content being discussed is really not relevant, and no one should be labeled a "censor" if they are acting in good faith. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Far too often people who live in countries where there are no major problems with censorship imagine that people with differing standards of decency from their own are little Hitlers. Nathcer 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

i don't know which country are you comparing, but from my expirience population of 'non-free' countries is intolerant and not vise versa. --tasc 14:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This has cleared many of my thoughts. -- 127.*.*.1 16:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're acting like a censor doesn't mean you're acting in bad faith. Wikipedia censors may be acting in good faith (ie. trying to "improve" Wikipedia by "protecting" the delicate sensibilities of youth or what have you), just like real-life censors may act in good faith (ie. trying to protect the morals of the youth, or whatnot). Both of them may have the best intentions, yet both are imposing their own POV on others. That is what this proposed policy is designed to fight. It doesn't matter if you have the best intentions. That gives you no right to impose your POV on others by removing content you deem "offensive" (which is indeed censorship, no matter how our well-meaning friend wishes to redefine it). Ideally, WP:NPOV and the consensus building process should be enough to stop people from censoring content. In practice, however, they are not nearly enough. That's why it's important to spell out that removing content based on a judgement that it's "offensive" is censorship (and thus also clearly violates WP:NPOV, imo). The person doing the censoring doesn't have to be in any kind of position of authority. They may well be just another well-meaning editor. Unfortunately, without this policy, stoping them from censoring may take a long flame- and edit-war if the issue even ever does get settled. With this policy censorship can be nipped in the bud, and save us all a lot of grief and hassle. -- noosphere 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about protecting the tender sensibilities of anyone. It is about making Wikipedia as useful as possible so that people will take it seriously. Stuffing a lot of deliberately provocative images where they are distracting from rather than supportive of the information in articles is not striking a blow against censorship, it is just cluttering up Wikipedia. The sole issue should always be: does this image enhance the article, and make it more useful to readers? This policy would take that decision away from editors by making it very difficult to remove, resize or relocate any image that someone thought was protected by this policy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant to impute bad faith to no one, except perhaps to a hypothetical administrator who oversteps his authority. Terminological objections aside, I don't see a qualitative difference between the following 'editorial judgments.

1. This picture of Pamela Anderson should not be included because it is bad photography.
2. This picture of Pamela Anderson should not be included because it is needlessly offensive.
3. This picture of Pamela Anderson should not be included because we have enough, and this is not obviously superior to the others.

