Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Censorship (2006 proposal)/archive03-2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please edit the article to make it better

I'm not very good at writing this type thing, please improve it. Comments are welcome here, I suspect there will be lot's of them. Gerard Foley 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Florida Law

Regarding this: "Deleting text of images because it is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." First, it's confusingly worded; are you talking about image alt tags, captions, file names, or what? Secondly, are there any situations at all where Florida state law has ever been an issue with any Wikipedia image or article? I would think the First Amendment trumps practically any such law Florida could ever come up with. --Aaron 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's the word of confusing you that was a typo. Gerard Foley 17:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Text

As worded, this seems to indicate that any text deletion, including false (and uncited, and unciteable) claims would be considered censorship. I... don't think that's such a good idea. I see enough people crying censorship over that sort of thing as it is. Michael Ralston 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That was not the intent, if you can word it better, please do. False (and uncited, and unciteable) text should be deleted. Gerard Foley 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Gerald, there is a massive disconnect between the ALA description of censorship linked from the "policy in a nutshell" paragraph, and the more sweeping description further down in the proposed wikipedia policy. If you want to reject the ALA description and substitute your own, some explanation of why you think the ALA is wrong would be appreciated. Thanks. Phr 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the ALA description of censorship; however we are not a dictionary so we can use whatever definition we feel is necessary just as legal documents give definitions. If you do not include things like linking to images/text then the policy is useless. I want to try and stop these censorship arguments all over Wikipedia (for reasons given on the policy page) and if people can’t have things deleted the next thing they will try is to get the image/text linked. Without the extra definitions it becomes a policy unable to help anything, redundant and useless. The ALA description is good, but we need something extra. Gerard Foley 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what my question is about. What specifically do we need extra and why do we need it? Phr 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I answered this. The extra we need is the extra definitions under "What is Censorship", the why is because it will start the same censorship debates as deleting if we don't. Gerard Foley 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Differential standards

This page seems to reject having differential standards across different pages, but the fact is that each page will have different standards because different sorts of images will be encyclopedic or representative of the given topic. These issues are best discussed on individual talk pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify what I wish to propose. I want to stop arguments about images on the grounds of censorship. If I replace an image of a female in a bikini with a nude image people should not object to this because the new image is controversial, and I should not argue for the nude image by saying that its removal is censorship. The argument should be biased on things like "nude image is public domain whereas bikini image is fair use", the quality of the images, the image most relevant to the article etc. I am hoping this will free up talk pages for discussion on how to improve the article and not endless debate spread across Wikipedia about decency and censorship. Gerard Foley 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I can understand expecting nude images in articles where they are on topic (articles having to do with sexuality might have such images), but I believe most wikipedians would object to the including of a nude picture, under any circumstances, in an article about a benign topic (say, a nude beach for the beach article. Regardless of image quality and copyright status, the resulting controversy could be avoided easily with a no-nudity image). Sometimes things need to be judged by appropriateness in their context. Wikipedia is not censored, but we need to avoid gratuitous use of pornographic, graphically violent, and related images out of their context. If we cannot write a policy that keeps that clear, then it might need to be decided case-by-case. Brokenfrog 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the use of "benign" rather odd here; the implication (unintended, I hope) is that nudity is malign, or at any rate not benign. Would a photograph illustrating Beach have to be of a deserted beach? Would people in swimwear be allowed (offensive to some religions, perhaps)? I notice that the article is in fact illsutrated with photos of people — one even shows bare flesh...

I think that this suggested policy is precisely meant to nip this sort of nascent censorship based on a personal level of prudishness (inevitably qualified by terms like "I believe that most Wikipedians would object") firmly in the bud. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people will not want to see nude images in the Beach article, other people may find even images of people in swimwear obscene. Can you provide an argument as to why one can be included but the other not? I believe by disallowing discussion of images based on obscenity / nudity etc. we are reinforcing WP:NPOV. What one group sees as oscine is not what other groups do. You can see similar types of argument at Talk: Lolicon.
Regardless of image quality and copyright status, the resulting controversy could be avoided easily with a no-nudity image
Perhaps the controversy can also be avoided by adopting this policy. It's not practical nor desirable to keep images some people find objectionable out of benign topics. And if one group of people can't have their obscene images removed, then no group should. Gerard Foley 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you can illustrate certain things without gory, violet, or naked pictures. I personally don't think that a bathing-suit-clad girl on a ford mustang is good for the ford article. A picture of the ford itself would do just fine. When people go to an article about a ford, they don't expect to see scantily-clad women. We don't want to alienate our customers, and we don't want to lose our professional, encyclopedic image. On the other hand, an article about a penis is probably going to have a picture of one, and this would be expected on behalf of the visitor. We have to keep some sense about what the majority of our customers are used to. We can't have gratuitous gore, nudity, and profanity throughout the wiki. I don't like censorship, and I don't want information lost, but we need to keep our heads about the whole thing. Brokenfrog 00:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To expand on your example, let's say the ford mustang article had an image of a bathing-suit-clad girl on a ford mustang, and a new image was found of similar quality and licensing of just the ford mustang. I want to prevent people arguing that the image must be replaced because the one with the bikini girl is potently obscene to some, or argument that replacing the image is censorship. Instead the argument must be based on which image better illustrates the subject or points in the article. If the picture were at the top of the page I would probably go for one of just the car, just as the Xbox 360 article has a picture of just the console at the top. Gerard Foley 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds"

I have doubts whether or not it is wise to have an overarching policy rather than take it article by article. WAS 4.250 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Muhammad lacks an image of his face although many such images exist. Shall we add one? Why not? It's encyclopedic.
  • Sexual position articles typically have a drawing rather than a more realistic photograph. Why? We have photos of penises and vaginas.
  • Its leagl to have nude full frontal images of little girls. It would be encyclopedic to have them in some articles. I haven't looked but I bet we have none anywhere. surely this is because in the west such a thing is viewed similarly to images of Muhammed's face in islamic countries - which is to say we all know the emotional reactions will be such we will rue the day we didn't take emotions into account.
  • bestiality images are legal in new york city; should we illustrate our article on it with such images?

Conclusion: let sleeping dogs lie. WAS 4.250 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad lacks an image of his face although many such images exist. Shall we add one? Why not? It's encyclopedic.
If they are available then yes it should be added.
FYI, in the Muhammad article there is indeed an image that shows his face. It's the Persian tapestry, a bit down the article, on the right. Babajobu 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Sexual position articles typically have a drawing rather than a more realistic photograph. Why? We have photos of penises and vaginas.
Images of penis and vaginas are no good, but if we have images of the Sexual position then yes add those.
We had a photograph of a woman performing oral sex in the oral sex article before it was removed for copyright reasons. It is difficult to find these sorts of pictures under free licenses, and the vast majority wouldn't qualify for fair use, either. If someone uploaded a bunch of pics the creative commons, I'm sure they'd get into the articles. Babajobu 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Its leagl to have nude full frontal images of little girls. It would be encyclopedic to have them in some articles. I haven't looked but I bet we have none anywhere. surely this is because in the west such a thing is viewed similarly to images of Muhammed's face in islamic countries - which is to say we all know the emotional reactions will be such we will rue the day we didn't take emotions into account.
Exactly I do not want to see images of naked girls, however if they are encyclopedic to some articles they should be added. The policy works equally on all, Islamic countries must put up with Muhammed's face on Wikipedia, and westerners must put up with naked children. No group is more important then the other. In fact I know that one article on Wikipedia actually has a picture of a naked girl running away from a village (I can't remember which one).
bestiality images are legal in new york city; should we illustrate our article on it with such images?
No, the servers are not in new york city. The images must be legal in Florida. Gerard Foley 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[[:Image:TrangBang.jpg|frame|June 8, 1972: Kim Phúc, center left, running down a road near Trang Bang after an ARVN napalm chemical attack. (©Nick Ut/Associated Press)]]

I know the picture you are refering to. It is very very famous. I provided it here. I hope enough people agree with you, but I have grave doubts considering the average person here is 15 to 25 and people want to delete freaking cartoons, for God's sake! WAS 4.250

Yes, that's the one. Gerard Foley 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Autofellatio had an image of the type you advocate and Jimbo himself deleted it. How do you propose to deal with the issues of that infamous case? WAS 4.250 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted for being porn. Wikipedia has a number of porn images. Supposedly it was a copyvio, though. Babajobu 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Jimbo deleted the picture because he thought it was "completely unacceptable" [1]. David Sneek 11:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles on shock sites

How does policy affect Wikipedia articles on shock sites such as Goatse.cx ("so shocking it must be described not seen")? Do we REALLY let it all hang out? Should we? WAS 4.250 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fucking hell, I see what you mean! But perhaps that's how Muslims feel when they see those Muhammad cartoons, but because we westerns do not find those images offensive in any way they stayed right at the top. Gerard Foley 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Editorial discretion

There should be some discussion of (and a section about) the difference between discretion in deciding what is encyclopedic and censorship. Often Censorship accusations are made when the real issue is a difference in opinion in how to exercise editorial discretion in what is or is not included in an article. Trödel•talk 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the line This is not an excuse to replace images in articles with more controversial ones unless there is a reason to do so., I admit it's not very good. You are free to expand and clarify. What you are saying is one of the things I want to help end with this. Gerard Foley 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a note to the effect that if a number of images would serve a similar encyclopedic purpose, using the least controversial one is a good bet. This applies for instance to our use of drawings rather than images to depict sexual positions; both illustrate the position well, so there's no reason to use the image that is more likely to offend. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this point. Sexual positions should have photographs if they are available. I don't think just because they are controversial is a good reason not to have them. Gerard Foley 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
A cartoon could indeed be MORE descriptive than a picture, as well as less offensive. Brokenfrog 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A cartoon could discribe it differently, but a photo shows it like it is. Gerard Foley 15:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Depends, doesnt it? Cartoons can be more descriptive on some things, like a position, while a tecnique would really require a film clip, and to show a certain actor, a photo must be better than a carton. But film clips would take too much space and bandwidth, wouldn't it? DanielDemaret 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I would nearly always be in favor of a photo, as I said "it shows it like it is". If a cartoon has information not given in the photo then I would say there's room for both. Gerard Foley 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the camera can't lie; that's been an exploded idea since the nineteenth century. Photos of fairies, anyone? Politicians with Vietnam-protesting film stars? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A non sequitur is " A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."

  1. GF:Sexual positions should have photographs if they are available.
  2. BF:A cartoon could indeed be MORE descriptive than a picture, as well as less offensive.
  3. GF:A cartoon could discribe it differently, but a photo shows it like it is.
  4. DD:Cartoons can be more descriptive on some things, like a position, while a tecnique would really require a film clip, and to show a certain actor, a photo must be better than a carton.
  5. GF:I would nearly always be in favor of a photo, as I said "it shows it like it is". If a cartoon has information not given in the photo then I would say there's room for both.
  6. ME:I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the camera can't lie WAS 4.250 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pornography industry

Wikipedia has an amazing collection of pornography related articles. Should such articles be illustrated without restraint? See Pornography for some idea of what all would be illustrated with graphic photos. See [2] for a sense of the number of articles one could illustrate with a porn model in a "relevant" pose. See [3] for where we are going. Should porn stars known for this: List of female porn stars who deepthroat or this: List of big-bust models and performers be illustated according to their relevant categorization? Should these films be illustated with a box cover no matter what is on the box cover? Do we want the sum total of such pictures to be added to Wikipedia unconditionally? Have you seen the Encyclopedia of Bondage and (something else, I forget what but it includes all manner of self alteration- tatoos, cuttings, piercing, hanging from hooks embedded in oneself...) site? I saw it a couple of years ago. I feel strongly this is not a road we want to take while on the autopilot called "no censorship ever". WAS 4.250 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with porn, but I don't think it should be added to Wikipedia indiscriminately. When dealing with porn stars, I would say that the picture should have to be within some sort of reason (no penetration and probably no full frontal nudity, but what about topless?) and if there is a choice between two otherwise equivalent pictures, the one with the least nudity should be used. I'm not sure about pornographic film covers, as they often have full frontal nudity and sometimes have penetration. What about having making the picture in the article small enough that you can't make out much and then a full size one that can be clicked on? As for bondage, I would only use pictures when necessary and when one that is not too horrific can be found. -- Kjkolb 08:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is very simple. Articles about the Xbox should have pictures of Xboxes. Articles about Jesus should have pictures of Jesus. Articles about Muhammad cartoons should have pictures of the Muhammad cartoons. And articles about pornography should have pictures of pornography. Why should it be any different? Gerard Foley 10:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
While I wouldn't have problems with putting porno in articles about porno, I think that it would not only probably be a copyvio, but it would be obscenity under Florida law, which is to be avoided.
I deplore censorship, except where our hands are tied by the law. Lankiveil 06:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC).
Ut would only be obscenity according to Florida Law if it failed the Miller Test, would it not?DanielDemaret 07:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No, porn is legal in Florida. (I live in Florida). Yeltensic42 don't panic 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
However, it is illegal (even in Florida, I believe) to show porn on the net to minors knowingly. Wikipedia is accessed by minors all the time. Will we have to start providing warning labels on our articles saying "click here only if you are over 18"? The Jade Knight 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the legal definition of porn and obscenity differ in different areas? It's not our place to decide whether something is indecent or inappropriate. Gerard Foley's right, articles should have relevant pictures.
Have you seen the Encyclopedia of Bondage and (something else, I forget what but it includes all manner of self alteration- tatoos, cuttings, piercing, hanging from hooks embedded in oneself...) site?
Are you referring to Wipipedia? --WhyBeNormal? c · t · m 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for References: inlining and hiding

The proposed guidelineWhat censorship is seems to be riding on an unworkably broad definition of censorship! It is one that definately has no sense of its own boundaries. It fails to make the basic distinction between allowing autonomous user discretion (which inlining and hiding basically are) and censorship. I would like to see the references (of course noteables!)for this definition. For the moment, I will assume that it is not OR. Thanks in advance, AlwaysNever 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your call for references, so forgive me if I'm completely off the point here! In one instance (ordered by Jimbo) English Wikipedia does not directly show an image but provides a link instead: Autofellatio. Attempts to apply tis solution to other articles have failed due to vociferous protests from editors complaining about censorship. French Wikipedia operates a system of "rolled-up images" on many pages (see, for example fr:Pénis): this solution is also controversial on fr:, but obviously more widely applied than what we do here. Physchim62 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
A link? On my screen I see an image in the autifellation article.DanielDemaret 07:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The definition of censorship given here is the definition used for the purposes of this policy. It's not a dictionary entry, so we can use whatever definition we find acceptable. The French system has a major flaw, all images must be downloaded, then they are hidden. The images are visible until downloading has finished.Gerard Foley 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS censored

Just to throw something into the hat! I would love it to say somewhere that just because Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is not censored. The case of Florida law has already been mentioned, and let's not forget the largest subset of Florida law cases: Wikipedia is censored for images and text in violation of US-enforceable copyright. Wikipedia is also censored for the non-notable, the commercial and the nonsensically ridiculous, with several hundred articles being deleted every day. It must be one of the most censored sites "that you can edit"! The vast majority of editors prefer it that way. The editor who cries "Censorship!" is usually just admitting his or her failure to come up with any other argument to keep the material in an encyclopedia, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about Florida law. As for the editor who cries "Censorship!", I would like the policy to prevent that, come up with real arguments as to why something should stay or go. If the only argument people can come up with for keeping something is censorship, then it probably should go. And if the only argument for adding something to an article is censorship, then it probably shouldn't be added. Gerard Foley 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
People cry "censorship!" when useful and informative content is removed to cater to the sensibilities of someone or some group who have no interest in enhancing the quality of the article, but rather want to extirpate information that is anathema to their worldview. In those cases, the censorship is real, and should be resisted for the good of the encyclopedia. Removing an irrelevant or poor-quality pic fron an article is not censorship, it's a genuine effort to improve the article. The two are very different, and while one is an expression of the mission of this project, the other stands totally against that mission. Please don't conflate them. Babajobu 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Wikipedia is censored and that is how it should be. The policy that says we are not censored for the protection of minors is a legal tactic to try to limit our responsiblity/liability if any future court ever decides that we allowed a minor to see an offensive image, such as a sexually explicit cartoon. If such a legal case ever occurs, we have a fig leaf to hide behind because we can say, "We warned them we weren't censored, they took the risk". Johntex\talk 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And what is censored from Wikipedia? What should be censored? Gerard Foley 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
We currently censor potentially libelous inforation, potentially plagarized information, potentially offensive information, etc. There are no pictures of penetrative sexual intercourse here, as far as I know. There are no photos of child sex (I discount the images on Lolicon that show nudity but not sex. There is not a photo or a movie of a woman being raped at rape. As to exactly what we should and should not show, that of course will be a subject for discussion at the article in question. I'm sure opinions will ebb and flow on this point over time, and that different decisions will be reached in different circumstances. However, to argue that we are not censored, is simply incorrect. The only reason for the wording saying we are not censored is to point out for legal reasons that we do not guarantee that we censor ourselves to any particular level. Johntex\talk 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is censored. See my Opposition point in the poll section below. Haizum 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Necessary?

I'm not sure why we would need this extra policy; it feels a little like instruction creep to me. What does it really say that WP:NOT and the content disclaimer don't say already? --Nick Boalch ?!? 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of argument about the Muhammad cartoons and there is still arguing and edit warring at Lolicon about the images used. A lot of this is based on trying some form of censorship instead of what should be discussed i.e. which pictures help explain the article better. I don't want to solve the censorship argument on Lolicon only to have to start it again somewhere else. Is this instruction creep? Yes it is. Gerard Foley 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there are still arguments about these issues strongly suggests that WP:NOT and the content disclaimer aren't explicit enough that Wikipedia does not censor beyond what is necessary to comply with laws. The hope is that having a clear policy directly on point should obviate subsequent arguments so that all decisions are purely editorial ones. Postdlf 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, past precedent?

