Wikipedia talk:Censorship (2006 proposal)

message: #Weak Support.  A solid policy, but it still needs to address discrimination against particular contributors. HolokittyNX 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support (Poll 2) 

message: # Oppose - the policy is heading in the right direction, but still removes too much editorial control from the editors of each page. Johntex\talk 12:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose (Poll 2) 

message: The more I think about the proposed policy, the worse I realize it is.  As good as the intention of opposing censorship is, if it were adopted, this proposed policy would simply lead to more spurious claims of censorship, and to more bureaucractic quagmire on WP.
One page that I am a primary maintainer on is Tattoo; and I believe it helps illustrate the harm that would come of this policy.  This article is quite prone to linkspam: websites that are generally topical, but that amount to advertisement of commercial endeavors without adding encyclopedic content, such as tattoo magazines, tattoo parlors, etc.  When removing those, the editors who added them (and usually have some relationship with the advertised site) tend to complain of censorship.  To a small degree, a policy that could be read very selectively would promote flame wars over this spurious claim.
However, a more significant issue for that page is the similar frequent addition of too many images to the page.  The article is not, and should not be, a gallery of every editor's favorite tattoo, nor of the tattoos editors and their friends happen to have.  Again, sometimes the censorship claim when I remove these (or other maintainers do).  However, among these added images, a particularly common theme is images of semi-naked women, who have incidental tattoos (small compared to the amount of skin shown).  The problem with these images is one of conceptual focus: they illustrate the overall beauty or sexual desirability of the model, the tattoo that is somewhat germane to the article is not the primary content emphasized.  In these cases, the reason for removing the image really is largely because they are pictures of nudity; that's how it should be: this article is not one on "human beauty" or "sexual allure" or "nudity" or the like.  In a sense it's just like the fact that not every photo that has a car in it is necessarily relevant to the article automobile. 
Proponents of this policy will certainly equivocate that certainly such removal is not prohibited by the policy; in practice we need to use context to judge inclusions; other editing guidelines allow removal; and so on.  These proponents are not exactly wrong, the policy is not 100% simplistically "don't remove pictures of nudity because that would be censorship."  But I can 100% guarantee that if the policy were adopted, I would encounter many arguments from editors who interpreted the policy in such a manner.  And explaining why "removing a picture because it's a picture of nudity (rather than a picture of a tattoo, even though the nude has a tattoo)" requires far more hermeneutic subtlety than many editors will "get" in such edit disagreements.  In the end, the policy just hands gasoline to people engaging in flamefests, while never having any possibility of meaningfully answering any specific edit disagreement.
Sure, it feels good to say "I'm against censorship"... but other than promoting the self-image of the policy proponents, absolutely nothing on WP would be made any better by having this as policy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent argument. This policy would likely be used to lend spurious weight to many very weak contentions. Sumahoy 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I also think this an excellent example. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete example of why this would be bad policy 

message: Let me know when "consensus" is reached on this, which different people will interpret differently and ultimately ignore to suit their whims, unless they ignore something that is against the wishes of someone who is higher up on the wiki-social ladder than they are, in which case they'll just issue threats, which some random admin can use as a bludgeon to get rid of those they don't want.
Not discussing this method of deciding whether this should be a "policy", the very fact that this discussion was deemed necessary by someone is pitiful. How can you have a collection of all human knowledge when you don't allow certain parts of human knowledge to be in it? Wikipedia has to decide what it is, because it can't be a comprehensive source of information without offending some people, the truth is abrupt and harsh at times. 
I've got too much on my plate, so I have Wikipedia on the backburner lately, especially considering that Jimbo seems to have written me off, but i'll be back after the elections to see if this place wants to be a collection of all human knowledge, or a collection of knowledge that fits into the views of those that run this website, and if the latter is true, to see if the aristocracy deems me worthy of the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Karmafist Save Wikipedia 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Since Someone Asked Me To Come Here

message: I don't think this has any chance of passing; the last poll was doing much, much better and that failed. I think it's time to burry this proposal. Gerard Foley 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll is 50/50 again (just like the last one). I'm going to pop the rejected tag back on the page if no-one objects. Gerard Foley 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother? 