All of these represent a POV on what makes a good article: meta-POV is unavoidable. It might be that including the sex shot slants the article towards the salacious and violates NPOV. It might be that excluding it would violate NPOV. That is a real debate and should be discussed rather than being trumped by policy. If we say that it is valid to develop a consensus on #1 or #3 but not #2, then we are arbitrarily restricting editorial judgment in a way that will not (IMHO) improve Wikipedia, and only hampers honest editors: people who really want reason #2 and are not idiots will simply learn to argue speciously that #1 or #3 applies. The edit war will continue under a different name, and all we will have done is encourage disingenuousness and sophistry. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really have yet to see a Wikipedia flamewar erupt over an image where the issue was that the image was just "bad photography". However, there are plenty of flamewars over what's deemed "offensive". These flamewars generate lots of smoke and very little warmth. Mostly, they wind up wasting everyone's time with nothing resolved. This policy has the potential to nip those flamewars in the bud and let us get back to the job of improving Wikipedia instead of arguing about whether a given image is "offensive" or not. Therefore, it has my full support. As for whether censors will succeed in exploiting other possible loopholes in the policies to allow them to keep pushing their POV, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Today the issue is about removing content because it's deemed "offensive". Let's settle this specific issue once and for all. -- noosphere 21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry back, but many offensive images or descriptions simply offer no advantage over non-offensive alternatives. This policy would prevent honest discussion of any such choice and create a ratchet toward offensive content. Don't arm the trolls. Especially don't arm the larger army of trolls in the hope of disarming the smaller one. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The flamewars over whether an image is "offensive" are much more harmful to Wikipedia (since they simply waste everybody's time and generate nothing but hostility) than all the purportedly "offensive" images put together. If you want to "discuss" these images, there're plenty of forums on the internet for you to do so. As Wikipedia editors we could spend our time much more constructively than engaging in silly flamewars. -- noosphere 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying that the question of whether a particular image should appear in a particular article on Wikipedia (the only issue concerning the image that interests me) should only be discussed outside of Wikipedia? Again, perhaps I misunderstand. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that flamewars over whether an image is "offensive" belong outside Wikipedia. -- noosphere 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to disagree. I thought we were discussing arguments about the appropriateness of including an image. Other discussion about the image sound like WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox (with limited and obvious exceptions).Robert A.West (Talk) 16:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. There are two images under editorial consideration that in your mental experiment are in contention to be at the top of the article and no other images seem as good and each makes the other redundant. Do you seriously think claiming one is "offensive" when the other group doesn't agree it is offensive is the best way to discuss the issue? All this proposal says is find other language to facilitate effective communication and editorial decision making. WAS 4.250 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We must be reading different policies. This policy is not just WP:CIVIL -- the issue is the reason for the objection, not how I sugar-coat it. Assume WLOG without loss of generality that "A" offends a significant number of people, and "B" offends no one. Ceteris paribus All other factors being equal, "B" should be chosen because "A" involves a cost and provides no marginal benefit in return. Nevertheless, it would be against (proposed) policy to mention that cost, because it involves the fact that some people find "A" offensive. If ceteris non paribus "A" has advantages over "B", then it is a utilitarian question of whether the additional benefit of "A" is worth the cost. Rephrase the policy to allow for this type of discussion, and it will have no teeth. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speak English. WLOG? Ceteris paribus? WAS 4.250 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• sorry. Old habits die hard. I have rephrased above. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion that needs to take place is why it is better for one image rather than the other image to be in the article. If one group says it is "offensive" and the other group says no it is not, then what? WAS 4.250 04:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that we were writing an article about the image. The article would not try to reach a decision about whether the image was offensive, it would try to document what groups were offended, why and how numerous those groups were. It would not ridicule anyone for being offended, nor attack anyone for liking the image. Step 1 of discussion should do the same. If "offended" is a small minority opinion, there may be no need to proceed further, but one may wish to do so in the spirit of writing for the enemy. Step 2 is to see what less offensive (for some reasonable metric) alternatives exist. Step 3 is to see if the offense can be easily mitigated, as by an offensive content warning or if the image can be linked to without damage to the article. Step 4 is to try to estimate the costs of including the image, or of mitigation, against the benefits. step 5 is to reach a conclusion, by supermajority if consensus will not serve. Step 6 is the hardest: everyone accepts that a decision had to be made, and that there is no guarantee that the result was "correct". Yes, I am assuming a lot of good faith, but in the final analysis, unless we make Wikipedia Editor an exclusive club, that is all we've got. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent example of censorship - lolicon