I can see a problem here with some past decisions. In particular, I recall the strong consensus against hosting the associated images and displaying them in the case of Goatse, which stands in stark contrast with the upload and display of the arguably offensive images in the case of the Muhammad cartoons. How will this policy distinguish between these two cases? Or should one be reviewed?--Fangz 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said above:

Fucking hell, I see what you mean! But perhaps that's how Muslims feel when they see those Muhammad cartoons, but because we westerns do not find those images offensive in any way they stayed right at the top. Gerard Foley 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

but this just shows the problem we have now. Does that help? Gerard Foley 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't read. It appears we have 3 options:
  1. Reverse cartoons, and risk a major slippery slope problem.
  2. Reverse Goatse, and well... no one wants that.
  3. Scrap this policy and deal with stuff on a case by case basis. And look like total hypocrites.
Did anyone say Catch-22?--Fangz 00:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we go for option 2, I don't want to see those images, I find them disgusting. But if we are going to have highly offensive cartoons in plain view I don't see why we should do any less for what we find highly offensive to us. Gerard Foley 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created a poll for this at Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images poll--Fangz 01:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Muhammad cartoons was not anything like a consensus process and reading the talk logs it's clear that the supporters of keeping the picture up mostly wanted it there for POV reasons. There was also a lot of well-meaning but incorrect use of admin powers with the effect of supporting one side of a POV battle. There's now a 3-volume e-book of the talk logs at the Baghdad Museum [4]. There needs to be a serious policy discussion about policy towards this stuff but I don't think the current proposal is a sensible starting point. The ALA censorship page has much more real-world relevance. Phr 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, there was pretty clear consensus, about ten-to-one in favor of keeping the pics displayed in the article. That's way beyond a supermajority or any other barometer of consensus that Wikipedia has. If that's not consensus, then nothing on Wikipedia ever has been. Babajobu 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
There was clear conensus for keeping the pics in the article. There was NOT clear consensus about their size and placement. But the people who insisted on the size and placement that kept the huge edit war running, screamed "censorship!" at the suggestion of any other size or placement. Phr 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the argument I started about the size of the image after I reduced it from 400px to 200px and was quickly reverted:

Image Size

Does the image have to be so big, what's wrong with the standard thumbnail size, and let users click for the larger version, as is the norm? I don't want to censor it, it just looks bad when it’s so big. Gerard Foley 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do find that the image is WAY to big for those of us with lower screen resolutions. It was just fine at 250px in my opinion. — TheKMantalk 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I just remembered I have a wide screen monitor, I resized it to a "standard size" and it takes up half the space. It looks even worse then before. Gerard Foley 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The image does seem to change size a lot! Right now, it is slightly larger than the version that one gets to after clicking the thumbnail. The 'normal' (smaller) thumbnail size, however roughly matches the 'norm'.Varga Mila 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I did go bold now and changed the image to size 200px (calculated so for 800x600 only take ¼ width). I hope this is ok for you all. →AzaToth 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a little small for me. Septentrionalis 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very silly thing to start an edit war with, to me 200px seams to me to be the standard size of images in articles, this one should be no different. Gerard Foley 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now. However, the image to which it links (i.e. the enlargement) ought to be bigger! As it is now, it is nearly impossible to 'decipher' e.g., the cartoon in the left hand corner furthest down (a cartoonist looking nervously over his shoulder). Varga Mila 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although the 400px version seems to portray the correct amount of detail and although I despise people who insist on keeping resolutions below 1024x768, I must say that 200px closer to the standard. If someone wants to see a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail or the link to the larger picture. joturner 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since I've been contributing on this article from the Feb. 6 I've noticed the occasional changes in the image size but frankly on my higher resolution screens it's never been an issue for me, that said there are those who do use lower resolution and with that in mind the image should be set to 250px. Netscott 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

250px is a little bigger them normal, but not so big as to take most of the space for itself. However, far worse then the size of the image, it the constant changing of its size. Gerard Foley 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, this seems childish. Leave it at 200px as context for the article, and so that it is viewable by a majority of users. Let people click the thumbnail to view the image in full. Can we leave the issue? James Kendall [talk] 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it at 250px, because that is what it is now. This is childish. Gerard Foley 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise it was 250px. To me it looks small as I have a high-res laptop screen, but it looks fine, and I expect its quite large on smaller resolutions. We are meant to be creating the world's best free reference material, not a bitchfest over pixels. James Kendall [talk] 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"A bitchfest over pixels" - I'll have to remember that one. joturner 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is much too small now- I can't read the cartoon as is --SeanMcG 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to click on it, can you? Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully wikipedia won't be targeted if it is enlarged :/ --SeanMcG 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Folks this shouldn't be an issue... the main page image isn't meant to be the image that one examines closely (that's why it's clickable) and even though the clickable one is still a bit small the reason for this has to do with image rights. Please stop the bickering and just leave it at 250px... Netscott 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be left at 250px and I apologize for the resizing... I forgot that some people use smaller screens and that it could cause issues. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Even the large version now is unreadable. Was this a compromise? HiS oWn 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


This line from the actual image page explains the reason for it's lack of clarity:

"it is a low-resolution image; the full details of the drawings cannot be seen, nor can the text of the article be read (and thus should not inhibit Jyllands-Posten from selling their newspaper)". Netscott 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the type of argument to be encouraged. Real discussion explaining the problems with certain size images, with no-one shouting censorship. The size was quickly agreed. Gerard Foley 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The size and the placement was not quickly agreed, it went on for days/weeks, there was never consensus, and there is a three-volume e-book with the logs [5]. Also, 200px is not a standard size and the style guide suggests 120px WP:MOS#Pictures. But there's no point rehashing that argument; please try to get back to discussing policy and why you think the ALA guidelines on censorship are insufficient for Wikipedia's goals. Phr 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually poll two showed a very strong consensus for keeping the image at the top. There was no poll on image size, though, you're right. Babajobu 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Pace of change

Is there any way to say we want absolutely no censorship but let's not try to get there all at once? To take human emotions into account? To move in a deliberate but unhurried way towards that end, just in case there are reprecusions (donations?). Can we implement this in a deliberative thoughtful way rather than all at once? WAS 4.250 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but if this is accepted I won't be going on an anti-censorship crusade across Wikipedia. I will be using it on articles I'm already involved in or will be in the future. Gerard Foley 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Please add to the policy somewhere whether the policy is for or against censorship....DanielDemaret 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I put it at the top. WAS 4.250 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That purported definition of censorship

seems to me to trivialize what censorship really is. It recurs in instances of what I call "Demi-Godwin's law" (miniature version of Godwin's law): in any content dispute someone will eventually accuse the other side of censorship. It's too often nothing but a special pleading by someone trying to force a WP:POINT.

I propose this definition, from the American Library Association Intellectual Freedom Q&A:

What Is Censorship?
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

I think we need to have a serious understanding (like the one above) of what censorship is, before we can sensibly debate policy about it in much detail. --Phr 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

America censors sex, Europe censors violence, China censors politics, Islamistan censors religion. WAS 4.250 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a confusing use of the word censor and overly simplifies the issue in order to be pithy. In America and Europe, regulations control who has access to sex/violence but do not "see to remove access...so that no one else has a chance to read or view the material..." Both societies have determined they have a compelling interest in protecting some segment of the population, and the use of the power is widely discussed and debated. This is very different than the censorship exercised by China, and some Islamic regimes. Additionally, by describing it all as censorship, the outrageous behavior is "excused" because the comment implies that china's censorship is no different than the US governements regulations on sexual content, when, in reality, it is quite different. No one dies for showing a breast during the superbowl, but China kills or imprisons disidents who publish political information they don't like. Trödel•talk 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good definition, as is the other information on the American Library Association page. Gerard Foley 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that readers might vary in their opinions of the relevance of an image such as the autofellatio JPEG. I don't personally find the image offensive (rather, I think he's lucky to be so flexible in that particular direction), but don't need to see it in order to understand a text explanation of autofellatio. If images such as those on the 'Bad Image' list are placed behind links to copies hosted on Wikipedia, the information is still being provided. Images can also be labeled as 'potentially offensive,' with a caveat that they will not be removed if someone does find them offensive. Other than that one point, this policy is a work of art and should be passed even if this point is not changed. Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com

Wikipedia can NOT censor

As I have been thinking about this issue - I am concerned. One, as mentioned above, editorial discretion is often confused with censorship. Two, people who remove non-notable information are often accused of censorship. And Three, Wikiepdia can not censor.

Traditionally, censorship can only be performed by a state actor. Since wikipedia has no authority to restrict the flow of ideas outside of the wikipedia website, there can be no true censorship.

Finally, since Wikipedia is so transparent, censorship becomes moot. Nearly all changes are reviewable, and discussions of issues are also covered in the history.

Therefore, I think having a policy like this will only make things more confusing for new users, and further muddy the waters of discussion. Use of "censorship" too much devalues the word, and does not allow it to be used when true, state sponsored, censorship occurs, whether overtly or through the suggestion of implied threats of bodily harm to news organizations. Trödel•talk 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding [the] quote [below] - I think it captures the intent of the page - and is worded in such a way as to avoid my concerns. Trödel•talk 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (copied from my talk page) WAS 4.250 16:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to disagree, there are enough admin that will support a ban, or delete an idea, then censorship will occur. --Masssiveego 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is already policy

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted. at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not WAS 4.250 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline that clarifies that that policy means that whinging about dirty pictures on articles about Oral Sex is not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It is actually a guideline that gives people an excuse to be offensive when being prudent would be a better course. There is nothing wrong, for example, with moving a shocking image down the page and warning a user with a spoiler warning that it is comming. Johntex\talk 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Musing about being clear versus instruction creep

"Informative" was just added in appropriate places and "This is a guideline that clarifies that that policy means that whinging about dirty pictures on articles about Oral Sex is not acceptable" was given as an answer to why the existing censorship policy is not enough; so I would like to chew the fat about being clear versus instruction creep. I think deciding the exact meaning of "no censorship" on an article by article basis is going to occur with or without this added guideline and I have no clue if it would help or hurt that debate or hurt or help fund raising when peope are emotionly tramatized when their cultural boundaries are graphically violated (sex, violence, politics, religion). "Informative" is surely what is meant as is "relevent". Should we add "relevant"? Again, I have no clue - we know that is what is meant - so is that an argument to add or not to add "relevant"? More to the point would be some way of being clearer about what we mean by "informative and relevant". Maybe a few pointed examples drawn from actual Wikipedia history. And if we are going to use wikipedia history, I recommend we cut to the chase and say specifically if this guideline suggests shock site photos are to be expected to be shown on the relevant shock site Wikipedia article and if that is a reason to not have a borderline shock site article at all if its going to further distribute a shocking for shock's sake image. WAS 4.250 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I would like to point out that in the world outside wikipedia the word "consensus" means that everyone agrees. I know that there is an alternative definition in use here, but I would very much prefer the term Qualified Majority or supermajority for a 2/3 or 9/10 majority. It would lessen confusion.

Let me lighten up the mood here by quoting Ben Franklin : ' "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote" '.

Consensus might be when they all eat smoked salmon?

I have changed my mind on the vote here, and I now think we should talk some more to reach consensus intead of voting. The policy wording is now : "Wikipedia disregards "offensive" or "objectionable" as valid grounds for the removal of information or images." So far, so good.

Perhaps we should add " or blasphemous" to this, since some think that there may be a difference.

Perhaps we should add that if there is consensus , in the sense that everyone agreees not to show a picture due to ut being "offensive", then there is no reason to show it, but if a single person can make a coherent argument that the picture adds needed information to the argument, i e a text is not enough , then the picture should, by policy stay. In other words, we give the sheep some arms.

I am not even sure about the details myself, but Resid and Babajobu have convinced me that there is a double standard, that has so far been dealt with by democracy and edit wars. It would be much better if we could all agree on a guideline to help these cases become policy.

Perhaps it would simplify matters if a first policy statement only dealt with images, since this is the current discrepancy?

Let's sit down and talk until everyone agrees. There is no hurry. It may take weeks until the next crisis.

If there is no consensus on what the policy should contain, then I feel there should be no policy, but rather endure the double-standards, edit-wars and article-by-article battles. It just seems a bit sad, doesnt it?

DanielDemaret 08:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps an entire censorship policy is premature? Perhaps it might be easier, and we only need a tentative general agreement on how the handling of these few images should be handled the same? Which would surely mean a temporary decision that we allow all of them to be inline.DanielDemaret 10:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the problem that Resid has made me see agree in goatse, a majority, not a consensus has decided that one picture should not be inline , not because it was irrelevant or interesting to some (although it was totally un-interesting to me, hence my initial mistake. Also, I thought there was a consensus in the goatse case, but I looked at the poll, and realized that its "the "majority-kind-of-consensus" that was meant here.), but because the majority seemed to think it was "objectionable". Hence a majority have out-voted a minority on the ground of "objectionable", whereas in the mohammed case those voting "objectionable" were in a minority instead. A crytal clear case of the two wolves deciding. DanielDemaret 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the page as it is now. Blasphemous would fall under objectionable, but if people feel this needs to be clarifid I don't mind. I am happy to suport this now unless someone can point out problems with it. Gerard Foley 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


What would be the practical results from the policy ?

What would be the immidiate practical changes in the articles mentioned here if this policy were to be adopted? Would all pictures be treated the same way in all three articles? I e , would we have to start showing the goatse-picture inline in the goatse-article as a consequence? If not, would the policy somehow satisfy the accusation of "double standards" ? DanielDemaret 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in the proposal that singles out goatse-pictures as exempt, nor do I feel that they should be exempt. The immediate practical changes will depend on what people do with the policy. It was subjected above that we should move slowly if this is adopted, and I agree, but no-one can truly know what will happen. There is only one way to find out. Gerard Foley 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO such policy won't stop anyone in warring, won't help very much in improving quality of articles and will only add to already large body of policies. The first two problems will be (partially) solved by having stable version of articles. Pavel Vozenilek 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Pavel, by saying "such a policy", are you then implying that no matter how we write this policy, it will not stop any warring? Would that imply that to try to create a special censorship policy would be totally useless? DanielDemaret 09:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
IMHO yes (would be useless in stopping anyone). It would be, however, quickly misused by crapflooders, claming of getting "censored".
What makes sense is to reduce load on people here to allow larger participation in improving quality, rather than chasing vandals and trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Crapflooding is outside the scope of this policy, it should be dealt with by some other policy or as simple vandalism.
Policy says:
Do not argue for or against the removal or replacement of text or images simply on the grounds that you find them "offensive" or believe that others may find them "offensive".
We want people to discuss how to improve an article, not discuss censorship and morality. Gerard Foley 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a second note Do not argue for or against the removal or replacement of text or images on the grounds that you believe its removal is censorship might make this clearer? Gerard Foley 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And Pavel, since we agree that "makes sense is to reduce load on people here", is there any improvement to this current policy, or in any other kind of policy or action that you think might help us achieve this?DanielDemaret 09:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Policy to Policy

How do we get this from a Proposed Policy to a real Policy, or do people think it still needs work? I am happy to support it. Gerard Foley 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If we can not even guess what effect this policy will have, then I think it needs more work.DanielDemaret 08:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More work in what way? Gerard Foley 14:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In any way that will make a difference to how articles are debated or written. If this proposed Policy does not change anything at all, then what is the point of making it a real policy?DanielDemaret 16:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope it will stop people debating based on censorship, immoral etc.. For example, I want to have some images at lolicon moved, deleted and replaced. I don't want to be fighting censorship arguments while doing it. Gerard Foley 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about this, I would like to know if people think this is a good thing or not. Gerard Foley 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Current images on lolicon are so tame they aren't even lolicon and yet people (children?? I don't know and am puzzled) claim they are "illegal in South Africa" and are kiddy porn. They are porn the way a cartoon of a shoe is porn to a shoe fetishist. You could make a poster of the images and put them on a billboard and get no complaints until someone wanting to be in the newspaper raises a fuss. The coppertone girl was on billboards and was more risque. WAS 4.250 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So do you think the policy is a good idea or a bad idea and why? Gerard Foley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If it were not for human emotions, I would agree with this as being policy 100%. But humans are very very emotional and wars occur based on emotions. I think whether this becomes policy or not should rest on the practical consequences and I'm not sure we know what those will be. I recommend LOTS of talk and publicity. Let's be sure of ourselves. The POINT of emotions is to motivate behavior. Logic is a poor defense against physical behavior. WAS 4.250 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this proposed policy is a very bad idea for reasons given elsewhere here. In a nutshell, it is wise to give more flexibility to editors of individual articles. In particular, there is nothing wrong with offensive images on a subpage. This keeps them from smacking the unsuspecting reader in the face, while at the same time making them easily avaialble to those who want to see them. What is or is not likely to cause offense can be handled on a case by case basis by the editors of the article, without the need for a centrally imposed fiat. Johntex\talk 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Johntex. Nuff said. DanielDemaret 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Images

I was looking around the various shock site articles, and I see that most of them are missing images of the sites themselves! If Wikipedia is to be an informative enyclopedia, wouldn't we need images of these sort of things? After all, it would be much more informative if we had examples of this species of web site. After all, look at the lolicon article: a few "tasteful" images of drawn child pornography definately increases the understanding of the subject! MajorB 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the above comment was made and then deleted so I'm re-adding it. Gerard Foley 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe MajorB thinks it is so obvious that we don't want or need shock site images on wikipedia that he can say the opposite of what he means and successfully communicate in a humorous kind of way, not realizing others think that illustating an encyclopedia's article with the most relevant image is so obviously the right thing to do that they won't pick up on his humor at all. Someone might think it trollish and delete it, but it should not be deleted. WAS 4.250 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Prank flash

I was just looking at some of these flash animations. They are very scary from most points of view. If we are writing a censorship policy I think we need to decide what to do with them. I believe the current situation in the Prank flash is fine, but the policy should state this. Comments? Gerard Foley 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps mentioning certain cases of how articles have been handled so far, to make guidelines clearer, you mean?DanielDemaret 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy says

There is no agreement or substantive evidence as to what information may cause concrete, objective harm to society or individuals.

I think this argument falls apart with the animations. Even knowing what was going to happen and having the volume turned down it still caused quite a shock. Gerard Foley 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement or substantive evidence as to whether receiving quite a shock may cause concrete, objective harm to society or individuals. --cesarb 17:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What if you have a heart condition? It probably doesn't matter, video can't be displayed inline anyway and without the sound it's not that shocking. Gerard Foley 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out what the problem is supposed to be. We link to animations that are ten second scary movies. So what? What does this have to do with this proposal??? (And I do have a heart condition. Don't censor what I see based on that, thank you very much. Real life is scary. War is scary. Monster animations that go "Boo" are meant to be fun.) WAS 4.250 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about the linking, I just want to know if we could display them inline, would we? Or have I found a limit to how far no censorship goes? Gerard Foley 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Display it here, and let's talk about it. (Find a fitting example that illustrates whatever issue you are trying to raise, cause I still don't have a clue to what you are asking can be displayed. WAS 4.250 19:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Foley 19:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You think this proposal is about links????? Wow, are we not communicating! WAS 4.250 20:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. :)Gerard Foley 20:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record. I looked at links. No reaction. We have not reached any consensus on limits here. As far as I am concerned the worst pictures that I can imagine are already in wikipedia depicting the real horrors of war. And I think they must be shown here. DanielDemaret 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gerard Foley 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Moving on

Since there is no discussion going on, let me ask a question that might lead somewhere. If we make this a policy, do you think this policy would

  1. Help the keeping of the Mohammed Cartoons by policy, so we can minimize that discussion for a similar case next time?
  2. Help the current status of the lolicon images (whatever that status is, I havent checked) or current status on the goatse images by policy so we can minimize that discussion for a case similar to any of those the next time?

In other words, even the policy does not change anything, perhaps it helps status quo, so we can minimize discussions in the future.