message: People choose to use wikipedia. It's not part of children's textbooks. It's not supported by the government. It doesn't install itself as spyware. This is rather like the vegetarian going to a steakhouse or a pacifist joining the marines. Wikipedia strives to encompass all of human knowledge and activity. Some of this may be offensive to some people. If these people do not want to run the risk of being offended, they are free to use any number of censored information sources. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have to placate people that are offended by factual information. I would propose that people who are in favor of censorship and omitting information start their own wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irongaard (talk • contribs) 
:"Offensive" images are already being removed from Wikipedia. The controversial lolicon images were simply deleted, and got Jimbo's blessing. He also called the people defending the image pedophiles:
::"It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles) will work hard to create 'facts on the ground' that abuse our default openness and trust". 
:This is the thanks we get for volunteering our free time to his project. And he also deleted the image from Autofellatio which now has a new image linked to. I think it is the people against censorship that need to start their own wiki. Oh look, I just did! Gerard Foley 21:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise that the replacement image on Lolicon is also child pornography, right? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's about how things are presented. I know the kind of people who are behind this; those who think shocking people is cool. And don't tell people to go away. There is only one Wikipedia, and there most likely only ever will be one, so as far as possible it should be acceptable to everyone, not just those with gross-out tastes. Golfcam 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what is written or pictured, someone is going to find it offensive.  There is no such thing as not offending anyone.  If we do censor ourselves, we will have to have a standard for what is offensive and what is not, and no matter how high our standard is, it's not going to be high enough for someone not to get offended.  I don't think it's about shocking people at all; most people wouldn't look up something like penis and expect to be able to present it to a child.  --Kahlfin 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Jimbo started this Wiki, and it is still his. Read his full comment at User:Cyde/Lolicon RFC#Outside view by Jimbo Wales -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't his, it belongs to a non-profit foundation. He could go to jail for exploiting it for personal advantage. Sumahoy 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is voluntary 

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

message: Wikipedia should not censor because doing so only gives certain persons in positions the right to reinforce only views they like rather than being objective and looking at the big picture of each issue. To do so, it requires, images and words which others may not find to fit their own point of view but is neccesary to look at in order to get all sides of an issue or subject across.  When one uses Wikipedia, they use it at their own risk, so not everything nor everyone is going to please them on here.  Appeasing those who abuse power will not create objectivity or neutrality but suppress it and that is something that should not be done on Wikipedia. Zdunne.   5 April 2006 (UTC).
:You're hearing a slogan, not seeing the reality. Censorship isn't something you are either totally for or totally against, it's a bundle of subtleties and judgements. We already have enough policies to decide what to do on an article by article basis, and we don't need this bludgeon.Golfcam 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonna have to disagree with you here. While censorship isn't something you have to be completely for or against, it is possible to be so. I, for one, am completely against it.--AK7 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Do you think people should be free to say in public that all the blacks in the United States should be lynched for example? Or that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be resumed right now and completed as soon as possible? Or that raping new born babies is a fine hobby? Or you only against unfashionable forms of censorship, which is what most people mean when they say they are opposed to censorship. Calsicol 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm strongly opposed to this WP policy proposal, I am also strongly supportive of the rights of people to say all of those offensive things Calsicol gives as apparent attempts at reductio ad absurdam.  In the US context, I'm a Justice Black-style first amendment absolutist.  However, I have trouble imagining how any such advocacy would ever be encyclopedic in any WP article.  Not because the opinions are offensive, but simply because they are opinions.  Even if you sort-of transform the advocacy into a factual statement (e.g. instead of "I support raping babies" the (false) factual claim "Babies are unharmed by rape"), none of those statements are remotely supportable under WP:V). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge is power, those who have power should not abuse it

