User:Herostratus/Understanding WP:NOTCENSORED

WP:NOTCENSORED (also called WP:UNCENSORED is an interesting page. It actually says little beyond noting that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. But you see it quite a bit here and there, and why is that? Let's drill down.

Understanding WP:NOTCENSORED as a policy

WP:NOTCENSORED is a short policy -- three paragraphs, and the middle paragraph describes material that is to be removed: vandalism, BLP violations, "obviously inappropriate" material, NPOV violations, and material illegal in Florida. Invocations of WP:NOTCENSORED are almost never meant to refer to this middle paragraph, so omitting that we have the entire text of the policy as:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. [S]ome articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

Here are some editing arguments that run afoul of WP:UNCENSORED:

• I find this passage objectionable, so I've removed it.
• I deleted a sentence in the second section. It's offensive.
• Deleted the third paragraph, as many users may find this material distasteful.
• This image is outrageous, I've removed it."
• Give me a break. No one wants to see Angela Merkel in a bikini. I've removed the image."

Given the "general social or religious norms" clause, these arguments also would clearly run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED:

• The entire second section is offensive to members of the Neo-American Church. Out it goes.
• Members of my religion are not permitted to read material like this. I've recast the article as a redirect to Apostasy.
• The photograph of Adlai Stevenson shows the sole of his shoe displayed toward the reader. This is an insult to our readers from Arab cultures. The Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming to everyone, so I've removed the photo. Thank you for understanding!
• I think it safe to say that this material violates the basic norms of what's considered decent in the English-speaking world. I deleted it.

And that's it. Those arguments, and similar arguments predicated 'solely on the claim that the material is offensive or objectionable, are not going to pass muster according to WP:UNCENSORED (which is as it should be, since those are all poor arguments for making editing decisions). And that's it.

In particular, here is an editing rationale that has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED:

• I deleted this material, because [cogent reason].

What could [cogent reason] be? It could be any cogent reason, assuming there's sufficient support to make an arguable case. The material is POV? That's a cogent reason. The material is poorly sourced? That's a cogent reason. The material is objectively harmful to some readers? That's a cogent reason. Hosting the material is damaging to the Wikipedia's ability to carry out its mission? That's a cogent reason. The material is trivial? That's a cogent reason.

It doesn't mean that [cogent reason] is true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's something that reasonable can discuss.

But if there's a cogent reason, then WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply. Many other policies and arguments may apply to the matter at hand, but not WP:NOTCENSORED.

Understanding WP:NOTCENSORED as a statement of belief

But OK, fine, Most people citing the policy aren't relying on the text of the policy (which they quite possibly haven't read) but rather on just the title. So they're stating an opinion. Fair enough. People are entitled to state their opinions. They shouldn't enclose them in [[WP:BRACKETS]] as if they're citing the text of a policy, but people will do that. It's OK; just mentally remove the brackets and translate:

• Statement: "No, because WP:UNCENSORED.
• Translation: "No, because I think the Wikipedia is (or should be) uncensored".

OK. But what is meant here by "uncensored"?

The original and still primary meaning of "censorship" is "editorial control by an external entity", typically a government. And so "uncensored" would be some variety of "not subject to official control". But that's essentially never the issue at hand, so let's keep drilling down.

There are some secondary meanings. One is "unmoderated" or "lightly moderated", and you will occasionally see formulations such as "4chan /b/ is an uncensored forum", meaning that material once posted is never usually removed. Some Wikipedia contributors do apparently understand "uncensored" to mean this, because you sometimes get "You deleted my [article about my band/original research/POV rant/etc], and this is censorship". This gives us:

• Statement: "No, because WP:UNCENSORED."
• Translation: "No, because I like the material."

The Wikipedia is heavily moderated so this doesn't usually gain much traction. It's not a policy. It's an opinion, and an opinion that a lot of Wikipedians don't share.

But another and somewhat related secondary meaning, more intellectually respectable, is basically idiomatic to the Wikipedia and not usually seen elsewhere. It's something along the lines of "inclusive" (or "comprehensive" if you will). Should the article include his brother's arrest for forgery? Is worthwhile to point out that someone claimed a connection between the Moon landing hoax and the sinking of the Maine? Should the article include a list of every street in the city? This give us:

• Statement: "No, because WP:UNCENSORED."
• Translation: "No, because I think the Wikipedia does (or should) include data to this level of notability"

Reasonable people can discuss these issues, using policy, precedent, principle, examples, and so on. It's not a policy. It's an opinion. It's a reasonable opinion, but it's still just an opinion.

The main secondary meaning of "uncensored" is some variation of "adult" (in the sexual sense). Right? If you Google "uncensored" you'll mostly get porn sites. It's usually sexual material, but can also be graphic violence, scatological material, and so forth, sometimes mixed together. So this gives us:

• Statement: "No, because WP:UNCENSORED."
• Translation: "No, because I think the Wikipedia is (or should be) an adult website (in the sense of "adult video", "adult bookstore", etc.)"

It's not true that the Wikipedia is an adult website in this sense -- this is not part of our stated mission, we don't stress this aspect in our outreach and fundraising appeals, there's too much boring stuff about history and science and so forth -- but it's reasonable to assert that it should be. It might increase readership and provide other benefits, who knows. It's an opinion, and if a person wants to assert that what the world needs is one less encyclopedia and one more adult website, they can try to convince other contributors of this. It's an opinion that a lot of Wikipedia contributors would disagree with, though.

It's not a policy. It's an opinion.

It gets complicated

(tbw)

See also

• Wikipedia:I just like it