Not even policy is written in stone, so we can always change it later if we need to.DanielDemaret 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy is that the Mohammed Cartoons and lolicon images stay, and if someone re-adds the goatse images then they cannot be removed (except for other reasons). The very reason I made this page was so I would not have get into a censorship debate again (on Wikipedia at least, the lolicon images debate has now started on Wiktionary). WP:NOT does not explain what is considered censorship nor why we can't and don't do it (it reads more like a disclaimer), so this page is good for that also. The lack of discussion seams to suggest to me that no-one has any major objections to this (Is this true?). Gerard Foley 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That is the only way I can interpret it. Then lets move on. Let us make this a policy, and see what happens. :) DanielDemaret 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a poll? If it fails to pass we can have a look at the reasons why, address them and try again. Gerard Foley 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A new suggestion for the intro

Mr 62.116.76.117 has implied a new wording by changing it without discussing it here. I have reverted it, since I think it is not as good as the previous one, but let us discuss his suggestion here :

'If the article is conform with all other Wikipedia policies (i.e. No Personal Attack), there is no censorship on Wikipedia. Because what is "offensive" (which includes "immoral") varies between people in areas such as sex, religion and politics; it seems impossible not to offend at least somebody. Anyway, Wikipedia articles should not explicitly try to offend anybody.' DanielDemaret 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Mr 62.116.76.117,

1. The first meaning of the first sentence is ambiguous. Please rephrase it.

There should be a reference to the other Wikipedia policies. "No censorship" alone implies, that there are no rules at all. Especially the No Personal Attack policy should get mentioned. Maybe it can be rephrased to: "Since Wikipedia has no hierarchy, there is no censor and therefore no censorship. On the other hand the articles should be conform with Wikipedia policies ((i.e. No Personal Attack)." Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No harm in saying you can't screem "censorship" when a comment like "IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU IF YOU REVERT ME AGAIN" is removed. Gerard Foley 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How about "YOU MUSLIMS ARE ALL JUST TERRORISTS"? Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That also falls under Wikipedia:No personal attacks Gerard Foley 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And if I draw that message in a cartoon? Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What difference does that make? You're not allowed make personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. Period. Gerard Foley 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Added to "What this policy is not" Gerard Foley 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

2. You left out violence in the second sentence. Why?

It doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by that? Isn't violence always offensive? Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not always, some people love violence. Especially when I'm destroying my enemies on CS. Also, some of the funniest things I have ever seen is based on acts of violence. (anvils hitting a coyote, somebody getting it in nards, etc). Whether or not that is TRUE violence remains to be debated. I do the draw the line at things like that one scene in Hotel Rwanda where they drive over a ton of bodies. I wasn't laughing then. That is pretty damn nasty. Copysan 12:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia explicitly offends a lot of people, but not intentionally so. Is "intentionally" what you meant?DanielDemaret 20:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant intentionally. Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Already under "What this policy is not" as "This is not an excuse to deliberately contribute

content to offend as many as possible" Gerard Foley 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This was constructive. Something new was added to "What the policy is not". On the matter of violence, I happen to agree with you that violence is always offensive, but I have seen those that do not feel as we do, so I think viloence should be included. We all agree on that the "intent" part is allready included, don't we? DanielDemaret 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually WAS said: "Intention is none of your business. Stay out of my head. Wikipedia must judge solely on content, not state of mind. There is nothing more sacred than freedom of thought." therefore I removed "intentionally". Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr 62.116.76.117

Your suggested change is poor English, a poor suggestion, and doesn't add anything. Reference to the other Wikipedia policies exists when we say reasons other than censorship (being offensive) can be used. Violence is not always offensive.

Can you give an example?
Movies, war? Gerard Foley 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How can you say, that war is not offensive? Since war is the most offensive act of human kind. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex is not always offensive. Religion is not always offensive. Politics is not always offensive.

I never said so. Do you want sexist or racist articles on Wikipedia? Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
KKK? Gerard Foley 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
IMHO the article describes a historic organisation and does not promote their ideals. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because promoting their ideals would violate NPOV. Gerard Foley 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Intention is none of your business. Stay out of my head. Wikipedia must judge solely on content, not state of mind. There is nothing more sacred than freedom of thought. WAS 4.250 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

The discussion above is becoming less clear with each edit. Please Raphael, could I ask you to in future texts to add your comments under other peoples comments, instead of in the middle of other people comments.It quickly become unclear who wrote what otherwise. Also, a proper account is recommended so you can sign properly.

Also, Raphael, I recall you had a question regarding mocking minorities in another article that you might want to follow up here? That was, I think, a critique of the mohammed cartoons being displayed in wikipedia. Your critique that by displaying the cartoons in wikipedia, wikipedia was mocking muslims, was it not? The policy that we are writing could be used to support showing the cartoons since not showing the cartoons, even if they may be offensive to some, are necessary to explain what the event is all about. Do you have a comment on this? Your input is welcome. DanielDemaret 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You don't have to show child pornography to explain what it is, do you? Showing the mohammed cartoons on Wikipedia is a violation of the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult."). Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is wikipedia not showing a kind of child pornography in lolicon ? So you think they should remove those images too?DanielDemaret 23:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As to the Wikiquette, you have misunderstood that policy. The purpose of that policy, if you look at the entire text, is to help people work together, it is not a guide to what to write in the article itself. Other policies do that.DanielDemaret 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, even if you tried to use this against showing the cartoons, it would not work. We are not making any personal attack. The accusation is that showing the cartoons is an insult to islam, not to any person. However, wikipedia is not insulting, it is merely referring to an already published cartoon, that may or may perceived as an insult. A muslim may perceive it as an insult if it is shown here, but I would be offended if the cartoons were not shown, among other things since censorship lead to bad things, like democide in some cases.DanielDemaret 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As you say "a muslim may perceive it as an insult" as it is shown here. What else do you want to include into wikipedia just because you are against "censorship"? Is "no censorship" your only argument for wanting those cartoons? Btw the holocaust was preceded by showing uncensored anti-semitic cartoons. Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The same goes for the No personal attacks policy.DanielDemaret 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Wikiquette and No personal attacks describes how people should work together, they have nothing to do with what appears in articles. As for the Mohammed cartoons, Muslims have no right to impose their moral values on others, just as I have no right to demand something be removed because I find it immoral. Gerard Foley 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How do people work together other than by writing articles? What about your moral values? Do you think it's moral to insult 1.3 billion people because of their religion? Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all Raphael, it is not clear that it is the pictures themselves that insult the muslims, but since you say you have read all the discussions in the mohammed cartoon talks, you already know this.

On moral. Secondly, according to St Augustine, one of the pillars of the Catholic Church, to hide the truth is immoral. True knowledge should be shared, if the value of knowledge is not dimished by sharing. He is one of the forerunners of the Open Source Foundation, and he is recognized as such there.

NB. St Augustine looked at some things differently than we do. He was against showing evil. His idea of evil was however things like this: It is sinful to believe in superstition. It is sinful to tell lies. Witches do not exist. Therefore, he says, it is a sin to say or write that witches exist. The alternative to showing the truth is to censor truth. If Hitler, Mao and Stalin's actions had been shown , instead of censored, they would never have been able to murder 100+ million people. Many nazi soldiers refused to shoot germans jews. That is one of the many reasons they had to censor this even from their soldiers. To censor is immoral. DanielDemaret 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't you follow the news? The pictures are insulting many muslims. Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO there is no true knowledge in those cartoons. What knowledge would be hidden by not showing those cartoons?
  • If a lot of that "truth" (as you call it) would have been censored, the holocaust wouldn't have been possible. There is no way, that 6 million jews could have been killed, if only a few people knew about that genocide. Truth is, that anti-semitism has been very common in germany, just as islamophobia is very common today. Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
YES, Fr. Ted mocked, insulted and made fun of the Christian church. The Irish get mocked as stupid drunks in lots of American TV. What's the problem?
What else do we want to include in Wikipedia because we are against censorship? Everything relevant!
We can't remove everything that people find insulting from Wikipedia, so why should it be done for Muslims? Gerard Foley 00:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If we wanted to insult anyone, Raphael, then we would not be having this discussion nor this policy. We would simply be removing images and deleting texts blatantly without discussion, thereby insulting the hundreds of people who have put hours and intelligent thought to putting the articles they way they are.DanielDemaret 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to tell me, that you don't want to insult that one guy who put the cartoons on that article, but you don't care if that image insults 1.3 billion people? Is it because those people are muslims? Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE do not write in the middle of other peoples texts. If I had not written parts myself I would have suspected that Raphael wrote for censorship and I wrote Against censorship. PLEASE clean this up, or I will have to do some drastic cleaning to the text. As it is, the text above is useless, and it becomes totally useless to try and have a debate.DanielDemaret 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) WHat you have done amounts to vandalism of the discussion, intent or no. DanielDemaret 08:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried my best to clean it up. Please don't use formal reasons as an excuse not to answer my questions. Raphael 62.116.76.117 12:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You changed the text in this section so that one could not see who was saying or asking what. I appreciate your effort to try to clean it up, but what is written here is still not exactly what was here before the mess started, so I am going to suggest that any questions you may have be restated in a later section. DanielDemaret 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some censorship is good

I oppose this policy as it is currently written. There are many forms of editorial restraint (call them self-censorship if you prefer) that are beneficial to the project. There is nothing wrong with hiding a potentially offensive image behind one extra link, for example. If we did that at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy then everyone would win. Muslims who would be offended by the image could still come to our article to read about the controversy. They would not have to complain about being insulted or experiencing religeous persecution. At the same time, people who want to see the image have it avaialble to them at the click of a button. There would be no reason for them to howl about "censorship". Johntex\talk 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is the Muhammad cartoons are not behind a link and I don't think they will be any time soon. If you try it people will probably howl about "censorship". What if people wanted to hide girls in bikini's, would they go behind links also? Let's end this endless debate and get on with writing the encyclopedia. Gerard Foley 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Censorship is already against policy, so the heading is a moot point. A link of important material to another site may be classed as censorship, since I have seen those sites being censored before my very eyes, and hence totally destroying all content in an article. But on the other hand, I am not personally 100% convinced that just adding a link to a sub-article really is censorship. I have seen people howl that it is censorship, but I have not seen anyone give any reason why. Perhaps someone could explain why a link to a sub-site or just putting an image lower in the text is censorship? DanielDemaret 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't aggee that censorship is against policy. Our current policy not only permits but requires censorship in some cases, such as libel, etc. As for offensive images, there are many examples where a given image was removed for various reasons. Also, putting a potentially offensive image behind one-click, does not mean we have to hold it off-site. We can put the image at Article/Hidden_Images. This way, we have control of keeping the images available. Johntex\talk 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So your interpretation of the quote "Wikipedia is not censored" that I copied here further down is not to interpret it as a guideline that wikipedia should not be censured, but perhaps as something else? Please develop your interpretation.DanielDemaret 18:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Well trying to move "offencive" images lower down a page or on a sub-page will get you more useless censorship debates. I want them to stop. Gerard Foley 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


It would be great if that would stop. But that still does not explain how one can consider it censorship. Perhaps if we understood why "lowering" an image is considered censorship, we could counter the problem in this or another policy. DanielDemaret 00:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Because you're treating it different to other images just because some people object to it find it immoral. Gerard Foley 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So what? Are there any other reasons to change articles, than people who object it's current stage? Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think you are convincing me :) We wont stop the "howl about "censorship", even if we lower the images, which is what Johntex argument was that it should do. DanielDemaret 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me. I am talking about putting potentially offensive images behind one extra click, not lowering them down the page. Your point is fair that people may still complain it is censorship, but you will never have a policy that no one complains about. My point is that putting images such as this one click away should satisy most reasonable people. People who want to see the images may click and do so, people who don't want to see the images don't have them show up unexpectedly. Johntex\talk 18:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I would have agreed with this earlier Johntex, and indeed have myself argued similarly in the cartoon article, but the votes of 90% of the people seemed to suggest that either 1. this is not so or 2. most are not reasonable, or 3. I am was dazzled by the vehement response and have forgotten exactly what happened. I am not used to editing or writing articles where so many disagree so much. Perhaps you can investigate and elucidate on which of these three it might be? DanielDemaret 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
DanielDemaret was asking about moving the images down the page. If you start putting images behind links you'll just end up with random link boxes scattered all over pages like penis, defeating the purpose of images to begin with. Have a look. You might as well list them in the see also section. You also give people the impression that these pictures are "wrong" or "shameful", which is a message we should try to avoid where possible. Gerard Foley 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether the picture is "wrong" or "shameful" is your opinion. Why force your opinion on everyone else? Putting the images one click away is a reasonable compromise to accomodate both viewpoints. Johntex\talk 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
And if people find bikini images "wrong" or "shameful", do they get linkimaged also, to accomodate both viewpoints? Gerard Foley 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) You are trying to make a slippery slope argument. I could make one as well: If people complain that removing their linkspam is censorship, should we restore all those links so we are censoring content? Of course not. This is the trouble with slippery slope arguments. We need to find a middle ground that satisfies as many people as we can, that way, our tool will be used by the greatest number of poeple possible. Johntex\talk 18:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam must be covered by some other policy, I sure it says "Wikipedia is not a collection of external links" somewhere, or a style guide has a recommended number of external links. Get the links and we can write that in here. This censorship policy was never meant to override other Wikipedia policies. Also I would like to know what you think of the penis page. Gerard Foley 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't dislike the proposed penis page you show. I like the fact that their is no picture of a penis at the very top. This gives the reader a chance to read what a penis is before seeing a picture. That is not a bad thing. Imagine a student in France who does not know much English and hears the word penis for the first time and comes here to look it up on a class computer - they may appreciate the discretion. However, I would prefer to show at least one pencil drawing of a penis further down the page. A photo of an erect penis and a photo of a penis covered in VD sores could both be behind links. That would be my ideal compromise. I'm sure other people would prefer to draw the line slightly differently, but there is no harm leaving that up to the authors working on each page. Johntex\talk 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You never answered my bikini image question, I believe Muslims might find them offence. If they started to complain, would we link to them also? Gerard Foley 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please understand that my opinion is to chart a reasonable middle ground. Given that I am not aware of a large group of users citing offense at images of women in bikinis, at this point, my opinion would be that showing those images is consistent with a reasonable middle ground. However, if the bikini article generates a lot of complaints, we could and should consider remedies. A question for you, how would it harm our readers if the bikini image comes far enough down the page that the reader can read a little before seeing an image. Johntex\talk 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said above: "Because you're treating it different to other images just because some people find it immoral". As you know, immoral is a POV, and varies a lot between people. One reason for NPOV is because people will never agree on what is immoral, or offensive. A neutral way of dealing with the problem is to simply disregard it altogether. Remove immoral and censorship from the equation, and we can make Wikipedia the best it can be. With so many POV in the world, most people will probably find something immoral on Wikipedia anyway. Gerard Foley 19:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Every editorial decision we make involved POV. Is this link relevant? Is that source notable? Is this well written? Even this propsoed guideline says that deliberately shocking material should not be included. Whether something is deliberately shocking or not requires a POV. This is no different. There is no harm in having faith in our readers that we can give them the tools to decide for themselves whether to see a particular image. Why not give the reader more credit and more room to decide? Johntex\talk 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, what images do we let readers decide to view or not? Bikini images might not have caused any edit wars yet, but may still be offensive to some. And where does it say deliberately shocking material should not be included? Gerard Foley 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To your second question, please note that I did not use quotation marks around my statement. What this proposed quideline currently says is actually "This is not an excuse to deliberately contribute content to offend members of a race, nation, gender or religion intentionally." The term deliberately shocking was my own. To your first question, my answer is that we should always give the reader the opportunity to see the image. Whether it is in the article, or one mere click away, this can be decided by the editors of the individual article. They know best the article they are working on. There is no reason to take away this tool from them by fiat. Johntex\talk 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Moving images down is an imprecise tool. Those with high resolution monitors or widescreen monitors will see more of the page than other people, and sometimes, it will make it so that images will show up on the "first" page. Personally, I'd be okay with one thumbnail sized image illustrating the overall topic, and links to further images. For example, on the penis page, this would be a picture of the famous cross-section pictures of a penis that they hand out in middle school sex ed. Copysan 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Distorted terminology

Some people distorting terminology which creates unnecessary restrictions. Self censorship... What does it mean? What is the difference between 'self censorship' and 'being responsible'? I think in cartoon case, everybody sould have been responsible in the first place... Being responsible means predicting the possible reactions -which is not hard at all- and acting accordingly in this case.

Any text or article can be written in a form that it can give the core idea but still do not offend or insult anyone. Only then, it is more valueable...

Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise are the tool we need to use for a better Wiki... Being responsible is a natural result of the principles above. Resid Gulerdem 05:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • One very important difference I can name is: In the MC article self-censorship means "Refusing draw something because there is a fear of a criminal death threat, or that 12 men will come to your daugthers school to look for her". Responsability usually means doing the right thing because it is morally right to do so, and doing this right thing eveb if EVEN if some criminal loonatics want to kill you for it. DanielDemaret 08:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, I have to be agree with Raphael in this that: you are reverting the chronology and create a psedo-reality. The events you are referring to is not reson but result. Moreover they are contraversial. There are some uncertanities in scool case for example. Resid Gulerdem 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So, yes Resid, I agree that we need to be responsible. In the MC case, we simply do not agree what the responsable thing to do is. Nor do I agree with you that simply writing a text describing the cartoons is enough to understand them. DanielDemaret 08:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that is why this discussion is important. If, for example, using links or templates can be included in Wiki standards as a common way to handle contraversial pictures, that could solve the problem. We should be able to say that, having a link instead of a contraversial picture is not self-censorship or censorship...
I tried to explain what can be a responsible way in MC case in the talk page. We could just have one cartoon (artist drawing Mohammad). It summarize what the fuss is all about... (By the way does anyone know if the artist drawing Mohammad cartoon is uploaded to Wiki as a single file? If not how can that be done?) Resid Gulerdem 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, during the early discussions in the cartoons, I suggested just to have one cartoon. Not, sure, I may even have been the first to suggest it. The one man drawing a cartoon. And I think you supported this. It is just that we both got out-voted by by 90% of the others. Here, in this article, I am just trying to see if the suggestion that a guideline might stop the discussions in each and every article might work. At the moment I lean towards thinking that this guideline will not do anything at all to help. DanielDemaret 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Please let us get back to discussing the article at hand.DanielDemaret 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly... It was not my idea, but I supported that briliant idea to the end. I do not remember if it was yours but I am sure now it is. Now, why do you think that the policy will not help? Resid Gulerdem 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I am going to leave it to Johntex, to answer that question, if he cares to, since I am following his lead in this right now. I am going to be content with following this discussion for a bit and refrain from editing for a while since I really have no new ideas about the subject. DanielDemaret 23:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, Resid, I do not think this article is about self-censorship. I am not sure where such a discussion might fit in. This current discussion is about if and how we should explain what censorship in wikipedia means, since there is already an old policy that wikipedia should have no censorship. DanielDemaret 08:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Please let us get back to discussing the article at hand.DanielDemaret 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not want particularly talk about self-censorship. What I was saying actually can be considered in terms of censorship in general. Do not you think that self-censorship is part of censorship discussion anyways? Resid Gulerdem 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Anonymous self-censorship has nothing to do with fear. You are reversing cause and effect. If JP would not have posted those cartoons, there would have been no criminal death threats etc. Obviously nobody could have forseen the worldwide results of showing the cartoons. You are acting completely illogic. By your logic, I should insult you, if there is a chance that you might freak out and do something criminal. Raphael 62.116.76.117 13:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Final to policy?

Even if we should all agree on the wording of this policy. Which, by the way is not about whether we should have censorship or not, but only what the old wikipedia "no censorship" really means, what would it take to make it a policy? Does anoyone know? DanielDemaret 09:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that people are marching towards creating a policy regarding the censorship. Isn't it the case here? On the project tremplate it is said so, and I want to see it that way... Resid Gulerdem 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I apologize for asking a question that was not about this precise proposal. I was just curious about the technical procedures for policies in general, and I was hoping someone could tell me. My mistake. DanielDemaret 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
H Daniel - I don't think you should have to apologize. You asked a fair question. I do think it is clear from the edits here today that this does not have consensus to be promoted. I am suggesting one modification in a new section below. Johntex\talk 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason Daniel apologize is that he is so polite. I do not see a reason other than that for the apology either. As a new person, I was also trying to understand what is going on here in this discussion... Resid Gulerdem 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

I feel that a few quotes from other pages needs to be reminded:

1. An old well known Wikipedia policy :

Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted. See also: Wikipedia:Profanity.