An example of censorship is deleting an image because you claim it is illegal and that it is child porn even when a majority of good faith nontrolling editors disagree on both counts. What happened at lolicon was an example of censorship. Deleting the image because of legitimate fair use issues would not have been censorship. As far as censorship goes, that episode sets a bad example. As far as the article lolicon is concerned, I think the current image and caption is superior to the old one. I can't help thinking that wikipedia repeatedly uses apparently bad means and repeatedly produces apparently good results. Go figure. All's well that ends well? Or is this act of unilateral deletion based on everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-pedafile-or-troll thinking just a beginning? WAS 4.250 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that attempts to remove the old Lolicon image were regularly branded "censorship". Even such mild actions as shrinking it or moving it down the page were called "censorship". If folks had been more reasonable then the extraordinary deletion might not have been necessary. The label of "censorship" is sometimes used just to prevent ordinary editing. -Will Beback 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposed policy allows "ordinary editing". It is only opposed to editing who's only justification is that its target is "offensive" to someone. If you can justify the shrinking of an image or any other editing task without resorting to the claim that its "offensive", then your edit will not be affected by this policy. -- noosphere 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we prevent other editors from labelling non-censorship edits as "censorship"? It's like assuming bad faith. -Will Beback 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is against people claiming a moral high ground, including the moral high ground of being more anticensor than thou. WAS 4.250 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because the image did not further, indeed, it had the potential to harm, Wikipedia's progress as a free encyclopaedia. It was not censorship. It was good taste. And I really, really don't like the way you cast my thinking; I have been up-front and clear about my motives throughout. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You claim it had the potential to harm, Wikipedia's progress as a free encyclopaedia. Others disagree with you. It's a shame you reserve to yourself final authority on the truth of that claim. If the board or Jimbo wished to make that claim, they have a policy (office) created exactly for that purpose. If I were Jimbo, I might have used office to delete it for some reason or other. WAS 4.250 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been comparatively little opposition to my actions. It's not as if the action was irreversible (really, it wasn't). By my deletion of the image, it has been made clear that "no censorship" was being abused against the wishes of a large proportion of Wikipedia editors. I did not reserve final authority. I used the deletion as a tool to make the community's wishes clear. We're big children now: we don't need Jimbo's intervention at every turn. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is true that "no censorship" was being abused against the wishes of a large proportion of Wikipedia editors. However, my impression (as a bystander) is that people were shut up by unwarrented claims of "illegality", "child porn" and "troll". The same way Bush tries to shut off debate with claims of national security. There are words that encourage honest debate and words that work to shut off thinking and/or debate. I recommend these words and others even "censorship" are words we should avoid. I disagree with Jimbo totally that the pic in question was being maintained on the article for any reason other than unbiased nontrolling nonpedaphillia editorial decision. Never dipered a kid? Never has one of your children carry around some inappropriate object the minute you turned your back. The pic is as sexy as a shoe. Only someone with the appropriate fetish would think it had anything to do with sex. WAS 4.250 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My words at [1] speak more than I otherwise need to say. As to the idea of that image not being child pornography, I think you are seriously misleading yourself. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the now-deleted image was not child pornography, and not by a wide, wide margin. Of course, that's just my opinion, just as it's your opinion that the image was child pornography. But you used your admin powers to decide that your opinion was better than mine (and many others), and I don't think that's the best way to run a Wiki.-AK7 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the image is, but it probably doesn't matter. It is an unfortunate fact that the law is both harsh and difficult to predict in this area. Waking up one morning to find no Wikipedia because we decided to push the envelope a little is not my idea of a good day. Call me timid if you will, but that is a reality we must live with, and I would rather fight other battles, so I will give the admin the benefit of the doubt. Especially, since, as an admin, he could conceivably be held personally liable. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That notion about Wikipedia "disappearing" because "we pushed the envelope too far" does not phase me in the slightest. Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. I use it as my primary source of reference and I enjoy contributing to it in my free (and not so free) time. However, a unilateraly censored open, international encyclopedia such as this is completely unacceptable and will only be met with ridicule. I therefore hope that Wikipedia will disappear "just like that" one morning because someone chose to upload a picture of a dead cow and billions of Indians will descend upon the Foundation in Florida, or because some douche uploads a screenshot of a low-quality Japanese cartoon showing characters that are loosely based on human females in their teens who happen to wear flashy clothes and carry a "cylinder" that could be anything, for that matter, even the trigger for a nuclear bomb, or perhaps part of a cow, because otherwise no one would watch the damn cartoon. We don't have to concern ourselves with someone "illegally" uploading childporn or what-have-you, that notion is just insane: whoever goes to that page once isn't going to go there again because he or she does not want to implicate themselves, and most likely would remove the image themselves or bring it to an editor's attention. Normal people don't indulge in child porn, that's just silly. If they did, it wouldn't be illegal, no matter how tasteless it may actually be. (have you ever seen the show Date my Mom on MTV? That's atrocious, too, that show is horrible! It seriously makes me sick.) (Patrick 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