message: Knowledge is not created by man. It is discovered. Truth cannot be censored. Censoring is foolish.
Time, space and (other) things, including thoughts, are illusions for none of them is immortal / permanent. Thus one can come to the conclusion that all things happen at the same time in the same place. Nothing can be created which has not been before sometime. All attempts to limit one's own absorption of things can be done to avoid distraction of mind - on the other hand, destroying the completeness of things, limiting the emission of would-be knowledge is actually the same as lying.
But the minds and senses of man are limited themselves. Furthermore speech and languages, words, are limited. We do not know if anything perceived by our senses is real and therefore can only try to state truth in all conscience possible.
Unflawed gathering of knowledge is, in my understanding, Wikipedia's mission statement. If we allow limiting of publicly available knowledge, be it in active or passive manners, we have failed. If we allow cancer-like religious views to spoil the absorption of knowledge, we've lost. If we allow the specifics of human being, feelings, to spoil knowledge, we are doomed.
Conclusion:
* Write content to the best of your conscience
* Do not limit content to avoid feelings being harmed - neither your own feelings nor others'
* Oppose laws which are based on ethics at all cost, do not try to elude confrontation
"The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! Refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell."
-- Liber al vel Legis 1:41
-- e-user 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for an alternative, universal POV 

message: As much as I oppose censorship, I do not support this policy. This policy is too specific, too strict, to allow for deletion of inappropriate pictures in the wrong articles. For example, the Lolicon article should not have a hard core image on it. Instead, a better idea would be to have a subpage entitled Lolicon Images for those who want to see it. Osbus 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new policy does not prohibit hiding the image behind a link or moving it further down the page. --Kahlfin 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinion 