And this is not telling us that we cannot use our editorial common sense or take compromise measures to allow our users to choose whether or not to see particular images. Note that it says "may contain" not "will contain", "does contain", "should contain", "sets out to contain". Etc. It is first and foremost a disclaimer saying that we are not responsible in a legal sense if someone gets offended, or if some contributor uploads questionable content. Johntex\talk 19:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Jimbo's heading in the Mohammed Cartoons talk page:

This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

It is neither polite, toughtful nor smart to insult people because of their religious believes, as it is done by showing the cartoons on the MC article. Raphael 62.116.76.117 13:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about the cartoons. You may discuss the cartoons in the cartoons articles. This article is not about other wikipedia policies. You many discuss each and every one of wikipedia policies in their respective articles. If you object to Jimbo's statement above, I suppose you could take it up with him. This article is about what the word Censorship should be taken to mean in Wikipedia.DanielDemaret 14:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is attmepting to become a guideline for all of Wikipedia, as such discussion of particular articles on Wikipedia, and how this guideline would affect them, is certainly relevant. Johntex\talk 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree in full. Haizum 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposed policy does not reflect current opinon

There are many examples where we move content down a page or put a picture behind a link instead of showing the picture. Promoting this page to a guideline or policy without clearer consensus is an effort to shift behavior. Johntex\talk 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in accord with the previous comment. Haizum 19:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can change the context of the article, put into a better from and include in the Wiki policies, can't we? Resid Gulerdem 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change - linking to images is left to editors

I propose modifying this proposed quideline to remove any prohibition about putting images on a subpage with a link from the article. We would replace this with a statement that Linking to images instead of having them in the article is an option that is open to the editors. Reasons:

  1. Putting the image on a subpage allows readers who may be offended by the image to read the article and learn about the topic without having to see the image.
  2. This still keeps the image readily available to anyone who wants to see it.
  3. Editors of a given page deserve to be able to use this tool if they decide it is helpful to them.

Please note that I am not saying articles must use this technique, only that it is an option available to the editors. We should devolve responsibility for this decision down to the editors of a given page rather than taking away from them a tool that may aid in their work. Johntex\talk 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be a clear norm so that minorities can get their voice be heard. A percentage, some number of users, etc. I cannot think of a good measure or norm for it at this point. Otherwise this possibility may create another dispute. Resid Gulerdem 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. Let me think on that for a while. At the moment, my feeling is that this currently proposed guideline is trying to say editors have no flexibility at all in the matter. I think that is very bad. If we can agree they should have some flexibility, then we could try to hone in on a more specific guideline as you suggest. Johntex\talk 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, flexibility is a good option. Personally, I believe that if even one editor do not like a picture, s/he should be able to say 'let us have a link instead'. There is no harm to the article if the picture is linked even per one editor's opinion. Resid Gulerdem 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, certainly one editor should be able to ask for a link, but that does not mean the consensus on that individual page will agree. No one editor gets to have veto power over what goes into an article. (Unless its Jimbo, of course). Johntex\talk 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
John, I think we are looking at the case from different perspectives. I would like to see 'empathy' included in the editorial standards. I can also see that it is not so easy... Resid Gulerdem 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, you might as well remove all pictures from Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 21:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not... These are all overstatements. I do not think that there is someone who want a picture linked just for fun... Resid Gulerdem 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to assume good faith about your comments, Gerald, but I must tell you this comment seems like trolling to me. Why would you say that we "might as well remove all pictures from Wikipedia". Please help me understand your post. Thanks, Johntex\talk 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you were replying to Resid, not to me? If that is the case, please indent your commetn further. Johntex\talk 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I added a paragraph to introduction regarding how censorship be understood. It basically loosen unnecessary restrictions such as naming 'having a link instead of a controversial picture' as censorship. Any comments? Resid Gulerdem 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Resid, I think (1) that your changes to the intro are moving this proposal in the right direction (2) that your exact wording needs some discussion (3) that we should discuss proposed changes here first rather than making the changes to the proposal and then coming here to discuss. Having the proposal changing while we are attempting to discuss it is just too confusing. Johntex\talk 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi John, (1) I hope I can contribute further in that direction. (2) I am not a native neither the most fluent speaker or writer ever in English. Any wording suggestions are very wellcome. (3) I actually changed the article after I discussed above. This was a second note. Will you change it to my version back now? (4) What is your modifications on the intro section I proposed then? Resid Gulerdem 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Resid, thanks for your note. I don't feel comfortable with the level of discussion to change it back myself. However, if you want to change it again, I do not plan to revert you again. I think it would be better to discuss more here before you re-make your change. Johntex\talk 21:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed to the earlier form. Can I get your modifications and suggestions on it please? Resid Gulerdem 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How about (new words in italics): No The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. 'Insult' or 'pornography', for example, should not be included generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any Most text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise. (from Johntex\talk 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

"If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise." contradicts "What censorship is: Replacing items with links, or listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list." Gerard Foley 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. That sentence needs to be removed as well. There is nothing wrong with editors of an article decided to put one or more of the images on a sub-page, with links. Johntex\talk 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to leave the page alone but "Major changes made without discussion, reverted by several users, is not what the proposed policy is and causes the page to contradict itself several times". The proposed policy was designed to forbid linking to images and allows porno images where relevant, such as porno articles. Gerard Foley 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the people who helped make this policy feel it's ready to be adopted as is. It just needs consensus. Gerard Foley 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better not to change the proposed policy while we are discussing the proposed policy - it is confusing. That is why I am suggesting my changes here. As to linking and porn, I see no harm in linking to a porn image. There is no reason that someone who does not know who Brooke Skye is should go to her article and see a picture of pornography. On the other hand, once someone does go to the article to learn that she is a porn actress, then if they want to see a picture of her in porn, that should be up to them. Johntex\talk 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict with Gerard) - the people who started this proposed guideline do not have ownership of it. Anyone is free to help build a new policy. As to consensus, it is clear from the comments here today that taking away editorial discretion in the case of linking to articles does not have consensus. Johntex\talk 00:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it has consensus, I said it needs consensus. Who said anyone owns the page? Gerard Foley 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. However, you did say "the people who helped make this policy..." That sounded to me like you were trying to exert some sort of priviledge on behlf of the first people who worked on this. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were saying. However, the fact is that there is no such thing as "the people who helped make this policy", because this is not policy. Johntex\talk 00:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact is this is what we are proposing. If enough people don't like it I'm sure it won't pass and changes may need to be considered. One of the main goals of this has always been to try to stop the endless unhelpful censorship debates across Wikipedia, and people are willing to protest about linking to images so we must include that. There's an encyclopedia to write! Gerard Foley 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There's an encyclopeida to wirte - Exactly. Let's write that encyclopedia so as not to give needless offense to people. Continuing to allow image linking helps in that. Johntex\talk 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And the censorship debates? We can't continue to have them every time some controversial image is uploaded, or someone wants what they find offensive linked. This is explained on the policy page. Gerard Foley 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Having a debate on a specific article page about the appropriate way to edit the article in quesiton is exactly what those article discussion pages are for. A central policy tieing the hands of those editors is harmful. Let them use image linking if they choose. Johntex\talk 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Use the page to debate the article and how to improve it, not censorship. Gerard Foley 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Use it to improve the article to appeal to more readers, including in-lining the images if that is what they decide to do. Johntex\talk 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. You're not going to convince me, and I have a feeling I'm not going to convince you. Let's agree to disagree. Gerard Foley 01:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As you wish, I just wish you wouldn't try to enforce your opinions on other editors by trying to pass such a restrictive central policy. Johntex\talk 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no harm to put a link if a picture considered to be offensive, even by minority. Wikipedia policies should be proposed to strengthen the quality of Wiki and apperantly insults are not good to that end. Flexibility matches better to the philosophy of Wiki, not unnecessary restrictions. Resid Gulerdem 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
How small a minority are you talking about? Say I'm offended by pictures of the FSM or even the Wikipedia Globe, should we link those? We need concrete definitions of minority. Copysan 12:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right, and it is actually my concern too, if you read the discussions above. But I believe the most important thing here is this: Do we want to regulate the policy so that minority gets their voice heard. If we agree on that, I believe we can make that regulation. Pesonally, I believe good will of human being, and do not think that anyone want to change a picture for no reason. On the other hand, if it is offensive to even one person, I would prefer to reconsider, if I am an editor. Empathy is so civil and it should be part of Wiki standards, I believe... Resid Gulerdem 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Adopt Wikipedia:Censorship as policy?

Support

  1. Strong Support We need to end censorship debates throughout Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. Postdlf 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. This policy is perfect in describing Wikipedia. It includes enough provisions to protect against unencylcopedic content while still upholding the anti-censorshop stance. Kudos! Copysan 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. At first I had the same objections BostonMA, but rereading the text cleared that up. --KimvdLinde 05:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Babajobu 05:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support and I suggest oppsing parties read the policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong support. --tasc 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Jan.Kamenicek 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Opponents object to removing editorial policy from the hands of individual editors — but we do that already in a number of ways when they're important to consistency and quality (such as Wikipedia:No original research, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I had some serious objections to the first draft, but I agree with the current revision.Brokenfrog 21:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong support. If, say, a picture is highly relevant for an article it should never be hidden away or removed on vague grounds of offensiveness. The current policy of case by case discussions will always result in some groups getting special treatment. The proposed policy will guaranty equal treatment for everyone. --Anjoe 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Conversation with someone who thinks we should "put behind a click" all sexy images has convinced me we need this. WAS 4.250 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support If you look up the word "penis," expect to see an anatomical drawing of one. DrIdiot 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support It is impossible to recognize all sensibilities, and choosing a few is POV disguised as something else. -- Wegge 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support as per Wegge. --Palnatoke 18:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. --Pinnerup 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. "Publishing information takes precedent over what people might think of that information". --Sir48 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Wwagner 07:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support A good policy on censorship is very important. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Censorship based on beliefs is wrong--Acebrock 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support "the truth - whether you like it or not" Thparkth 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. though this is redundant with WP:NPOV, some people have a hard time understanding that and a clearer policy is needed (and not one that says "..for the protection of children.") TrueMirror 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support Great policy, and sorely needed. People's POV regarding what is offensive must not be an excuse to delete or otherwise censor content. -- noosphere 09:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support Censorship or whitewashing in articles is anti-factual and anti-encyclopedic. All knowledge deserves to be available, even knowledge that's "inconvenient" to a few. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 08:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support Censorship is useless, and -always- POV. What offends me is always going to be different from what offends you, and we can't make everyone happy all the time. We're either going to create a good encyclopedic work, or we're going to be PC-thugs beating people with our own cultural biases. Pluralism requires an open mind, people. Joey 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Weak Support-The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended. That said, I'm worried that there will be disputes about what is offensive for the sake of being offensive and what is actually encyclopedic. --Kahlfin 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak Support as per Kahlfin --Donar Reiskoffer 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please note that a new poll has been started at the bottom of this page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong SUPPORT - Keep Wikipedia uncensored! (Ibaranoff24 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
  30. Support - The only way to keep information free. Chairman S. Talk 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support Why censor Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense to let Wikipedia be censored. It would be like deleting a good article you don't like! Funnybunny 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support Free information leads to free individuals. Sfacets 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support This is an encyclopedia, and one which waves the NPOV flag all the time. Its neutrality and accuracy of facts should never be affected by petty taboos and (often false) morals - they DO represent Points Of View. And among all different cultures, which one should decide what is right and what is wrong? And if we hypothetically consider all the worlds cultures taboos to judge this, I bet 90% of Wikipedia's content might be removed. --Arny 11:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support But we need to go even further. See here -- e-user 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong support Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia designed as a factual resource, not as a family friendly book of distorted and incomplete facts. (See User:Beno1000/censorship) Beno1000 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Very Strong Support I would urge all those who are intersted in this issue to also look at the debate at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_matter_of_taste_with_regard_to_images. --Wisden17 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose -- See below -- Mwalcoff 02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Far too extreme, and really doesn't seem useful, what will this solve? Homestarmy 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Some information is offensive to some people. Wikipedia should not omit information merely because it is offensive. However, useful information may be presented in a variety of ways, and some ways may be more offensive than others. In this Wikipedian's opinion, it is entirely reasonable for editors to argue for one presentation over another on the basis of relative offensiveness. However, it appears to this Wikipedian that the proposed policy would provide a weapon for those who would level accusations of "censorship" against editors who even raise issues of offensiveness. We do not need more "grounds" upon which one Wikipedian may "justifiably" level accusations against another. --BostonMA 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose adopting it as policy. A guideline similar to this might be useful, but it goes too far in trying to rule out any consideration of offensiveness. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer censorship/offensiveness debates, but trying to eliminate them completely seems unreasonable. -- Avenue 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Bad Oppose — Instead, we should either make all offensive images off-screen with an option to see them as mentioned, or put them lower on the pages and include warnings that the article contains offensive images, or whatever else. Otherwise, you're basically bypassing a perfect compromise and trying to disturb people. Darth Katana X
  6. Strong Oppose With compromise, we can can make Wikipedia more practical and accessible to schools and the workplace while still keeping the offensive works in question within the database. By definition and in practice, censorship is the total removal of questionable items (it's not like I can click the blurring on my TV to make it go away). This would not happen if the works in question are readily accessible through a subpage or by scrolling down. With the current definition of censorship, I could argue that the main page is censored; because by the logic of the status quo, it is! Why do I have to click through links to reach the page on breasts? Why aren't pictures of breasts ever featured on the main page? Genitals? You see my point. Haizum 09:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Offensive sentences should be reworded, offensive images should be "hidden", in general. By "offensive", I mean "intended to offend". --Vsion 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose You can legitimate everything with this policy. Wether something should be in WP or not (call it censored, if you wish) should be discussed case by case. Raphael1 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose. The proponents of this proposed guideline would like to remove editorial control from the hands of the editors of individual articles. There is no reason to rule out potential compromises, such as linking images, if the editors of the article in question find such an approach to be useful. Johntex\talk 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I object to the means of the proposal, not the ends. Shutting people up via policy is an undesireable substitute for reasonable discussion, which tends, so far, to yield reasonable results. Discussion is fun, educating and teaches good manners. Azate 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. per Azate and the general badness of Policy creep. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose. This policy is just over one week old. I think it is premature and unevolved. As a member of wikipedians against censorship, which should be a group promoting the highest standards of good judgement, I am deeply concerned about the poor judgement in wasting people's time on this poll at this stage. Metta Bubble 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, as per Metta Bubble. — JEREMY 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, no reason to force these images on anyone who might actually want to just read an article. People can make one click to see them if they want to. Force10 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose This attempts to redefine the word censorsip, adding what is not censorship, and not counting what is censorship. This actually opens the door to more censorship, because every time we add new censorship, we'll add it to the section "What censorship is not". --Rob 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Not in anyway an advocate of censorship, but I disagree policy that would basically state that anything goes. This could only lead to anarchy.--MONGO 11:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose not needed - existing policy works well Trödel•talk 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Tying our hands for what purpose? This is almost always covered by NPOV. If it isn't, well, we have sensibilities. Don't let's become insensitive for the sake of being anti-censorship. Not everything is a slippery slope. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Represents an extreme permissive point of view and attempts to deny the value of any other standards. Choalbaton 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose as it is just more policy-cruft. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose As the policy says people have different standards, and they all deserve to be treated with respect. Golfcam 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. The project, the underlying ideas and the method itself. See my original comments below as they are misplaced in this opposition list. --DLL 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. See below --BluePlatypus 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose A fashionable form of intolerance pervades this proposal. Piccadilly 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Wikipedia is used by a wide variety of users and some discretion is needed, particularly with pictoral depictions. The Jade Knight 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Isn't wikipedia about trusting the editors of each article to decide what is best? Hawkestone 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per Sam Korn. — Catherine\talk 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. The only necessary idea and policy is that Wikipedia aims to be a free high-quality encyclopedia. Labeling somebody else's edit as censorship is close to being a personal attack. --Audiovideo 23:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong oppose. A far too broad policy that will do nothing to further Wikipedia's aim of building a high quality encyclopedia and will probably be used to defend tasteless images that the encylopedia could do without. Cedars 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Project need to be improved before voted

  1. I do not think that the project in this form should be called a policy or a guideline. It has to be improved. Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's asanine not to warn and have kids or whoever else accidentally exposed to crap. It does literally sound like you guys are trying to disturb people. Darth Katana X
  3. I am with Resid on this.DanielDemaret 10:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. I am in accord with Resid Gulerdem. Haizum 10:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. In its current incarnation, this is needlessly destructive of the case-by-case analysis that is necessary for editing individual articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. I feel like mild censorship of the click-to-see kind is okay, and I'd even advocate line drawings on the page for people who prefer them to photos and don't want to click-to-see. However, the whole policy is a bit extreme. Surely one could come up with a compromise? I don't think it's excessive to ask people who want to see a potentially offensive photograph to click to view it. I see this policy becoming cause for others to censor Wikipedia in other ways, such as netnanny software. Batshua 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain / Neutral / Comment

Discussion

I am generally opposed to censorship. However, I feel this proposal goes too far and is not needed. True, Wikipedia is not censored. But that does not mean we should use potentially offensive images and text gratuitously. For example, we should have a picture of breasts on breast. But for an article about a movie that has one nude scene, which is irrelevant to the plot, we don't need a picture of that scene. I fear that if this policy was to be adopted as currently written, it would prevent the removal of the second picture.

I also think there should be a distinction between censorship for "decency" or "protecting children" on the one hand and simple good taste on the other. We have no picture on vomit. On goatse.cx, which is about a homoerotic shock site, we don't display any of the pictures from the site. Instead, we link to them and display a nonpornographic picture "suspiciously similar" to the most-famous one from the shock site. Most people don't want to see picture of vomiting or some guy's anus, even if they want to read about digestive disorders or a famous shock site.

I think in some cases, editors should be able to take offensiveness into account, as they have done with vomit and goatse.cx. For example, in the case of Lolicon, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to put the images below the fold (that is, below where they would be visible immediately upon navigating to the page) and with a warning and link to an all-text version of the page. I don't see why someone who wants to read about this phenomenon should have to see an example of it even if he or she thinks it is repulsive.

Mwalcoff 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That would fall under the what censorship is not section of this policy since it's an editorial issue so it wouldn't fall under the policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Movie with nude scene: it is "irrelevan[t], lack[s] of information content, [and] redundancy." Vomit and goatse.cx, I personally think we should have a picture there. As for Lolicon, I think the pictures should be removed and deleted because "its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." (See Lolicon#Status_in_U.S.) While the Supreme Court has struck down previous provisions, this one is still in effect. So I think they should be removed for now, until the USCOTUS strikes this one down. Then again, if we abide by this, well need to also abide by slapping a "Beware" page. Maybe we can get away with the third rule of the Miller test, being of "serious liteary, artistic, or scientific value". Too bad educational value wasnt in there. Copysan 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Lolicon. I suggest you mail foundation legal your strongly worded concerns - I am certain they will take it under advisement. Where did you get your law degree from? Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this project is far from being complete. First we should determine what the censorship is, and is not with a consensus. The limits and definition should be expressed clearly. I do not agree the statements in the project. I could call it neither policy nor guideline. What I can say is this: It has to be changed and improved... Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just an FYI to the party who suggests that the opposed side "read the proposal" -- I not only read the proposal, but the lengthy discussion on the talk page as well as the numerous links to discussions on lolicon, goatse and Mohammed cartoons. I then re-read the policy more than once before making my vote. Please do not insinuate that people who disagree with you are ignorant. If you have specific objections to the points raised on the oppose side, you only need to mention those objections. --BostonMA 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well said. -- Avenue 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't see how appealing to the status quo is helpful to your position. I'll refrain from pointing out that fallacy...for the time being. Haizum 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An editor wrote:

"The current policy of case by case discussions will always result in some groups getting special treatment. The proposed policy will guaranty equal treatment for everyone."