No, I used my admin powers to provoke a decision. The fact that the image has not been reuploaded bears out my opinion that the greatest part of the community did not want this image in. I feel entirely justified. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that I've never seen the word 'lolicon' before this thread, I was obviously not following its edit history. But I'm trying to figure out what this discussion is about. Is it the image "Kotori-Kan_Vol_2.jpg" that had been used on the page that people are worked up about? (I found it in a syndicated copy of WP, if so; I'm sure the changes will propogate over time). I agree the image currently in the lead is better; but hardly less "offensive to delicate sensibilities" (nor should it be). So while deletion may be good or bad, and one image may be better or worse, it's really hard to figure out how any sort of "censorship" is involved... maybe "edit disagreement" at most. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The image that was deleted was so much like (yet less nude!) the coppertone girl that I had seen on giant billboards, that when I first ran across the ridiculous claims of child porn etc, I added "Coppertone girl, illustrates state of mind and context make a difference." to the "see also" subsection. The deleted pic was of a big eyed oriental five year old with just the top of the butt showing, carrying a teddy bear and a cylinder some claimed to know was a dildo, but others like me didn't even notice it until others pointed it out. Further data can be found here User talk:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006 and here User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006 and Jimbo's talk page and recent stuff here at wikimail. WAS 4.250 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So it wasn't the image I mention? Outside what sound like hysterical allegations of censorship, I'm honestly trying to figure out what happened, and why it is supposed to be relevant here. I can't find anyone accusing an image like you describe of being child pornography on Talk:Lolicon (I see some proponents of images claiming things not to be child pornography, but no one actually claiming anything is so). All I am able to find so far is that some editors like one image, and other editors like another image... what you describe sounds neither more nor less "offensive" than the image currently on the article (girl with suggestive popsicle and beach bucket). Is there any other there there? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. You're referring to 'Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg', right? (I found that image elsewhere on the web; which may or may not be a fair use, so I won't give the URL). And reading over the RfC, I probably think Sam Korn was a little too jumpy with his delete finger... and also that about half of WP administrators are a little too excited to find "pedophiles behind every bush". Nonetheless, it's pretty harmless in the scheme of things, and the image there now seems perfectly well illustrative (despite some protests on the talk page that the current image isn't "Japanese enough"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you now understand the situation better than the participants. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The village pump says something about a new policy

Where is the new policy? The one in the current version of this article ([2]) is IMO terrible, so I hope it's not the new proposal. If that's the new policy, put me down as strong oppose for same reasons as before. Censorship occurs if editors try to thwart a reader's desire to see something that they want to see, or prevent them from knowing about it. Censorship does not occur if editors try to accomodate a reasonable likelihood that readers might not want to see something (whether for "moral" reasons, or just due to general grossness of something like a medical illustration), and therefore present the reader with a choice. This applies to all media, not just graphics. For example, many WP articles now have audio samples, but the samples don't play automatically when the page is loaded. You have to click to hear them. That's just an editorial choice, not censorship. It's perfectly fine to do the same thing with images, either collectively (as with sounds) or on a case by case basis. Readers should be considered capable of making choices instead of being treated like idiots. Phr 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the American Library Association describes censorship pretty well: [3]. If WP is looking for a definition to adopt, I'd go with this, as stated before. Phr 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of us, at least, have argued that this proposed policy is not about censorship, but about over-riding editorial judgment about what is the best material to include in an individual article. If we have an amply illustrated article on Penis, we don't need to include images of penises in numerous other articles where such images are not really germane, even if some people claim that removing such images is 'censorship'. I don't think we need a policy on 'censorship'. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing the ALA statement is an interesting study in the limits of analogy. Librarians are not editors -- Wikipedians are. Most libraries have many books on a given subject on their shelves -- a comprehensive library will validly choose to purchase a book that is "suitable for children", one with limited illustrations, and one with graphic illustrations. Wikipedia, by policy, has one article on a subject, and it must make a choice about what that article will be.Robert A.West (Talk) 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Broad

I think that censorship is not needed in an encyclopedia. Why? Simply because encyclopedias tend to be "NPOV" and a type of censorship would be considered "POV". The only form of it should be in patrolling vandals to keep Wikipedia a POV-free source for the whole world. --User:Barfing Rabbit

What you think doesn’t matter as the policy has been rejected for the second time. If you want a wiki with a no censorship policy you need to try elsewhere. I don't think this will ever pass, even with major changes. Gerard Foley 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rabbitt - actually, what you say does matter, just as everyone's opinions matter here on the wiki. However, if you read this actual policy, I think you will see it is not talking about preventing censorship, it is talking about reducing editorial freedom to decide what is appropriate for an article. That is why the proposal has been rejected twice. Johntex\^talk 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected?