message: An example of censorship is deleting an image because you claim it is illegal and that it is child porn even when a majority of good faith nontrolling editors disagree on both counts. What happened at lolicon was an example of censorship. Deleting the image because of legitimate fair use issues would not have been censorship. As far as censorship goes, that episode sets a bad example. As far as the article lolicon is concerned, I think the current image and caption is superior to the old one. I can't help thinking that wikipedia repeatedly uses apparently bad means and repeatedly produces apparently good results. Go figure. All's well that ends well? Or is this act of unilateral deletion based on everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-pedafile-or-troll thinking just a beginning? WAS 4.250 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that attempts to remove the old Lolicon image were regularly branded "censorship". Even such mild actions as shrinking it or moving it down the page were called "censorship". If folks had been more reasonable then the extraordinary deletion might not have been necessary. The label of "censorship" is sometimes used just to prevent ordinary editing. -Will Beback 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed policy allows "ordinary editing".  It is only opposed to editing who's only justification is that its target is "offensive" to someone.  If you can justify the shrinking of an image or any other editing task without resorting to the claim that its "offensive", then your edit will not be affected by this policy.  -- noosphere 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we prevent other editors from labelling non-censorship edits as "censorship"? It's like assuming bad faith. -Will Beback 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal is against people claiming a moral high ground, including the moral high ground of being more anticensor than thou. WAS 4.250 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was deleted because the image did not further, indeed, it had the potential to harm, Wikipedia's progress as a free encyclopaedia.  It was not censorship.  It was good taste.  And I really, really don't like the way you cast my thinking; I have been up-front and clear about my motives throughout.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim it had the potential to harm, Wikipedia's progress as a free encyclopaedia. Others disagree with you. It's a shame you reserve to yourself final authority on the truth of that claim. If the board or Jimbo wished to make that claim, they have a policy (office) created exactly for that purpose. If I were Jimbo, I might have used office to delete it for some reason or other. WAS 4.250 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been comparatively little opposition to my actions.  It's not as if the action was irreversible (really, it wasn't).  By my deletion of the image, it has been made clear that "no censorship" was being abused against the wishes of a large proportion of Wikipedia editors.  I did not reserve final authority.  I used the deletion as a tool to make the community's wishes clear.  We're big children now: we don't need Jimbo's intervention at every turn. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is true that "no censorship" was being abused against the wishes of a large proportion of Wikipedia editors. However, my impression (as a bystander) is that people were shut up by unwarrented claims of "illegality", "child porn" and "troll". The same way Bush tries to shut off debate with claims of national security. There are words that encourage honest debate and words that work to shut off thinking and/or debate. I recommend these words and others even "censorship" are words we should avoid. I disagree with Jimbo totally that the pic in question was being maintained on the article for any reason other than unbiased nontrolling nonpedaphillia editorial decision. Never dipered a kid? Never has one of your children carry around some inappropriate object the minute you turned your back. The pic is as sexy as a shoe. Only someone with the appropriate fetish would think it had anything to do with sex. WAS 4.250 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My words at  speak more than I otherwise need to say.  As to the idea of that image not being child pornography, I think you are seriously misleading yourself.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the now-deleted image was not child pornography, and not by a wide, wide margin. Of course, that's just my opinion, just as it's your opinion that the image was child pornography. But you used your admin powers to decide that your opinion was better than mine (and many others), and I don't think that's the best way to run a Wiki.-AK7 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the image is, but it probably doesn't matter.  It is an unfortunate fact that the law is both harsh and difficult to predict in this area.  Waking up one morning to find no Wikipedia because we decided to push the envelope a little is not my idea of a good day.  Call me timid if you will, but that is a reality we must live with, and I would rather fight other battles, so I will give the admin the benefit of the doubt.  Especially, since, as an admin, he could conceivably be held personally liable. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That notion about Wikipedia "disappearing" because "we pushed the envelope too far" does not phase me in the slightest. Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. I use it as my primary source of reference and I enjoy contributing to it in my free (and not so free) time. However, a unilateraly censored open, international encyclopedia such as this is completely unacceptable and will only be met with ridicule. I therefore hope that Wikipedia will disappear "just like that" one morning because someone chose to upload a picture of a dead cow and billions of Indians will descend upon the Foundation in Florida, or because some douche uploads a screenshot of a low-quality Japanese cartoon showing characters that are loosely based on human females in their teens who happen to wear flashy clothes and carry a "cylinder" that could be anything, for that matter, even the trigger for a nuclear bomb, or perhaps part of a cow, because otherwise no one would watch the damn cartoon. We don't have to concern ourselves with someone "illegally" uploading childporn or what-have-you, that notion is just insane: whoever goes to that page once isn't going to go there again because he or she does not want to implicate themselves, and most likely would remove the image themselves or bring it to an editor's attention. Normal people don't indulge in child porn, that's just silly. If they did, it wouldn't be illegal, no matter how tasteless it may actually be. (have you ever seen the show Date my Mom on MTV? That's atrocious, too, that show is horrible! It seriously makes me sick.) (Patrick 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: The image that was deleted was so much like (yet less nude!) the coppertone girl that I had seen on giant billboards, that when I first ran across the ridiculous claims of child porn etc, I added "Coppertone girl, illustrates state of mind and context make a difference." to the "see also" subsection. The deleted pic was of a big eyed oriental five year old with just the top of the butt showing, carrying a teddy bear and a cylinder some claimed to know was a dildo, but others like me didn't even notice it until others pointed it out. Further data can be found here User talk:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006 and here User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006 and Jimbo's talk page and recent stuff here at wikimail. WAS 4.250 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it wasn't the image I mention? Outside what sound like hysterical allegations of censorship, I'm honestly trying to figure out what happened, and why it is supposed to be relevant here.  I can't find anyone accusing an image like you describe of being child pornography on Talk:Lolicon (I see some proponents of images claiming things not to be child pornography, but no one actually claiming anything is so).  All I am able to find so far is that some editors like one image, and other editors like another image... what you describe sounds neither more nor less "offensive" than the image currently on the article (girl with suggestive popsicle and beach bucket).  Is there any other there there? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I figured it out.  You're referring to 'Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg', right? (I found that image elsewhere on the web; which may or may not be a fair use, so I won't give the URL).  And reading over the RfC, I probably think Sam Korn was a little too jumpy with his delete finger... and also that about half of WP administrators are a little too excited to find "pedophiles behind every bush".  Nonetheless, it's pretty harmless in the scheme of things, and the image there now seems perfectly well illustrative (despite some protests on the talk page that the current image isn't "Japanese enough"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you now understand the situation better than the participants. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent example of censorship - [[lolicon]] 