Could you give an example of where some group received special treatment under the current policy? --BostonMA 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could please someone explain for how long poll will be open? --tasc 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposing this, not because I condone censorship, but "censorship" is a highly subjective term. Imposing any definition of it constitutes a form of censorship in itself. Nor do I agree with this definition. If you can avoid offending someone without a loss of content (As in the image in the Bahá'u'lláh article), I see no reason not to do so. If this policy is supposedly not an excuse to deliberately offend people as it states, it shouldn't ban ways to avoid doing so, either. --BluePlatypus 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy versus guideline

I believe a better appreciation of guideline versus policy might help this discussion. I believe this proposal merits being a guideline but does not yet merit being a policy. As a guideline there is no mandate to put shock site images on shock site articles. As a guideline, there is plenty of wiggle room for debate. While the original intent of this proposal is to somehow to nail this thing down to minimize futher debate, I feel it both unwise and impossible in fact to not have debate on such things as shock site images. I think labeling it a guideline is an appropriate compromise between the two positions. I think being a guideline (NOT a policy) in fact represents the actual compromise that currently exists on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this project is far from being complete. First we should determine what the censorship is, and is not with a consensus. The limits and definition should be expressed clearly. I do not agree the statements in the project. I could call it neither policy nor guideline. What I can say is this: It has to be changed and improved... Resid Gulerdem 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section by User:Rgulerdem

Editorial standards vs censorship - updated below

This section is under discussion and may contain contradictions with other sections here. Please the the Discussion page.

The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Insults or pornography, for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise.

Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise are the tools needed for better Wikipedia articles. Being responsible is a natural result of these principles.

Moved here from main page, to avoid confusion on which page is voted on. Especially because this section conflicts with the main text. --KimvdLinde 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying it here, I did not realize a poll is opened before the change... On the other hand I do not agree on activating a poll before a consensus on the current text. Resid Gulerdem 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
what do you think about adding a clause that favors a less offensive but equally informative picture over a more offensive one? Copysan 12:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is a very specific picture that is known to be offensive, then no, I don't agree. If it is a general topic that can be described with equal detail with an number of pictures, then yes, I can agree with you. Haizum 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is actually mentiond under the list of what is censoership, maybe it should be made more explicite --KimvdLinde 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The point here is, editors should be able to determine whether they want to put a link instead of a description -visual or verbal- or changing one form of description to the other one or changing one description to another one of the same kind. The policy should not dictate any unnecessary restrictions. Resid Gulerdem 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need the word "censorship" ?

The Wikipedia:Offensive proposal is the Wikipedia:Censorship proposal with the word "censorship" removed. Please feel free to edit it without changing its spirit. Those who want a policy/guideline that says "no porn" should write such a proposal, rather than repurpose existing proposals. We have lots of proposals [6], failed proposals [7], and inactive proposals [8]. Discussion is good. WAS 4.250 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think censorship policy can be stated in a way that it can cover 'no porn' policy as well. I do not see a need for policies for each and every particular issue. Changing the word 'censorship' might be good though. Resid Gulerdem 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Existing codification of guidelines

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored "obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links" Wikipedia:Profanity "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." WAS 4.250 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Follow Along

  • Fellow editors, if you can complete this list without objection, then I think there is a good chance we can make the proposed changes without violating Wikipedia's policy on censorship.


"Censoring," as defined by Dictionary.com is to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
  1. I believe a majority of editors will agree that informative offensive/objectionable material has a place on Wikipedia
  2. I believe a majority of editors will agree that informative offensive/objectionable material should not be removed.
  3. I believe a majority of editors will agree that suppression of information is a deliberate act.
  4. I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate suppression has a purpose, to make information inaccessible.
  5. I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate suppression has another purpose, to keep information from being readily accessible.
  6. I believe a majority of editors will not object to structural changes that still allow offensive/objectionable material to be both accessible, and readily accessible.
  7. I believe a majority of editors will not object to allowing those that do not wish to view particularly objectionable material to still be able to utilize and enjoy Wikipedia.
  8. I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest to pursue the largest audience possible.
  • If the proposed changes are not for the purpose of suppressing information as defined above and allow potentially offensive/objectionable material to be both accessible and readily accessible, then I believe the proposed changes are viable. Thoughts? Haizum 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to comment on the aforementioned in typical format. Raphael1, your list has been moved to: User:Raphael1. Please refrain from disrupting this thread by copying my list or commenting on anything other than the list. Haizum 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that my list is not proposed policy. I would like it to be tool and logical framework for us to use to perhaps arrive at some conclusions. Also, please reset the tab to ":" when you comment on a separate point. You may also cut into the thread in places where different points are being discussed. Also note that I'm double spacing separate lines of thought for the sake of reader friendliness. Haizum 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I cannot agree with the 2nd item. Informative content should be preserved, but an offensive presentation of that content should not necessarily be preserved. At times, individuals may find informative content in itself offensive, and in those cases, the presentation of information ought to take precedence over the feelings of an offended group. However a blanket statement that informative yet offensive/objectionable material should never be removed a) infringes upon an area that ought to involve the exercise of the judgement of editors and b) opens up editors, who exercise judgement in replacing unnecessarily offensive presentations with less offensive presentations, to spurious charges of "censorship". --BostonMA 20:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. On what grounds do you think informative offensive/objectionable material is too o/o to be included? You're going to have to define this if you want to hold that position. Thank you for your input. Haizum 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you agree with #2 when you say, "...the presentation of information ought to take precedence over the feelings of an offended group," because #2 assumes that the o/o material is informative enough to be presented, in other words, the informative o/o is necessary to express complete detail. Haizum 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Certain material may be informative, but an editor might reasonably argue that some other material is equally informative yet less offensive and less objectionable. We cannot consider whether given material is "necessary" in isolation, but only when we consider the alternatives. Item #2, however, seems to mix up the mere fact of certain material being informative, with the notion that the material is necessary to preserve the informativeness of the article. So, I cannot answer your request to provide a definition of what is too o/o to be included. No informative material is too o/o in itself, however, when it is considered in relationship to alternatives, reasonable arguments may be raised that some content is better than other content. When editors make the choice of using one content over another, they should not be subjected to accusations of censorship, even if offensiveness/objectionability played a role in their choice. I hope this helps to clarify my argument. --BostonMA 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does, thank you. I've found two things we need to address then:
  • First, how do editors go about deciding which equally informative but differently offensive material goes into an article?
  • Second, in cases where no substitute can be found, say a very specific image, should debate be allowed? Haizum 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Haizum, with some modifications I believe your list adding quite a few things to the discussion. (Wouldn't you prefer to compactify 3-5?)
  • My major concern here is the definition of 'informative o/o material' and just 'o/o material'... It could be more meaningful if there is a valid definition and seperation of these i/o/o vs. o/o. It can be done in some ways, I believe. Depending on that, it becomes clearer if an act is a deliberate act for hiding the information. If a minoity consider an expression offensive, their acts might not fit into your definition of deliberate acts.
  • By sutructural changes, I think you mean having links instead of pictures, and such, right?
Moreover, as John points out in a few places above
  • The policy should not dictate any unnecessary restriction regarding their ability to choose one way or the other.
And also
  • The policy should be stated in a way that, the voice of the minority is heard in contraversial articles. Empathy should be refered...
  • Editorial standards should not be ignored just for the sake of No-Censorship policy. Resid Gulerdem 21:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I use "informative offensive/objectionable material" because I'm assuming all other forms of o/o in a user edited encyclopedia would be offensive; if contributed material does not have an informative purpose, then it is disruptive. Ex: When a swastika is contributed out of the proper context and without informative explaination it is o/o, but if a swastika is contributed in the proper context and with informative explaination it is i/o/o. Haizum 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I could see what you meant. I actually mean that the determination of i/o/o/ or o/o should be done in a more objective manner. I can see a possibility of this point being a reason for new disputes. Resid Gulerdem 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I indirectly asked BostonMA the same question but I'll rephrase; "How do editors create consensus with regards to what will be considered particularly offensive/objectionable?" The keyword there is editors. If editors (active contributors) are in control of what is going to be "particularly o/o", I believe this will satisfy those who support the status quo while still allowing flexibility in other cases. This way, the general public will not dictate what is explicit and what is subdued; it will always be up to the editors to decide. Haizum 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

break 1

If the spirit of number 2 is something like "I believe a majority of editors will agree that informative offensive/objectionable material should not be removed, but that it may be treated in a way so as to minimize offense.", then I think I can support your whole list. Johntex\talk 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can't object to that. Please note that my list is not proposed policy. I would like it to be tool and logical framework for us to use to perhaps arrive at some conclusions. Oh, and sorry about the minor formatting edits; go ahead and reset the tab when you comment on a separate point. You may also cut into the thread in places where different points are being discussed. Haizum 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the sprit of the list is to be able to get around the whole "censorship" blockade to give editors more freedom to create more flexible articles that may still contain informative offensive/objectionable material, but in such a way that people can readily choose whether or not they wish to view that i/o/o at that time. This will in turn make Wikipedia more appropriate in more venues, which will increase Wikipedia's audience and enjoyablity. Haizum 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I would prefer to review the whole policy carefully and propose some changes as necessary coherently according to the discussions here, rather than getting around... Is there any other policy page regarding censorship in Wiki? Resid Gulerdem 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm only trying to "get around" the censorship policy because I have no problem with it in the sense that a viable solution does not have to be opposed to existing policy. I feel a viable solution can be reached without having to change existing policy; that is why I took the time to carefully to define what 'removal' and 'suppression' have to do with censorship. Since most people agree that outright removal of content is generally not acceptable, I'm trying to argue that linked material that is found to be particularly offensive/objectionable can be linked/moved down the page/etc without having the problem of "suppression of information." Haizum 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


You say: I'm trying to argue that linked material that is found to be particularly offensive/objectionable can be linked/moved down the page/etc without having the problem of "suppression of information.
What is "particularly offensive/objectionable" varies by culture and includes politics, sex, religion and violence among other things. The point of this proposal is that what is "particularly offensive/objectionable" can not be limited to any specific known items, but instead necessarily expands with every objection from every culture until freedom is gagged. No thank you. Let freedom ring. If you don't want to be offended go to an unfree site. There are millions of sites that parrot one party line or another. Wikipedia is committed to being as informative and free as possible. and accessable as possible. Driving away viewers and contributions is not a good thing and must be minimized without limiting our coverage and ability to communicate fully. We will never agree to not show cartoons, actual violence (war, terrorism), politics (nazi images), or anatomy (penis image). We currently censor shock site and sex imagery (photo of anal sex for example). Some think we should boldly not censor such images. Some think we should censor cartoons. Some, like me, favor a slow movement in the direction of fewer taboos on wikipedia. WAS 4.250 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input and please accept my apologies for adjusting the format; I just want your comment and its reponses to be included and recognized as part of the discussion as a whole. Haizum 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken, I agree with you...I think in full. I do not want any material to be removed from Wikipedia, and I've already said that. Haizum 03:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are millions of sites that parrot one party line or another. If you are alluding to my user page, you need not; this isn't about my personal politics. Haizum 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • free as possible. and accessable as possible. Yes, I strongly agree, but I would like you to reexamine what I've said about "accessible" and "readily accessible." Haizum 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We will never agree to not show... Nor should you, and I've never suggested anything contrary. Haizum 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to be offended go to an unfree site. Or we could make Wikipedia accessible to those that want to be offended and to those who don't, all at the same time! Like you said, let freedom ring. Haizum 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)



Your "accessibility" will require me to click 6 different links, a look. It defeats the purpose of having pictures, which is to illustrate articles. Pictures should go with the words they illustrate. "we could make Wikipedia accessible to those that want to be offended and to those who don't, all at the same time!" Are you really willing to put pictures of
  1. Sex
  2. Nudity
  3. Swimsuits
  4. Female Models
  5. Violence
  6. Nazi
  7. Muhammad
  8. War
  9. Blood
 10. Surgery
 11. ...
all as links in the name of accessibility to those offended by them? What about offensive text. Let's move words like fuck, piss, shit, ass, and bastard to sub pages as well. What if the entire topic is offensive, do Sex, Atheism, Lolicon turn into warning pages. What about sections of articles, "This section may be offensive to Muslims. Click here to read." How far are you willing to go to make Wikipedia accessible to all? Which groups who find items on Wikipedia offensive will get them turned into links, and which will be told to put up with it? How do you explain to people in a NPOV why some offensive images/text/ideas are linked and others not? Gerard Foley 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I copied this from hidden text. Haizum 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You are grossly misrepresenting my position, and I think you are being combative for the sake of combativeness. It's pretty damn clear what my position is, and it is not one of censorship as I already described through logical steps. Haizum 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What if the entire topic is offensive, do Sex, Atheism, Lolicon Why would someone who would be offended by these topics be searching for them, especially when the entire topic is offensive? They wouldn't. (not that I think these topics would even qualify) Haizum 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of Lolicon before. Let me look it up.
Then they do so at their own risk and there is nothing we can or should do about it. That's obvious to anyone that isn't trying to be combative. Sign your comments. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

break 2

  • ...in the name of accessibility to those offended by them? Guess what, I already suggested that what is and what isn't going to be considered "informative offensive/objectionable material" should be decided by the editors, not rioting Muslims, not clinic bombing Christians, editors. Haizum 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Rioting Muslims and clinic bombing Christians can’t edit Wikipedia? Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not as a bloc. They have to work with a diverse group of users to get something accomplished. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you explain to people in a NPOV... You don't. As long as the article contains enough information, subdued and explicit, and satisfies the NPOV litmus; the editors don't have to answer to anyone. One article's relation to another is irrelavant because all articles are worked with on a case by case basis; to suggest otherwise is a fallacy. Haizum 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Why are Muhammad cartoons linked but piss Christ not?". "We don’t answer to you." Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Way to oversimplify it. I'll consider that a straw man personal attack. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ...which will be told to put up with it? My intention is to make a small percentage of articles more accessible to more of the public. This isn't about what my personal opinion is on potentially offensive/objectionable material; I'm rarely offended by anything. I wish, I wish Gerard Foley, that everyone could be as thick skinned as you and I, but that just isn't the case. I would like to bring Wikipedia to those who otherwise wouldn't visit a particluar article. Haizum 05:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
So which groups will be told they have to put up with offensive images / text / ideas? I bet it will be the minority, which currently includes Muslims. Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's how it is now. Why don't you get that? If anything, my suggestions would make Wikipedia more hospitable. That's obvious to anyone that isn't trying to be combative. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand you're trying to paint my position as demeaning to minority groups, but on the other hand you support the status quo which doesn't even consider the percentage of people (minority) that would use Wikipedia more if it were more user friendly to them. You simply aren't using logic. Haizum 09:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to use the Muhammad Cartoons article as an example, as it was the one that inspired me to take the position I have. My stance here isn't about religious tolerance; I don't even consider myself a tolerant person, but what if a peace loving Muslim wants to learn about the cartoons controversy yet they do not know what outlet to turn to for fear of seeing the actual cartoons? Wouldn't it be good for Wikipedia if it could provide such an outlet for this person without completely removing the cartoons for other people like myself and yourself to see? Isn't a bigger audience good for Wikipedia? This isn't about this Muslim's religious sensitivities; frankly, I don't care. It's about accessibility. Good for some people, better for Wikipedia. Stop treating me like the enemy. Haizum 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Then we should extend the same courtesy to everyone else, and link to all the potentially offensive images (some types listed above). Good for some people, I agree. Not good for other users forced to click, click, click for the info they want because someone tock offence to it. Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to do anything, but the editorial flexibility should still be there. I must stress that editors will have the final say. Also, I'm not seeing how more than 1 extra click would be required to, let's say, view a Mohammed cartoon. The expansion of accessibility outweighs the extra click in my opinion. I don't think that is an unreasonable opinion either. Haizum 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You can look at this as a selfish venture for Wikipedia if you want: Editors can extend a 'courtesy' to whatever group they want to grab more users without limiting information. If the complaining group doesn't seem to be worth the gain in users, let'em whine. Haizum 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


You say "I believe a majority of editors will not object to allowing those that do not wish to view particularly objectionable material to still be able to utilize and enjoy Wikipedia." and "what is and what isn't going to be considered "informative offensive/objectionable material" should be decided by the editors". Maybe the problem is one of communication between us. Your emphasis on letting "offensive" be an editorial criteria; instead of emphasizing informational as an editorial criteria that trumps "objectionable". Or do you wish informational to NOT trump "offensive"? WAS 4.250 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
'Information' must always trump 'offense,' if it was the other way around then articles could have their pictures removed or be deleted entirely. Haizum 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

break 3

Wikipedia is an international, intercultural encyclopedia - which is one of the characteristics that separates Wikipedia from traditional encyclopedias. To that end it is in Wikipedia's own interest to ensure as wide a user base as possible to counter systemic bias and POV. I firmly believe that the distribution of the user base is ultimately proportionate to the legitimacy of Wikipedia as an intercultural encyclopedia, and essential to the goal of developing a useful database of NPOV information.

As such, I am sympathetic to Haizum's ideas which would make Wikipedia more user friendly to some groups. However, I do not support them. Wikipedia is based upon publishing information and that takes precedent over what people might think of the information.

I believe editors already have the option to censor content in articles according to Haizum's principles as stated above. See goatse for en example of an article where editors voted to substitute the relevant image with a link to a relevant source.

This is the option we have now - explicit rules expanding upon this option could cause some problems.

Offensiveness can only be gauged subjectively. How do we objectively determine which information is sufficiently offensive and how do we weigh the value the information represents compared to the level of offensiveness it represents? Keep in mind polls wouldn't be useful if the object it to protect minorities as minorities usually don't do well in polls - and it wouldn't actually change the current situation.