Why has the poll been marked as rejected? There is no ending date on that poll, and people are still voting. -- noosphere 22:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Voting is evil. (That's the official position of wikipedia for internal wikipedia management.) This and things like it here are only polls. The idea is to see if there is a consensus or not, meaning 80% or so or more agree with a position. (And the "80%" isn't really accurate either for many reasons, such as votes can be thrown out for many reasons - votepacking - puppets - reasons for vote irrelevant - and so on.) There is quite clearly no valid consensus for this proposal and so the thing to do is mothball this version, and anyone who wants to review the comments and work together in discussing what is consensus. Not what you think would be a good guideline, but how to express in words, existing consensus with regard to the issues raised. Maybe something along the lines of Wikipedia discourages use of words like "censorship" and "porn" during editorial discussions as they discourage rational thought, and serve as insults to opposition positions.WAS 4.250 23:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that wording could be added to Wikipedia:Profanity, which states the existing consensus on this issue: case-by-case decision based on whether there is a less-offensive alternative that does the job equally well. In fact, similar wording is on Wikipedia:Pornography. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a wonderful suggestion. The very short Wikipedia:Profanity currently only addresses what appears in the article space. A one sentence addition recommending how to discuss (avoid words x,y,z because A, B, C.) might be useful. How about if you come up with the sentence, then I place it a couple of talk places for comment? WAS 4.250 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this is really a special instance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I was bold and put it in. See what you think. I can't really see anyone objecting, but if I am reverted, I opened a section to discuss. If you think my action inadequate, feel free to discuss there or elsewhere. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict - what I typed in before I read the above still applies) All right! Way to be bold. I see you are way ahead of me and added Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often controversial. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties to a controversy observe civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. to Wikipedia:Profanity. Excellent! WAS 4.250 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I marked the poll as rejected to stop people voting when there is a rejected tag on the policy page (which I also added). The poll is split 50/50 just like the first one, it's just not enough to make it policy and I don't think it will chance anytime soon. If you want to take the rejected tags off and see if a load of people come to vote Support then work away, but I can't see that happening. Perhaps putting what does happen into words and marking it as a guideline might be a good idea. Something like "Wikipedia does not normally censor but sexually explicit images have been removed from articles in the past, and others (Lolicon) have been deleted altogether with the support of Jimbo. Gerard Foley 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does non-censorship mean practically?

There's been a bunch of hooraw over what the word "censorship" is supposed to mean here. Some people argue that only government action can be "censorship", and that for an admin to delete an image against consensus isn't "censorship" because they're not the government. Others claim that any attempt to suppress a view or expression is "censorship". Still others claim that Wikipedia is "censored", because their definition of the word includes the removal of spam and vandalism.

By looking at core policy, past community decisions, and less controversial discussions, I think we can come up with a more useful statement. I think we can come up with a policy statement that forbids the kind of "censorship" worth forbidding without impeding useful editing. Here are some of the criteria I think would have to go into it:

• Universality. One of the earlier noncensorship policy statements said that "Wikipedia is not censored for minors." When we generalize this, we get the rule that Wikipedia should not be censored to "protect" any particular group at the expense of encyclopedic universality. For instance, we aren't going to drop pictures of historically significant violence because they might traumatize someone.
• No whitewash. There are plenty of facts that some group or other would like to silence the discussion of. Some of these are political, others religious or historical, others scientific, literary, or biographical. Wikipedia needs to consistently resist attempts to whitewash cited and relevant facts.
• No veto. A common enough sight on controversial deletion discussions is an editor who says (in effect) "I don't want to work on an encyclopedia that includes it," or "If we include this subject matter it will drive editors away." Accepting this argument would give the most restrictive censorious view a veto over the whole project. If some people don't want to work on Wikipedia because it contains depictions of nudity or Mohammed or swastikas, well, we'll get along without them. (Or, better, they can go work on articles that don't bug them.)
• No heckler's veto. "Heckler's veto" means "If we include this, people who don't like it will vandalize / protest / raise hell / say nasty things about us, so let's leave it out." There will always be jerks; we can't decide what to cover based on dodging jerks. We have to report on controversies ... not avoid them because they're contentious. The fact that articles like George W. Bush, Satan, and Scientology get vandalized a lot doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, after all.
• "Offensive" means "I don't like it." It's a statement of opinion, or in Wikipedia jargon, "a POV". As such, "This is offensive" or "This is not offensive" doesn't form a legitimate argument here for removing or including anything.
• No legal threats. Real legal issues are really freakin' serious, but much of the time people say "illegal" to mean "I don't like it" -- for instance regarding republication of uncomplimentary but cited claims about a person. If someone has a serious concern about libel or other illegality of content, they need to report it to the Wikimedia Foundation. Other editors should not be expected to make editorial judgments on the basis of legal threats by IANALs.