Normally I scoff at the "slippery slope" argument but in the case of censorship and Wikipedia it is IMHO a valid one as there are many dispute resolutions every month where one party could attempt to interpret any established censorship policy to their own ends. In other words it could potentially cause more problems than it would resolve - and I believe it would. Celcius 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not know the editors of goatse had that liberty. That is pretty much what I'm talking about; a very limited ability for editors to move/link particularly offensive material on a case by case basis. Can you direct me to, or quote, the clause that allows this? Thanks. And thank you for the thoughtfulness of your comments. Haizum 13:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
See the subsection above called Existing codification of guidelines for the existing wikipedia guidelines/policy on censorship. It includes a comment on not being offensive unless it serves informational purposes. See WP:IAR for the fact that you don't need "a clause to allow" something. You and everyone here is ENCOURAGED to do WHATEVER is in the interest of the end goal: A free encyclopedia for every human everywhere. The best encyclopedia we can create. Because human knowledge will never stop increasing, there is no planned final version. WAS 4.250 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not terribly familiar with Wikipedia policies on this subject - a more experienced user could probably give you more detail. The best I have to offer is the poll of the goatse article which details various concerns and opinions. It seems to me that these disputes are usually solved via polls - rule of the subjective majority. Incidentally, inconsistency in these matters and the Muslim community being a minority on Wikipeda has been an ongoing argument for removal of the Mohammed Cartoons despite various polls where editors voted to the contrary. Conclusively there seems to be little consistency which tends to create some friction. Celcius 13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This was the thinking behind the policy. If offencive material is not removed for all, it should not be removed for any. Gerard Foley 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The way you've expressed it, it would be a perfect example of NOT being thoughtful. Which is the opposite of the recommended Wikipedia approach. I think, if I may, what you believe and intend to communicate is that since "offensive" varies dramaticly from culture to culture there is no way to draw a Neutral or NPOV (unbiased) line between what is and what is not offensive so we are left with a choice to:
  1. Put half of wikipedia (sex, violence, religion, politics) behind a second click
  2. Put none of wikipedia behind a second click (or other forms of censorship)
  3. Allow a biased section of things to be behind a second click, which is against WP:NPOV WAS 4.250 20:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. No. Editors are in control.
  2. No. Editors are in control.
  3. No. If biased material isn't NPOV, then it needs to be fixed, not hidden. Obvious. Haizum 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. If offencive material is not removed for all, it should not be removed for any. At this point, your suggestion that I'm advocating removal of material is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position, and is therefore a personal attack. If you actually read the list, I explicitly favor not removing anything. It's obvious. Haizum 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason any user would ever need to click more than once to see all the pictures on a given article. The reader would not need to open them all up individually, because all the pictures could be on the same subpage. This is little different than a great many books that group all their pictures in one place. Again, inlining images should be left up to the discretion of the editors on a given article. This makes all slippery slope arguments red herrings because the teams of editors are in control. Johntex\talk 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Haizum 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Image" vs "material"

The above discussion is rather long, and I'm having difficulty following. But I understand that most of the controversial offensive content are in fact "images", but have been generalized into "material" and "information" during the discussion. Can we be more specific in the wording of the policy/guidlines? I believe there is a hugh difference between "text" and "image" when it comes to censorship issues, both in wikipedia and in the "real world". Why can't we address the two separately? --Vsion 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a good suggestion. For my part, I can clarify that I am talking specifically about images. Johntex\talk 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Most of the controversy is over images, but the same standards should be applied to text also. Just because someone finds some text offensive is (by itself) no reason to remove it. This in fact is already done with words like fuck. We don't remove, hide or link to it just because some people find it offensive, but we also don't use it for the sake of using it. Editorial sanders don't allow "Some people think the X-box is a fucking shit." for example. Gerard Foley 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We have the flexibility with words, to rephrase the sentence and make the language sounds encyclopedic and factual, like in Patrick Leahy, the article has the sentence "The discussion ended with Cheney telling Leahy to "... go fuck yourself" and giving Leahy the middle finger." Is this a problem with any editor? We don't have the flexibility with images, unless we are willing to consider pixelation, black bar, etc., which I don't think are on the table. --Vsion 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The word fuck is a problem for some editors, I have seen people change it to f**k for example, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Gerard Foley 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Since no one here has brought up any text as being of concern, it seems like we can safely confine this discussion to images. Johntex\talk 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't logical to treat text the same as images. The medium of information for the human race is language, which involves words both written and verbal, there's no way around that. If the word "fuck" is necessary to inform, then there is no way around that, and therefore it can't be substituted or removed. I highly doubt the word "fuck" would be used in a Wikipedia article without a good reason. Also, "fuck" cannot be censored when a person is running a search on "fuck", and we have to assume that the person is smart enough to not look up "fuck" if they are going to be offended by it. In the case of images however, the Mohammed cartoons being a good example, someone may be looking up information on the subject and not want to have to view the images; maybe for religious reasons, maybe to try and keep an NPOV. If "fuck" appears in that article's text, then it probably has an informative reason for being there, and therefore it cannot be removed or linked away. What's obvious? The obvious difference is that images (a non-verbal vivid description/representation/likeness) don't convey an explicit message in - what medium was that again? - oh yes, laaaanguuuuaaage. Haizum 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, the infamous cartoon were published in Egypt and no one protested. They were copied and shown by Danish muslims to thousands of other muslims for debateable purposes and no one has accused those muslims of doing anything against Islam nor have those who viewed the cartoons shown to them by those Danish muslims claimed they did anything wrong by viewing the cartoons. asking others to not do what those Danish muslims have done themselves is the height of either ignorance or hypocrisy. It is a perfect example of using claims of insensitivity to achieve censorship. Right up there with saying whitey can't say "nigger" but blacks can. Wikipedia is insensitive or otherwise in the wrong for showing cartoon that the Danish nuslims themselves copied and distributed to other muslims???? Hogwash!! WAS 4.250 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The face behind the message is part of the message. Jay Leno and Pat Robertson can say exactly the same words, but it will send different messages. This is the reality of our society. --Vsion 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
While there is no doubt that the face behind the message is an unavoidable part of the message ("the medium is the message"); the person recieving the message is the person interpreting the message. The interpreter of the message is responsible for deciding what is "offensive". Neither the sender of the message nor the message itself can force the interpreter to be offended simply by supplying mere data. If you get angry when you hear a sound like "nigger" based on who says it, own your own emotions as you caused them with your interpretation. In the context of this discussion, the reciever of the message determines the offensiveness and not the "face behind the message". WAS 4.250 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is insensitive or otherwise in the wrong for showing cartoon that the Danish nuslims themselves copied and distributed to other muslims? Hogwash! That might actually be a good rebuttal if it was actually what I said. Try again. Haizum 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Potentially causing "Harm"

The proposal currently has this wording: "There is also no agreement or substantive evidence as to what information may cause concrete, objective harm to society or individuals." This sounds like disclaiming moral responsibility. It's funny that we are so careful in not violating commercial interest (copyrights), yet pay no attention to any physical harm we might cause. The above sentence is too generalized, there are exception situations where there are obvious warnings, such as

  • inciting communal violence (When the riots are on-going, do we still claim to be naive? )
  • revealing the identity of minors, who are victims of crime or otherwise, and require protection of their privacy (eg. Brian Peppers)
  • publishing details from Courtroom proceedings that have outstanding publication ban or media blackout, (eg. see Talk:Robert Pickton)
  • bombs-making manual, or compromising details of counter-IED measures

Are these covered in other wikipedia's policy or guidelines? If not, it is dangerous to approve this proposal without first addressing this issue. Otherwise, Jimbo will have to intervene to make the right call, whenever these problems cropped up; and then we cry "dictatorship ...". --Vsion 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is no agreement" is absolutely true, even for the cases you brought up. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that language with the concept of direct harm to the viewer/reader in mind, (particularly through viewing/learning about sex 'n violence, the obsessions in my culture), not indirect harm of the kind you mention, but I think I can respond to most of your concerns.
  1. We're careful to avoid violating copyrights because we can get sued and/or prosecuted for it. That might also be true when the privacy of private figures is at issue, though I think our general policies regarding verifiability and notability obviate much of that concern; we have little interest in writing about something that does not touch upon a public or academic concern, nor can we be the first to publicize someone because of our prohibition against original research. Brian Peppers was an unusual and borderline case of notability, which is why the article was so contentious. He wasn't a minor, btw, nor do I believe that his victims were named (or should have been; if the victims aren't otherwise notable, their names add little if any informational value). Yes, the article could be seen as exploitive, as his notability was tied to his deformity, but as we have a well populated Category:People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories, I don't think that is justification for deletion.
  2. The "inciting violence" argument has been used to justify censorship in many contexts, usually as a sham to suppress expression or ideas. I really can't see how an online encyclopedia could provoke imminent lawless action, unless someone reads an article aloud from their Blackberry to an already gathered and enraged crowd armed with pitchforks and torches. But once again, the fact that we do not conduct original research or allow information that is unverifiable means that Wikipedia simply repeats what is elsewhere available.
  3. I think the same consequences of our verifiability and no original research policies mentioned above inform the issue of courtroom coverage. We simply wouldn't be repeating any information that's not already publicly extant. That such coverage makes finding an untainted jury pool more difficult is regrettable, but I can't imagine a compromise that wouldn't utterly sacrifice the public interest in documenting notable ongoing legal proceedings. Should we follow the Bush administration policy of refusing to comment on all pending investigations and proceedings?
  4. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, so instructions for bomb making are not permitted. To the extent that doesn't deal with the issue, once again, verifiability and no original research mean that we're simply parrotting what is already publicly available.
You might not find any of these answers satisfying, but nor are there reliable ways to protect the interests you are concerned in while not chilling more information than is necessary (however you determine that). Considering Wikipedia's mission, when in doubt, we should err on the side of documentation. Postdlf 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, Brian Peppers is the wrong example. I am refering to the case in Germany where the parents went to the court, I can't find that article now. I apologize for this mistake--Vsion 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Boris Floricic (8 June 1972 – 17 October-22 October 1998), better known under the nickname Tron, was a German hacker and phreaker; his pseudonym was a reference to the character in the 1982 Disney film Tron. He became famous due to the unclear circumstances of his death, which are surrounded by various conspiracy theories. In 2006, Wikimedia Deutschland was drawn into a legal dispute between the parents of the deceased German computer hacker Tron and Wikimedia. The parents do not wish the hacker's real name to be publicly mentioned, and in December 2005 they had obtained a preliminary injunction in a Berlin court against the American Wikimedia Foundation, requiring removal of the hacker's name from Wikipedia. The name was not removed. On January 19, 2006 they obtained a second injunction, this time against Wikimedia Deutschland, prohibiting the address www.wikipedia.de (which is under control of Wikimedia Deutschland) to redirect to the German Wikipedia at de.wikipedia.org (which is controlled by the American Wikimedia Foundation) as long as Wikipedia mentions the hacker's name. Wikimedia Deutschland complied and replaced the redirect with a note explaining the situation, but without mentioning the Tron case specifically. The German Wikipedia remained accessible through de.wikipedia.org during this time. One day later, Wikimedia Deutschland achieved a suspension of the injunction, and linked from the note at de.wikipedia.org to the German Wikipedia. On February 9, the court invalidated the injunction, ruling that neither the rights of the deceased nor the rights of the parents were affected by publishing the name. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like the proper decision was finally reached. Some seek notability, others have notability thrust upon them. It's regrettable that this sometimes interferes with private desires to remain anonymous, but that's an unavoidable consequence of protecting the free dissemination of information. And being involved in a project dedicated to that dissemination means that you may be implicated in such consequences. For those who have personal qualms about that, they should avoid editing such topics. But absent any legal prohibitions relevant to wiki.riteme.site, Wikipedia's mission should not be compromised. Postdlf 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The new section

It looks to me that the poll is naturally closed. I think a change can be done at this point. I would like to add a section to the current text, and update the text accordingly. I would like to get your opinions before the change.

Regarding the terminology: I think we can use visual expressions (cartoons, pictures, etc) and verbal expressions (texts) to become more specific and technical. Does it sound good? Resid Gulerdem 04:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against singling out "insults" or "pornography". Editorial judgement is important - period. I am against the use of the phrase "collective consciousness" in this proposal, as it only confuses the issue. I am mildly, very mildly, against distinguishing between imagery and nonimagery. Let's refrain from being so specific. It accomplishes nothing. How about images of words formed into a pictures. A French newspaper ran a cartoon of words forming an image of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). WAS 4.250 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
They were examples, as pointed out right after they are used in the text: but maybe the most important ones. I couldn't see why you think the term 'collective consciousness' is confusing?
I actually used the word 'specific' mistakenly above. It should be 'general and technical'. For example, any pornographic expressions -visual, verbal- should not be allowed, I believe... Resid Gulerdem
It is impossible to define "pornography" or "collective consciousness" in this context in a meaningful way. For example, what definitions would you suggest as useful and meaningful in this context? WAS 4.250 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For pornography, I would define the unacceptable expressions as: 'an expression that is aiming for a sexual stimulus or to generate sexual desire'. For collective consciouness, I could say: 'a common sense and common understanding of the contributing editors which does not strictly exculde ideas from minorities in a particular discussion'. The terms can be modified and clarified further, too... Resid Gulerdem 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So the images in Sex in advertising would be made a click away and not actually on the article page itself? WAS 4.250 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes... Resid Gulerdem 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you believe there is a consensus for doing that? I don't. WAS 4.250 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That is what I am looking for here. Resid Gulerdem 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that you will find consensus on this for that, because in that case, the images would have been behind bars already.--KimvdLinde 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Which images? Is it an over-generalization? We are talking about pictures of specific kind. Do you think it is acceptible that a high school study group see some pornography in Wiki while trying to do their homework? How about the elementary school kids? Is Wiki an ensyklopedia or a porn site?
Regarding the note in the section belove: I was thinking that the only policy makers in Wiki are editors... Isn't that the case? Resid Gulerdem 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You know darn well which images. And yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable that they see those pictures as they illustrate the point in question. And even elementary school kids. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political correct collection of webpages made with the morals of a specific group in mind. --KimvdLinde 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
When I was at school, we were showen video of a baby being born. Nothing was left to the imagination. Gerard Foley 03:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it good or bad? I bet you did not get any sexual stimulus from what you have seen? It is totally unacceptible in an ensyklopedia to have pornographic or offensive pictures. I modified and copied the section proposal below for convenience. Resid Gulerdem 03:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. The earlier children get exposed to a normal level of nudity, the less loaded nudity becomes. I have grown up in a family in which nudity was completly normal, and for me, nudity has no relation any more with sex. The problem is what you call pornographic, I do not call that way. By labelling every image with only a hint of sexuality pornographic, you inflate the value of the word, and as such, make a discussion even more problematic. Most images you are offended by are by no means pornographic, and for the real pornographic images, there is already a good policy in place. So, I do not see the added value of your insertion, other than to ensure that you and other people who want to censor wikipedia keep the option to do so. As such, I will resist that. --KimvdLinde 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you family tradition and your ideas are not hopefully a common understanding of the case. You are over-generalizing the issue: 'By labelling every image' is not something in my mind. What I am trying to do is to losen the unnecessary restrictions proposed in this project. Editors should be able to make decisions without these restrictions burden their ability. How do you know what the 'Most images I am offended' are? Could you make a comment on 'normal level of nudity' too? Resid Gulerdem 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The definiton that you use for pornography is MUCH wider than the normal definiton. The images at Sex in advertising do fall under your ponography definiton, as you explicitly indicated above, but are a far cry from that in the dictionary definition that I gave below, as there is NO primary purpose to cause sexual arousal. Normal levels of nudity is such an level that nudity is not equivalent with sex but percieved as something that is normal. --KimvdLinde 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the images at Sex in advertising do fall under my ponography definiton as well as yours. That is the main point in that article. Their main pupose is selling their products by causing sexual arousal. I hope you won't say that the pictures there at Sex in advertising are 'the normal level of nudity', will you? Resid Gulerdem 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I read the article, I do not read anywhere that it is sexual arousal that is the key for using it, but sexual interest (which is something different) and the images do NOT fall within my interpretation of the porn definition.--KimvdLinde 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you start playing with the words and terms you loose your sincerity which is the most important value that leads to a consensus and compromise. Resid Gulerdem 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you start to twist meanings of words to get your point (sexual excitement is NOT equivalent to sexual interest). That is for me the fastest way to NOT reaching consensus. --KimvdLinde 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Any examples? Resid Gulerdem 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Standards vs Censorship

The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Insults or pornography (a description or an expression that is intended to cause sexual excitement), for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise. Shifting between verbal or visual descriptions as necessary is another option.

  • Academic objectivity
  • Collective consciousness: A common sense and common understanding of the contributing editors which does not strictly exculde ideas from minorities in a particular discussion
  • The culture of compromise: Empathy for 'the other' in a particular discussion

are the tools needed for better Wikipedia articles. Being responsible is a natural result of these principles.

As said before, NO censorship. Collective consciousness is a extreme problematic term, as it is culture dependent. What one collective (the whole world, fundamantalist christians, nudists, by country (Netherlands or USA?), Western World or Middle-East) finds offensive is not for another group (see groups before). Culture of compromise = restriction of freedom of speech. Your desciption of pornography does not match dictionary definitions:
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. [9]
Your definition is much wider.
One of the great things of wikipedia is that it is NOT censored, and adding censoring to wikipedia is going to degrade the qualitty. --KimvdLinde 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The definition of the pornography I provided and you copied below are parallel. I tired to explain the terms I used above. By collective consciousness, I do not mean anything you listed. As I explained right after, I am using the term for a particluar article or discussion. I tried to explain culture of comprimise as having empathy, what is wrong with that?
No censorship should not and cannot be used as no standards at all. That is not acceptible for an ensyclopedia. Higher standards will only increase reliability. Resid Gulerdem 05:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they are not. Yours state: a description or an expression that is aiming for a sexual stimulus or likely to generate sexual desire. The bolded section makes inclusion of everything with a hint of sexualty or eroticism possible, the dictionay definiton does not. But, if you think they are the same, you would surely not have any objections against inserting the dictionary definiton into your proposal.--KimvdLinde 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If you drop the word 'likely' they become equivalent, otherwise they might be considered as parallel. But anyways, as you said I can accept a widely used definition instead, as a person who emphasise on compromise. Resid Gulerdem 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Another definition of pornography from Britanica.com: The representation of erotic (stimulating sexual desire) behaviour in books, pictures, statues, motion pictures, etc., that is intended to cause sexual excitement. Resid Gulerdem 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
With the new defintion, he images in Sex in Advertisment do not fall under pornography anymore. There is already a guidline that deals with that, so what is the added value of your piece?--KimvdLinde 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we will not get an agreement on the classification of this specific example. I am trying to be more general and propose a general approach rather than insisting on my personal opinion. The contribution of this section is that Wiki has some editorial standards. Moreover, editors have flexibility of choosing different description if one raise some concerns, etc. I am not exclusively talking about pornography. It is just an example in the whole picture. You can see it if you look at the text more carefully. Resid Gulerdem 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
When I read your text, it reads as an endorsement of censorship in Wikipedia. As such, I am against. And I think it is crucial to get to the same understanding of the example, as you indicate that you consider those images porn, while they clearly are not. Furthermore, you indicated explicitly that you want your proposal to bring those and similar images behind bars, so the intention of your proposal is now linked to those images. Therefore, it is crucial to get clarity about what you think falls under your linkimage proposal and why it falls under it.--KimvdLinde 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, my personal point of view do not completely coinside with the section I proposed above. It is more general approach, includes much more than pornography. (Me saying those picture shouldn't be there is nothing to do with the policy) It tries to propose a way for better articles written by consensus, minimize offense and increase participation of minorities. Resid Gulerdem 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What are these 'editorial standards' you keep talking about exactly? And why are people saying no porn. The policy was pro-porn, where relevant (i.e. pornography). Gerard Foley 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial standards are the ones you can see in the mainstream media. From the section I wrote here, you can see some of those: No porn, no insult, empathy, taking minority opinions into consideration, etc... I cannot agree on a pro-pron policy. Resid Gulerdem 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with no porn outside the pornography related pages. BTW, I looked at some of them, I have to say, the editors have already put a lot of care in choosing images that illustrate the point without being overly offensive or graphic. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the images used because they don't illustrate what pornography is, instead you get some bowdlerized version because someone's sense of morality disagreed with real pornography. The images at penis are a good example, it simply shows you what a penis looks like without having to hide them behind links and/or warnings. It shows that Wikipedia is a mature encyclopedia, willing to discuss and illustrate such topics just as well as Mickey Mouse. Gerard Foley 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't some drawings be better? Resid Gulerdem 19:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you wouldn't replace photos of cars with drawings at Automobile would you? Gerard Foley 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
One definitely could do that... It wouldn't cause any harm in my opinion to the article. But there is no reason for it and no complain about it. Another point is: a pic of an automobile and a p are like apple and orange. If you disregard the common sense of humanity and universal values, everything is OK... Resid Gulerdem 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask people who look to be unhappy with this section proposal: What is your objection to that specifically? And others: How can this section be improved? Resid Gulerdem 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Take the censoring out. --KimvdLinde 20:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is the censorship and what expression precisely you are talking about? Resid Gulerdem 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I think:

  1. The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards.
    • This is fine.
  1. Insults or pornography (a description or an expression that is intended to cause sexual excitement), for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article.
    • This is also fine, it should be common sense.
But leaves open the possibility to add porn images to a page about pornography because it is highly appropriate for that page. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia.
    • The statement itself is OK, but I don't see why it's needed here.
    It is needed because it supports the main idea of the section which is no censorship policy cannot be interpreted as no standards at all. Resid Gulerdem 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    What do you want to say here?--KimvdLinde 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    This is not a editorial standards policy, it's a no censorship policy. Gerard Foley 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    I meant to say that, the statement High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. supports the main idea in the proposed section. The main idea is: 'No censorship' doesn't mean 'no editorial standards'. I am not writing editorial standard policy here, but setting a connection between them.
High editorial standards in my opinion include no censorship. The reputation as a objective reliable source that is not corrupted by groups that want to limit its content is indeed one that we want to keep. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Any text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly.
  2. A careful use of language can help in that direction.
    • These sentences are just off topic.
    They are to the point in my opinion because sometimes it is claimed that, for example, offensive expressions are needed for a better understanding. What these statements propose is that: By a careful use of the language these kind of expressions can be avoided. Getting around the offensive descriptions should not be considered as censorship. Resid Gulerdem 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, they are predefining that everything that could be interpret as offensive could be rewritten, which is not true. If someone is offended by the word Christians, should we say the Abrahamic religeon originating from that earlier one (because some other are offended by that word, you know which I mean), and the later (you know which we mean, that one that causes so many troubles with those thingies that got published in to many newspapers). As such, predifining things as possible is not ok. --KimvdLinde 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    It simply says that if there is some expressions found offensive by some minorities, and if there is a consensus, editors have right to re-express it appropriately so that minorities do not feel offended. They might very well prefer a verbal description instead of a visual one. It looks to me fair and so civil. It is no good to propose a policy that doesn't let them do so. Again we are talking about an option not a requirement. Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you predifine it. If you mean what you write, rewrite it as such. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. I agree with KimvdLinde. Its not like people are going to keep "The sun is a fucking huge star in our solar system", just because Wikipedia is not censored. Gerard Foley 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    You are caricaturizing the case, but, if one choose to say so, someone should be able to say that 'you cannot use the argument that Wiki is not censored for this kind of expression'. And the version I am proposing gives that very ability to the editors. Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on this argument, these lines are unacceptable as they facilitate censoring. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise.
  2. Shifting between verbal or visual descriptions as necessary is another option.
    That means, editors should be able to choose one description over the other. It is stated as an option, not a requirement. The direction is not necessarily from visual to verbal descriptions.
    I am not aiming to repeat the policy with different phrases. Some of the restrictions proposed in the project I believe, as some others in this discussion, are completely unnecessary. I want them get changed and updated. The consensus among contributing editors in a particluar discussion should suffice to prefer one way or the other. No reason to enforce unnecessary restrictions to the community. The proposed section also requires that the voice of minorities be heard and should be taken into consideration. Resid Gulerdem 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The only restriction in the policy is that you can't change an article just because you find part of it offensive. A change for any other reason is fine. Gerard Foley 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Even in that case, if there is agreement among the contributing editors, they should be able to change it. The policy cannot and should not dictate any unnecessary restrictions. It is not practical and logical. Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As the wording is nopw, this insertion is unacceptable as it actually enforces censorship. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Repeating the same wrong statements ten times doesn't make them correct'. You are insisting on not to understand what I am saying. You already started by saying that you will resist and you are resisting now. It sounds like you are just trying to stop any improvemnts of the text whatever it is, and insisting on the same arguments. There is no single statement in the section which promotes censroship. The whole point there is to:
  • remind that 'no censorship' is different from 'no standards'
  • give more flexibility to the editors
  • eliminate the unnecessary restrictions dictated by the current text, (it does not propose new restrictions but rather suggests availability of some options)
  • provides editors with some suggestions regarding the different choices of descriptions which might be less offensive and more acceptible
  • calls for being more considerate for ideas from minorities in a particular discussion
  • address some standards like academic objectivity, collective consciousness, culture of comprimise as useful tools for editors. Resid Gulerdem 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Repeating the same wrong statements ten times doesn't make them correct, thanks for reminding me that I should not have to respond ten times to the same argument of you. You want to make something policy, as such, it should be 100% clear. Not writing ine thing and intenting another. The intention should be 100% clear, not hidden at the talk page in an extensive explanation. Collective consciousness and culture of comprimise are ambigious terms, intended to introduce censorship in a 'No censorship policy. If you are serious about this, avoid ambigious terms, and make the text itself 100% clear what it means, not by explanation. --KimvdLinde 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can not see how and why you think that the terms are ambigious as they defined precisely right after. I can drop them and keep the explanations if it eliminates the concerns you have. Resid Gulerdem 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have already a long discussion about twhat you proposal actually means? It should be self explanatory. Furthermore, you introduce censorship by predefining that everything can be resolved, and that certain things should be avoided.--KimvdLinde 19:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This not an answer to my question. Second thing is: what is wrong in saying that 'everything can be resolved'? How about 'certain things can be avoided'? Resid Gulerdem 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
See arguments above. We are going in cicles. Unless the text is going to changed substantially, and is not introducing censorship, I am going to be against it. --KimvdLinde 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no statement favoring censorship in it. If so wehere? Rewording the proposed section doesn't make sense to me as everything is clear. Besides, you can easily find something in that new version to be against with. It sounds like you are strictly determined to find something to be against with or resist. Resid Gulerdem 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask how would and could you re-express these statements so that your concerns are eliminated? Can you help me with that? Resid Gulerdem 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem], I know nothing about you except what I have read on this page. What I have to say only reflects the impression your remarks on this page have made on me. I find your behavior INDISTINGUISHABLE from trolling behavior. Regardless of the actual reason for your behavior, everyone can see that responding to you achieves no result worth achieving. Thus please don't take offense if people ignore comments you make that seem to them to be more of the same. Maybe recognizing this, you might choose to make more useful contributions either here or elsewhere. More of the same is not doing any good for anyone. WAS 4.250 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear WAS, please do not take it offensive if I say: I do not care at all how you see my contribution to this discussion page. Your classification which are worthless to mention for me is based on your attitude and ideas. Well, I continuously get response from a few people including you which makes your argument a contradiction. My comments are for explaining the statements in the proposed section, and they are answers to questions I am asked. Where, when and how I contribute to an article is, kindly, none of your business. Please keep your big nose out of my work. Maybe you can even start thinking to contribute to the project instead of giving meaningless advise to the others. And again please do not consider this response offensive... I didn't mean to be so harsh anyways... Resid Gulerdem 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding what I am trying to add into this project and why it is important and different: please read the previous answers. But this time, you might try to understand as well while reading. Resid Gulerdem 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1984

The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Negativity (insults like suggesting anyone or anything might be evil) or emotion-causing words or images (an image or description or expression that is intended to cause excitement; pictures of naked women, suffering babies, religious figures, delicious foods, ...), for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. This high editorial standard would add to a reputation for Wikipedia. Any text can be edited to remove anything anyone dislikes. A careful use of language can help make Wikipedia doubleplusgood. If a picture causes concerns in an article, just link it instead. (1)Academic objectivity: Add "maybe" and "perhaps" a lot. (2)Collective consciousness: My thoughts are agreed to by the silent majority (3)The culture of compromise: Everything is relative, there are no absolutes, my truth is as good as yours. WAS 4.250 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What an interpretation!?... You might reconsider the date 1984, as your interpretation goes back to the dark ages. Resid Gulerdem 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The new censorship policy

To make Wikipedia accessible to people who may be trying to diet, images and descriptions of delicious foods should not appear in Wikipedia articles.

Because vegetarians may be upset by images or descriptions of, animals being killed, hunting or meat; Wikipedia should generally try to avoid such images or descriptions in its articles.

As there are many religions and faiths in the world, and because people may find images or descriptions of faiths which are not their own offensive, Wikipedia should try to avoid such references in its articles.

Actually, because we don’t know what a visitor to Wikipedia may find offensive, Wikipedia articles should try to avoid any text or images at all. With this culture of compromise, together we can make the world’s least offensive encyclopaedia ever created. So what if everything is hidden behind warning links.

What do you think? Gerard Foley 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out if the nihilists or the anti-nihilists would be more offended by an empty encyclopedia. Maybe the least offensive encyclopedia is no encyclopedia at all, not even an empty one. Then we won't offend anyone. As in WarGames, the only way to win the "but that's offensive to me" game is to not play it at all. "Offensive" must be disallowed as a legitimate criteria for editorial behavior. Random insults and gratuitous sexuality are not appropriate for other legitimate editorial reasons (eg relevance). WAS 4.250 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Meaningless generalizations can caricaturize the case but do not help at all. It is not a positive approach. I cannot see why you insist on a policy which dictates unnecessary restrictions to the editors... Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this an issue for a higher level than the editors?

I have been folowing the discussion here, and I find it disturbing that so many people want to promote censoring of wikipedia. Not that they are going to succeed, but they can effectively block any consensus about censorship. As such, I feel that this might be an issue that goes beyond the capability of the editor cimmunity, and as such, should maybe be decided at a higher level than the editors. --KimvdLinde 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mischaracterizing intent. I don't see people here who are in favor of censorship. I see people here in favor of editorial freedom to choose compromise solutions that keeps information available while avoiding needless affronts to our readers. Johntex\talk 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Disturbing how you can make censorship sound like something nice. Spinning it doesn't make it less against all that Wikipedia stands for, namely to provide highly relevant visual and textual information in the most accesible way. I agree that with KimvdLinde that someone at the top should put their foot down on this issue. - A technical solution in which anyone on an individual basis can choose to not be able to download certain pictures from this site is something entirely different. --Anjoe 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We tried it your way and here are the results
Please explain how this situation helps anyone. If someone doesn’t want to see offensive images sometimes you will be lucky, and other times you won't because it's fairly random. Gerard Foley 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
People at the wikipedia pornography portal claim Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act means that wikipedia needs to avoid actual porn. Maybe we should and maybe we shouldn't. My point for you right now is maybe the people involved in a specific article are better able to select and edit that article without adding to the "be as informative as possible even if it is offensive, but we aren't here to offend" policy that currently exists. WAS 4.250 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe in time, wikipedia has to move to another country where the government is not limiting freedom.--KimvdLinde 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act deasn't apply to not for profits, so it doesn't even apply to wikipedia. The issue is trying to be as available as possible even to commercial mirrors. (and not to get a rep as a porn farm). WAS 4.250 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What is distrurbing is the misuse of the word "censorship", which I think some people (not necessarily you, Anjoe) insist on using to scare people. The word "censorship" is commonly used to refer to centralized (Eg. governmental) dictates to remove something. The proposed policy to take away editorial decision making actually fits more closely the definition of "censorship" than my proposal. As for your examples, Gerard, what do they prove? They prove my point that editors are able to decide this as appropriate for each article. Johntex\talk 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Offensive for this same proposal with the unnecessarily loaded word "censorship" removed. WAS 4.250 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the way to go is to tag images as undisputed, and make the option for users to show only undisputed images (effectively as google, only default is show all). It is then up to the users who miss things to tag images as undisputed. That would keep the current system as is, without censorship. --KimvdLinde 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The last time I read an argument on wikipedia about tagging images, the consensus was people didn't want yet another thing to revert war about: pic is tagged "offensive"; no! pic taged with "nonoffensive"; no pic taged with "blashemy'; no! pic tagged with "religious offense to fundamentalists".... WAS 4.250 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That is why you have to flip it around, and make the undisputed images tagged. Gives less issue. I couldn't care less about which image is tagged or not, as I would put the option off. And it would put the burden of tagging with those who do feel that they do not want to see some images. --KimvdLinde 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said previously, I favor an image tagging system that would let users have control over their experience. Until that is in place, we can use image inlining to give the user the choice on a few articles, IF the editors of that page believe doing so is warranted. Johntex\talk 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Images are already popped into categories, so an option to prevent images in selected categories downloading would be good. Gerard Foley 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion - Listen This Time

Wikipedia doesn't need to be censored, it just needs warning pages before entering pages on things like porn or a page for a swear word or whatever and warnings that less objectionable articles/sections may offend some users. How is making a wiki that could disturb children broadening your audience? It's a general opinion of adults with children that games about thug life and shooting cops are inappropriate for young kids, so Nintendo puts warning pages before they let you into the article, and nobody who's interested in that stuff ever cares because it's not censored, it just leads kids in the right direction. This is basically a moot point for me because I don't read any articles that could potentially contain gosh awful content, but it feels good to know that you're secure. Implement something like that on your site or else you'll lose educational establishments' trust, mine and everyone elses' besides an audience you guys (presumably) want nothing to do with. Don't ignore me this time, yo! It's not bad to keep certain religious/political/whatever audiences safe, it's good and every website on earth should do it. And if nothing is done about it, I'll boycott the site and rage against Wikipedia. And to whoever wrote the "images of Big Macs could offend dieters" or whatever, only a complete idiot would be offended by something like that. I'm anti-beef dude and I don't cover my eyes whenever I see a picture of beef! Content that is factually offensive to a certain audience/everyone and what's offensive by very, very personal opinion are two completely different things. If you're offended by a picture of beef, you couldn't live in a cave without being offended and starting controversy. — Darth Katana X

I am with you... Resid Gulerdem 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The difficult thing is deciding what is offensive, though. A lot of people are offended only by nudity, but then a lot of people are offended by women not wearing burqas. And some people are offended by information on other religions and political parties or, for that matter, by the very idea of having an article on sex/nudity/swastika/KKK/whatever offends them. So in other words, if we decide not to offend anyone, Wikipedia would have about 5 articles. I'm not saying we should have the goatse.cx image on the Main Page, but obviously it isn't very simple to draw a line. Yeltensic42 don't panic 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe include a list of topics that need such a page. I wll start, feel free to add stuff:
  • Porn
  • swearing
  • christianity
  • islam
  • terrorism
  • profanity
  • evolution
  • creationism
  • KKK
  • Hitler
  • Communism
  • China
  • USA
  • Texas
  • Israel
  • Iran
  • George W. Bush
  • Clinton
  • abortion
  • pro-life
  • gay
  • gender
  • Death penalty
  • Massachussetts
  • France
  • Meat

Maybe every IP-number should get a popup with disclaimer at every page (as we probably can not find consensus on what is offensive) they visit.--KimvdLinde 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better than the current set-up with the warning on a policy page in the project namespace that readers never see. Yeltensic42 don't panic 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You can cater to everyone by including notes that the page may offend a certain group of people, who would have a problem with that? Sickos who wanted disturbing KKK pictures could get them if they wanted them, and all the rest of that crap. And just to say, blacks aren't the only people who hate the KKK. I honestly can't think of anything I hate worse than them, besides Satan of course. In conclusion, how can you widen your audience by offending it? I'm with Jennifer one this. — Darth Katana X
Yes, having a note at the top of the page sounds like a good idea. I just think we shouldn't have the images behind links or have the article be just a warning page with a link to the actual content, cos that would waste time for people who want to read the article. And yes, the KKK sucks. Yeltensic42 don't panic 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool, and of course offensive images would halfta be lowered down (for all I know, these changes have already been implemented into the pornography article, but I wouldn't go there if my life depended on it, so I'll never know). There's really no reason not to do that, unless you want people to get disturbed. Darth Katana X 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
At the top of the page, there's a topless woman; further down, a Playboy cover (no nudity or anything) and an ancient porn papyrus (they're having sex, but you can't see their "equipment"). Yeltensic42 don't panic

(resetting indent) There is a saying which goes something like "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good". What that means is that we should not give up on trying to do good, just because we may not be able to be perfect. The inability to perfectly predict what every single person might be offended shouldn't keep us from doing what we can. If it is reasonable to believe something would offend a significant number of people, then we should probably leave it out. For example, we don't have hard-core penetrative pornography at Britney Skye, though one could argue it is relevant to the article. Johntex\talk 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion

I think that, given the difficulty of drawing a line on what is and isn't offensive, in the interest of freedom of information it would make the most sense to, instead of going by the standards of one culture/religion/political affiliation, use the most lenient cultural standards on each topic (Dutch standards for sex and nudity, U.S. standards for things like the swastika, etc)...within the bounds of Florida law, of course, and still going by what's encyclopedic and fits into the article in question (ie, there's no reason to use profanity in the article on the economy of Switzerland). Any comments? Suggestions? Rotten fruit to throw at me? Yeltensic42 don't panic 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just disregard offensive and immoral (instead of the most lenient cultural standards) and we're done. Everything else sounds fine. Gerard Foley 19:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Wikiethics

I start a new ploicy page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I would appreciate for your contribution. I especially need help in terms of current policy pages, etc. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Generalizations don't help

As in the project (see the first paragraph), people intend to generalize (and sometimes caricaturize) the case. It is not meaningful, or logical to say: we cannot define 'offensive', so everyting is OK and cannot be classified as offensive. Because it depende on culture, etc... That approach is not true. Similarly for pornography.

Article-based classifications is more than necessary, it is a must. In this media, we cannot classify something being offensive according to the cultures and such... But contributing editors should have the right to determine if something is offensive or not. That is one of the reason why the current policy is restrictive with unnecessary restrictions and so negative. Resid Gulerdem 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Everyone's offended by something, and it's easy to see what would offend who. For instance, Christians are offended by crosses drawn upside down in flames and pentagrams. Satanists are offended by that "Satan Sucks" shirt on eBay. Everyone worth their balls is offended by pornography, and so on. Thoughts like, "Well, in that case, wouldn't Coach Z offend Midwesterners?" (no offense, Yelt) or "Wouldn't fur coats offend animal lovers like Moby?" are ridiculous. We don't have to go that far.
I've said what needs to be done, but I'll repeat myself in case anyone's missed it: what we need to do is create warning templates for people of certain ages, religions, political persuations and so on, and move any dirty or offensive images downward. After all, text doesn't bother anyone, images do. — Darth Katana X

Discrimination Against Certain Editors

A proposed edit to section 3, in accordance with Wikiquette and common ethical sense:

Section 3: What censorship is.

For the purposes of this policy, censorship is any change to any article, image or media file on the following grounds:

1.) You find it or "offensive" or believe others may find it "offensive."

2.) An article does not violate WP:AUTO, but there is some aspect of an article contributor which you find offensive or inappropriate to the subject, including but not limited to: ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. Every person has a point of view - a good article is one written by someone who knows how to leave theirs out. The gauge of an article's quality is not the contributor's point of view but rather the neutrality of the article itself, per WP:NPOV.

3.) You wish to make some change for purposes other than improving the usefulness, factual validity or neutrality of the article itself, or enforcement of existing Wikipedia policy.