Thoughts? --FOo 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your point of view. I feel it is very one-sided: it almosts justifies the inclusion of everything that someone wants included, no matter whether other people believe it helps build a high-quality encyclopedia or not. --Audiovideo 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything on FOo's suggestion that would rule out the argument "this is not encyclopedic". Does Audiovideo mean the argument, "this is not classy"? If so, I disagree with him quite strongly. Septentrionalis 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - Jimmy Wales

How does he know that those who want to include such things as lolicon pictures are pedophiles? I think this is a horrifying and scary POV, and I suspect random guesswork. I think the former lolicon pictures did a good job in illustrating the topic at hand and to simply delete them 'with blessing' is simply frightening and outrageous. Like the autofellatio article, instead of showing it on the main page, a link could be shown to more controversial images if needed. So why did it not happen here? Why did it simply disappear? Severe, severe hypocrisy. Skinnyweed 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, when did he say this? I want to read the whole thing... --Osbus 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SW, editors proposed having a link to an offpage image, but other editors were adamant that the image had to stay. Since that attempt at compromise was not successful the dispute was eventually settled by changing the image altogether. Please read over the talk page archives before jumping to conclusions. -Will Beback 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But the Jimmy Wales quote is correct! Gerard Foley 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's correct, then let's have the whole quote so that we can be sure that nobody is taking it out of context. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible censorship problem

There's a possible censorship problem on Angela Beesley. It's possible that I'm seeing a double standard on Biography articles about Wikipedians. I realize that WP:LIVING is generally a touchy area anyway, so I'm not sure yet whether I'm wrong or there's really a censorship problem. But I would appreciate the input of people who have more experience with this on Wikipedia than I do. The talk page discussion starts at Talk:Angela_Beesley#Beesley.27s_attempt_to_remove_this_page_is_relevant. Sbwoodside 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About voting on policy

Is voting/discussion on policies such as this limitd to admin, and if not, how does one get on the mailing list to know that they are happening?

perfectblue 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not 'voting'. The Wikipedia community makes decisions by consensus. Secondly, unless stated otherwise (such as for ArbCom elections), any editor may express their support or opposition to a proposal. As for finding out about proposals, the biggest ones will likely be mentioned on the Community bulletin board, and most of the rest are eventually listed on one of the village pump sections, particularly the Proposals section. You can add any of those pages to your watchlist (but be warned, the Village pump pages can be very busy). -- Donald Albury 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I get that it's not voting, but it's a convenient word to use. I keep coming across references to desicions being made on policy, but even as a moderately established editor its hard to keep track of what is being considered and when. You either know where things are going down, or you don't about hear them until afterwards. I think that Wikipedia could do with a more formal method of advertising them, especially to new users.

perfectblue 07:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films to censor

What about articles such as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films? An undiscriminate collection of films that from far or close have one second about an adult looking at a child or a teenager, and that's enough for being categorized "child sexual abuse film"? OOOO, be careful, don't you dare let your kids watch this! Tazmaniacs 06:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for the re-wording of the policy

"It is not the responsibility for Wikipedia to ensure that what people read on this website pleases them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal to be informative and accurate. On Wikipedia, nothing shall be deleted, edited, added in, or otherwise changed for any reason except legal ones to ensure that it be legal where it is hosted if it shall entail the sacrifice of encylopedic value. Such reasons include social norms, potentially offensive content, controversial issues, and sensitive content. The burden of proof shall rest upon the those who want to edit it for one of those reasons to prove that it does not sacrifice any encyclopedic value. Encyclopedic value means that which keeps Wikipedia most informative, accurate, neutral, and porportionate attention to that which is important."

Note: This may be redundant because of WP:NOT but I think that such a policy could clarify on what it means that Wikipedia is not censored. This could be slightly different to make it less wordy. So what do you people think?--A 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is a rejected policy. Unless you are planning to seek approval for it again rewriting it is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)