Changes subject to this definition of censorship include but are not limited to: (continue to existing list of changes)

HolokittyNX 10:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing material because you do not like the editor who added it is not censorship, it's bad editing. -Will Beback 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would offer that as NPOV governs content, it should also govern changes to that content. HolokittyNX 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing material because you find it offensive is a form of bad editing known as censorship. Removing material because you take offense at the relationship between the contributor's demographics and the subject of the article is also a form of bad editing known as censorship. The former is censorship of content, and the latter is censorship of a contributor. Which of these statements is incorrect? Corax 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If this policy is passed would pedophilia be included under sexual orientation? It appears this proposal is inspired by an editing dispute at Justin Berry. -Will Beback 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
While there are opinions as to the difference between sexual orientation and 'perversion,' Wikipedia policy is not to operate by any such opinion. Objectively, exclusive attraction to a certain type of person is a sexual orientation. Whether the orientation is kosher or not isn't to be decided here. And even if one doesn't consider pedophilia an orientation, it's still an aspect of the author as opposed to the content they provide. Evaluating information or reasoning based on who provided it is called an ad hominem fallacy. It's basically stating that if a Nazi says Earth is round while a Peace Corps volunteer says it's flat, then the Earth is flat. HolokittyNX 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Could it be that Will Beback is not assuming good faith? Perish the thought. Corax 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
When an editor chooses to propose a policy amendment on his 15th edit, then I do not assume good faith. I assume that the editor is a sock puppet an experienced user with an agenda. -Will Beback 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should request a sockpuppet check before giving voice to irresponsible (and probably incorrect) accusations. That way, you will be in accordance with the Wikipedia policies you're supposed to be enforcing, not violating. Regards, Corax 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, what does it matter? Do sockpuppets never make good arguments? What matters more? What is right or who is saying it? This is precisely the matter at hand here. Is a good edit in some way devalued because the person who makes it is disapproved and a bad edit improved because the person who makes it is approved? It seems to me that this standard, which is commonly used here at Wikipedia, is very wrong and should be challenged. Grace Note 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, 15th since registering.
For all the information you have about me I might be a Nazi, or a sock puppet, or have an evil alternate personality even I don't know about. Or maybe you think I'm a pedophile myself. I actually prefer tall chubby women, but of course you don't know that about me or anyone else here. As for being a sock puppet, I don't put the effort into writing anything without taking credit. I try not to act like it, but I am cocky about my writing (and about my ability to phrase articles as Lt. Cmdr. Data would).
You don't have to waste time figuring any of that out. The question isn't whether you agree with me. You don't have me in front of you to evaluate. The question is whether you agree with the proposal you do have in front of you - whether you personally think editing articles based on who provided them rather than the content is consistent with Wikipedia's goals and WP:NPOV. If the above is included and passed, that doesn't make me an admin or allow me to inject a POV into articles. It doesn't mean that a pedophile editing an article on pedophilia (as is already allowed in virtually every case) or a Nazi editing an article on Hitler will be allowed to use slanted terminology or avoid sourcing the material they provide.
I think it bears mentioning that the Wikipedia admin formerly censoring the Justin Berry article have allowed my edit (the largest since its original deletion) to stay. I wasn't about to complain about a POV being applied and then write a slanted article myself.
Want my agenda? I've become increasingly interested in this project, and have enjoyed the challenge of writing objectively for its own sake. I also enjoy applying logic, more so than any of the particular stances it has led me to (if logic isn't the cat's meow, how can the stances supported by it be?). And while I see the problem with the Justin Berry reverts as something worth fixing due to its implications for the project as a whole, it's not a topic I would otherwise have cared to write about. On the talk page for that article I don't think you'll find me expressing opinions about the case itself. HolokittyNX 02:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
applause Not writing to be all that cocky about, but the argument is solid. Who cares whether he's a sockpuppet with an agenda, Will? You're a long-time editor with your own agenda. What do you have to put up against his arguments? Or are you really going to rely on "I've been here for a year so I'm right"? Grace Note 23:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is helpful, when forming policies, is we know the intent and purpose of a proposal. If the intent of this proposal is to deflect issues about pedophiles editing the articles of molested youths, as this apparently is, then we should say so upfront, and not pretend it is about more general concerns. -Will Beback 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Editing an article based on who wrote it is argumentum ad hominem and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The Justin Berry article is a single example of this - it is not made dishonest by the fact that the author was a pedophile. It is made dishonest by the fact that those responsible even thought about who the author was. It is similarly dishonest to consider anything about me (good or bad) in evaluating the content of text you have right in front of you.
The 'general concerns' you mention are right there in the text of the proposal. Pedophilia is arguably a sexual orientation. It is not a gender, or nationality, or religion, or political affiliation. The proposal does not provide any person with more protection than another and cannot be construed that way. HolokittyNX 05:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Will, I suspect that you are aware that editing another user's comments on discussion pages without that user's permission is vandalism. Thus this is the second violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines you've committed in this discussion alone. I suppose that, just as you obviously have the POV that homosexuality is a valid orientation and not a perversion, you must also harbor the POV that you are entitled to violate rules that you in turn expect others to follow. Holokitty is intelligent enough to articulate her own ideas. If she wanted to include "sexual perversions" in her proposal, she would. She doesn't need you rewriting her proposal to reflect what you, in your assumption of bad faith, assume her motives are. Corax 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We're here to discuss a proposal. I didn't edit her comment, just the proposal.

They are inarguably the exact same thing. HolokittyNX 05:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the proposal includes pedophilia, etc., then the text should specify it.

The above sentence is content-free. The proposal and the text are also the exact same thing. 'Includes' pedophilia? It would be appreciated if you stuck to statements which mean something. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction/orientation/whatever. There is no such thing as creating a block of text which is itself a pedophile, unless you mean my proposal is actually the programming code for an artificial intelligence which is attracted to children. HolokittyNX 05:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The motivation for this proposal is clearly the dispute at Justin Berry, so to muddy the waters by claiming it could be about any protected characteristic is not helpful. Unless she wants her proposal re-written she should not submit it here. -Will Beback 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculating about the motivations for a proposal is called the appeal to motive fallacy, and violates Wikipedia:no personal attacks. The proposal is what is is, and not something else (see:Logic, Aristotle). Whatever my intent, the text of the article is what would be enforced if passed. Further criticism of this proposal based on anything not present in the text of the original as I typed it will constitute your concession that you are unable to refute it and that that is why you will not address the proposal itself. HolokittyNX 05:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it's her proposal. She has the right to include in her proposal whatever she wishes, and should not have to worry about other editors modifying it. If you want to make an alternate proposal, feel free to do so. Second, even if this proposal were about the issue of Justin Berry's article, then the excluded people in question would not be pedophiles, but homosexual ephebophiles and homosexual androphiles -- as Justin ran his business from the time he was 13 until past the time he was a "consenting" adult. Corax 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Start a vote to make this policy?

This is one of the best articles on wikipedia. The very introduction is a pure gem: No Censorship. Couldn't have put it better. Let's start a vote to make this proposed policy into a policy and end the endless debates.Loom91 12:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about holding a vote in the month of April? Run it the whole month. WAS 4.250 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine as long as votes are not cast during 1ST April :) Anyway, I have appealed to Jimbo on his talk page, please check out User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Loom91 05:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this clear: editorial freedom

The way I see the interpretation of this article regarding editorial freedom, editors are ONLY barred from using the vaugue, non-objective and all-encompassing notion of "offensive" as the SOLE reason for removing content. Content has to satisfy other criterias like NPOV aand verifiable, but as long as those are satisfied we exercise censorship only to the point mandated by Florida law. People in support of removing "offensive" images (as the debate is almost exclusively about imagery rather than textual content) consider this:

LOTS of people OVER THE WORLD are seriously offended by the picture of a girl in a sleeveless top. There are a lot of them and most of them can not be called religious fundamentalists or minority fanatics. So do we make sure all womans are wearing burquas?

In truth, censorship is not a true policy, only a clarification of the fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV. Any and all forms of censorship are fundamentally POV, because holding certain content to be offensive is expressing a POV potentially disagreed with by millions.

Anyway, whether or we should tag "offensive images" or use warnings does not directly concern this policy. This policy only bars the REMOVAL of content, so please don't tangle debates about taggings and warnings with this policy, these may be used even if this policy is approved. That's a technically unrelated matter. Please approve as long as you don't support removal of content? Loom91 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you say is not true. This proposed guideline attempts to remove all sorts of editorial control. It tries to cover not only deleting the image but even moving it further down the page. Please re-read what you are supporting. Johntex\talk 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia servers not only in Florida

The proposed policy states:

Deleting it because its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted.

While the Wikimedia servers article states:

89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility.

Perhaps the proposed policy should take this and the possibility of future expansion in to other countries in to account. -- noosphere 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. As far as I know, currently Wikipedia only obeys the laws of United States (such as Fair Use). I can't see how we may take future expansion into account, we can't comply with laws of every country. In fact, Wikipedia content already violates the national laws regarding Nazi content of Paris. I don't see how this matter is handled, or whether it has been noticed before. Might be a question to be raised in the Village Pump. Loom91 12:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how it breaks the French laws? --BluePlatypus 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That may become a problem. MediaWiki does not at present AFAICS offer any way of ensuring that certain articles are only served from certain servers, but there are clearly several ways in which that could be achieved. Given an assumption (it might be an assertion elsewhere) that since laws on content relate to generally held views in any country where WP is likely to be hosted and therefore the inhabitants of that country and perhaps those nearby will not generally wish to retrieve that content, it would be logical to host such content elsewhere, as the advantage of hosting it nearby would be minimal anyway. Midgley 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Affected articles

Feces on H5N1 was delinked; causing me to look at it to try to figure out why. Among what I found out was that the following articles are affected by the choices of censorship or not: Feces, Human feces, Penis, Clitoris, Masturbation, Anus, Vagina, Semen, Human urine, Smegma, Phlegm, Meconium. WAS 4.250 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter

I think the problem here is that people are looking at this issue dogmatically rather than pragmatically.

In the article on Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales is quoted as saying the goal of the project is "to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." To me, that indicates trying to attract and keep as many readers as possible.

Wikipedia is like any other medium. It attracts readers by providing information they want to see. But it can drive away readers with things they don't want, such as unreliable information, spam, poorly written text and, of course, certain images.

There is a balance to be struck between maximizing information and not driving people away. Our goal is to find that balance.

Some people might say that our goal should only be to maximize information. But it's clear that's not what Wikipedia is about. We delete dozens of pages every day at WP:AFD. Editors delete thousands of inappropriate text additions to articles. In the broadest sense of the term, this is "censorship." But we do it -- just like every newspaper, magazine and TV show decides not to include some information.

Now I have a pretty wide tolerance for things, but there are certain things I don't want to see in any context. I may want to read about a train crash, but I don't want to see a close-up of a severed head with an eyeball hanging out. I may have a legitimate medical question about diarrhea, but I don't want to see it coming out of someone's behind.

Yes, offensiveness or repulsiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, there are people out there who are offended at women in bathing suits or pictures of meat. But just because offensiveness or repulsiveness is subjective doesn't mean we should prohibit editors from making sound judgements as to what types of images are appropriate for a given page.

I think images should be treated like all other types of information on Wikipedia pages. The goal should be to maximize what people do want to see and minimize or eliminate what they don't. In the case of Kobe beef, my guess is most people would find a picture contributes to the article, and very, very few people, vegetarians included, would find an image to be unnecessarily repulsive.

On the other hand, showing a picture of someone vomiting at gastritis would contribute little to the article, since most people know what vomiting looks like. It would not only dissuade people from reading the article but turn many people off from Wikipedia as a whole. We need a common-sense policy that prevents people from removing pictures of beef but allows them to remove pictures of vomiting.

The really thorny questions come into play with articles on things like the Muhammad cartoons, where you've got a lot of people who want to see them and a lot of people who want to read the article without seeing the pictures. I think a technological solution that warns readers of a potentially offensive image and allows them to reload the page without the image might help in that situation.

But that's a separate issue. The problem is that the proposed censorship policy would give a green light to immature editors who want to fill Wikipedia with the most grusome, disturbing, sickness-inducing images they can find. I don't want to see those, and my guess is even those people clamoring for an absolutist anticensorship policy don't want to, either. -- Mwalcoff 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Every single Wikipedia policy takes certain freedoms away from the editor to enforce quality standards, this is nothing unique to this policy. Any editor who tampers with a page for the sole reason of "offensiveness" is expressing a particular Point-of-view that is not shared by many others. Do we want editors wasting their energy fighting over images when that energy could be channeled into more productive activities by having an unambiguous directive?
"We need a common-sense policy that prevents people from removing pictures of beef but allows them to remove pictures of vomiting." Such a policy is not possible, for it would have to include every single possible case, there being no way to crate a general benchmark. As Einstein said, Common sense is the sum total of our acquired prejudices. And this policy will not give anyone a green light to use sick images. Even if a "sick" (a totally subjective and POV concept) picture is relevant, editors will always be able to replace it with another that is equally relevant but more to the editor's taste. Edits don't always have to move vertically (improve content in encyclopaedic standards), they can also move horizontally (keep content same by encyclopaedic standards, increase "tastefullness"). Loom91 12:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose : the project, the underlying ideas and the method itself

  • Censorship ? When it is mandatory and enforced by laws of a country, I incline myself. But still fight. For ourselves, no. There is enough internal regulation. People who do not want to see irrespectful or sensible articles must keep their children away, it is their own responsibility and they have tools for that.
  • The ideas are vicious. Auto-censorship does not lead to any evil : evil is already there. Think, breathe, smell and write free, in any country, amongst people you share something with.
  • The method gives twoscore wikipedians discussing in a page during one fortnight. The news are found at the village pump. The subject of censorship is as much important as the collecting of donations, where there is a template on every page, all year long.

- Please consider the goals of Wikipedia : what are they ? It is time to build something, not to be afraid. To take sea, not to navigate between reefs. (Posted at 19:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) in the oppose section.) --DLL 07:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition

I think the definition of censorship in this proposal is too inclusive. Moving an image down the page, as was done in the Bahá'u'lláh article, or placing it one click away, as in Autofellatio, is not "censorship" in any meaningful sense of the word. Everybody who wants to see those images can see them after making one minimal movement with their index finger. David Sneek 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why "No Censorship" is bad policy

Lots of people are arguing here that there must be no self-censorship of Wikipedia, because "information should be free" or some such. In actual fact a lack of self-censorship is as likely to be damaging to the spread of information as it is to help.

Let's look at specific cases. Suppose we were to put at the top of our Pornography article a hard-core pornographic image. It would certainly be relevant to the article, and if this were adopted it would be against policy to remove the image just because it was 'offsensive'. Once added it could not be removed.

Let's consider the likely effects of this. Any parent, dutifully keeping an eye on what their child is browsing on the web, would certainly disapprove. They would probably make sure their child didn't see it again, and the most likely measure would be to stop them looking at Wikipedia as a whole. If this happened a lot Wikipedia would probably end up on the banned list of parental control systems, and probably a lot of schools would ensure Wikipedia wasn't accessible. All this because someone insisted in the name of 'freedom' that we never exercise any discretion in what we post.

Let's consider another case. Someone posts a naked picture of a well-known actress on the article about that actress. According to this policy it would be impossible to remove that picture. That's going to be insulting to the actress, and certainly going to make worse the effect above.

It's perfectly possible to steer a moderate course on what is included in Wikipedia. It seems to have worked pretty well up to now. We can and do publish things that are offensive to some people, but we do so only when there is a clear need. There is, and should be, a higher standard for 'offensive' things - especially images. The naked actress picture can stay if it is clearly needed to convery something important about the subject. A non-naked picture doesn't need that standard - it can stay if we don't have a better picture and the article isn't too large. DJ Clayworth 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I largely agree. Labeling this proposed guideline as an anti-censorhip measure is misleading at best, and a deceptive scare tactic at worst. Censorship is what happens to Wikipedia in China, and what we will see more of if we abdicate our own editorial responsibility for restraint and common sense. Avoiding needlessly inflamatory images (or tagging them or inlining them or ...) is not censorship, it is good common sense. How to treat images should be decided case-by-case by the editors of the page in question. Taking that editorial option away through centralized fiat is closer to the definition of censorship than the activities this guideline is trying to outlaw. Johntex\talk 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • An anti-censorship policy no more takes away editorial freedom than WP:NPOV. Would you object against that also. See my reply in the above section. As for your specific example, I will certainly be for including the nude image given it was legal and free/fair use (highly unlikely), even if it did not illustrate some "particularly significant" information about the actress. Significance is subjective.

We are not opening a shop, we don't need to take into account unencyclopaedic concerns into account to attract people. A case-by-case approach is contrary to WP:NPOV and a wastage of editorial energy. It is simply unfair to censor contents some people find to be offensive while keeping content other people (even if they are minorities: WP is not a democracy) find offensive. We are talking about EXACTLY happens in China, despite our notions of cultural and political superiority, we are walking into the same pitfalls.

It's very easy to pass idealistic judgments about others, not so easy to practice them in real life. Chinese authorities (supposedly) censor what they feel will the public should not see, you are proposing we do the same! I will definitely want to see an image of vomit in Vomit, even though I will not enjoy seeing the picture. Loom91 12:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know why you would want to see a picture you wouldn't enjoy looking at, but I can tell you I think you have an incorrect idea of what "unencyclopedic concerns" and WP:NPOV are. Wikipedia has a policy to use only reliable sources. "Reliability," like offensiveness or repulsiveness, is in the eye of the beholder. Does that mean we should prohibit editors from deleting material from quacks?
"Well I don't know why you would want to see a picture you wouldn't enjoy looking at". Clue: this picture in Vietnam War - Serodio 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy also calls for the "censorship" of personal attacks, legal threats, original research and lots of other stuff. Does that mean Jimmy Wales is an enemy of free speech on the same level as Hu Jintao? -- Mwalcoff 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We continually make judgements about what people will find "interesting" or "notable" or "encyclopedic" or "worthy of inclusion" or "informative" or "libelous" or "illegal" or "reputable". No one complains that any of these decisions by themselves violate NPOV. If someone writes an article on a no-name garage band, and it gets deleted for being non-notable, NPOV does not rush in to save the article just becuase we are "discriminating" agianst a band that 3 people happen to love. If someone puts a factually correct piece of trivia into an article, NPOV does not require that we put every other piece of trivia we can think of into that article to be fair. In the same spirit, moving or inlining an image does not violate NPOV. Johntex\talk 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Debates about censorship never end, this will go on indefinitely. How about reviewing my proposed ammendment instead, it relaxes the restrictions a lot. Loom91 09:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

VOTE FOR CLAYWORTH. — Darth Katana X
I'm not familiar with the debates going on here, but I think the problem is that we are spending too much time trying to qualify what exactly is "good" or "bad" - this would be impossible to do. We can't codify every subtle nuance that is out there. Whatever we write, someone will find a way around it. The advantage that the Wiki has, is that it can change just as fast as that wit - if this were not the case, Wikipedia would not be around right now! What we can say, is that at minimum, these policies are only meaningful if sensible Wikipedians have good taste - and that they are able to demonstrate on a reasonably consistent basis what this constitutes. --HappyCamper 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A proposed ammendment

Progress comes in steps. I propose the following amendment to the policy which I hope will temporarily satisfy both sides.

This is what used to be:-

Moving Moving items further down the page. Moving disputed sections to other pages where they will be in turn further whittled down in due time. Deleting Deleting or removing items from an article. Linking to Replacing items with links, or listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list. Replacing Replacing photographs with drawings, replacing literal description with euphemism or metaphor, or using other similar means to minimize the information provided in text or image form. Resizing Making images smaller. Hiding Using panels or having the same background and text color. Blockading Getting "alliances" of like minded editors to block encyclopedic and legitimate insertions in to artlicles.

This is what I propose:-

Moving Moving disputed sections to other pages where they will be in turn further whittled down in due time. Deleting Deleting or removing items from an article. Linking to Listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list. Replacing Replacing photographs with drawings, replacing literal description with euphemism or metaphor, or using other similar means to minimize the information provided in text or image form. Resizing Making images smaller. Hiding Using panels or having the same background and text color. Blockading Getting "alliances" of like minded editors to block encyclopedic and legitimate insertions in to artlicles.

So I have given editors the provision to move images within the page and replace displayed images with links to them. If people agree to the policy with this ammendment, I will change the policy page. I'll like to hear your comments, uncensored. Loom91 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving or resizing images is not censorship. It is layout. -Will Beback 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That said, your suggested edits look fine. Go for it. -Will Beback 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Will's sentiment. To that end, the phrase "Doing any of the above for reasons other than censorship including relevance, verifiability, [and] copyright [is not censorship]." addresses just about all possible misunderstandings effectively. I think the proposed amendments make good sense. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A POV policy?

  • Censorship is
    • doing anything to an article where I think the most important information is not given the exposure it needs.
  • Censorship is not
    • anything I do to the article to improve it;
    • anything done to an article which I would have done if I had thought of it first.

No - I don't agree with this and I don't agree with any attempt to specify what must end up as a personal judgement. No to the proposed policy, and no to any minor variation on it. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is enough of a test. --Audiovideo 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ammendments made

The main points of objection by pro-censorship people (the ability to move and link to images) are no longer prohibited. I suggest we start a poll on 2nd April for the amended proposal. I'm not completely familiar with the procedures, so is there someone who can do it? Loom91 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. ~ Me
"pro-censorship people"? David Sneek 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember Production Code

"The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles": 

  1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. 
     Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
  2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
  3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Specific restrictions were spelled out as "Particular Applications" of these principles: 

   * Nudity and suggestive dances were prohibited..." --193.56.241.75 10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Censorship_(2006_proposal)/archive03-2006&oldid=1136424132"