message: Where is the new policy?  The one in the current version of this article () is  IMO terrible, so I hope it's not the new proposal.  If that's the new policy, put me down as strong oppose for same reasons as before.  Censorship occurs if editors try to thwart a reader's desire to see something that they want to see, or prevent them from knowing about it.  Censorship does not occur if editors try to accomodate a reasonable likelihood that readers might not want to see something (whether for "moral" reasons, or just due to general grossness of something like a medical illustration), and therefore present the reader with a choice.  This applies to all media, not just graphics.  For example, many WP articles now have audio samples, but the samples don't play automatically when the page is loaded.  You have to click to hear them.  That's just an editorial choice, not censorship.  It's perfectly fine to do the same thing with images, either collectively (as with sounds) or on a case by case basis.   Readers should be considered capable of making choices instead of being treated like idiots. Phr 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the American Library Association describes censorship pretty well: .  If WP is looking for a definition to adopt, I'd go with this, as stated before. Phr 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us, at least, have argued that this proposed policy is not about censorship, but about over-riding editorial judgment about what is the best material to include in an individual article. If we have an amply illustrated article on :Penis, we don't need to include images of penises in numerous other articles where such images are not really germane, even if some people claim that removing such images is 'censorship'. I don't think we need a policy on 'censorship'. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the ALA statement is an interesting study in the limits of analogy.  Librarians are not editors -- Wikipedians are.  Most libraries have many books on a given subject on their shelves -- a comprehensive library will validly choose to purchase a book that is "suitable for children", one with limited illustrations, and one with graphic illustrations.  Wikipedia, by policy, has one article on a subject, and it must make a choice about what that article will be.Robert A.West (Talk) 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The village pump says something about a new policy 

message: I think that censorship is not needed in an encyclopedia.  Why?  Simply because encyclopedias tend to be "NPOV" and a type of censorship would be considered "POV".  The only form of it should be in patrolling vandals to keep Wikipedia a POV-free source for the whole world. --User:Barfing Rabbit
:What you think doesn’t matter as the policy has been rejected for the second time. If you want a wiki with a no censorship policy you need to try elsewhere. I don't think this will ever pass, even with major changes. Gerard Foley 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rabbitt - actually, what you say does matter, just as everyone's opinions matter here on the wiki.  However, if you read this actual policy, I think you will see it is not talking about preventing censorship, it is talking about reducing editorial freedom to decide what is appropriate for an article.  That is why the proposal has been rejected twice. Johntex\talk 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Broad 

message: Why has the poll been marked as rejected?  There is no ending date on that poll, and people are still voting.  -- noosphere 22:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that wording could be added to Wikipedia:Profanity, which states the existing consensus on this issue: case-by-case decision based on whether there is a less-offensive alternative that does the job equally well.  In fact, similar wording is on Wikipedia:Pornography.  Robert A.West (Talk) 04:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a wonderful suggestion. The very short Wikipedia:Profanity currently only addresses what appears in the article space. A one sentence addition recommending how to discuss (avoid words x,y,z because A, B, C.) might be useful. How about if you come up with the sentence, then I place it a couple of talk places for comment? WAS 4.250 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is really a special instance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I was bold and put it in.  See what you think.   I can't really see anyone objecting, but if I am reverted, I opened a section to discuss.  If you think my action inadequate, feel free to discuss there or elsewhere. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict - what I typed in before I read the above still applies) All right! Way to be bold. I see you are way ahead of me and added Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often controversial. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties to a controversy observe civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. to Wikipedia:Profanity. Excellent! WAS 4.250 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There's been a bunch of hooraw over what the word "censorship" is supposed to mean here. Some people argue that only government action can be "censorship", and that for an admin to delete an image against consensus isn't "censorship" because they're not the government. Others claim that any attempt to suppress a view or expression is "censorship". Still others claim that Wikipedia is "censored", because their definition of the word includes the removal of spam and vandalism.
By looking at core policy, past community decisions, and less controversial discussions, I think we can come up with a more useful statement. I think we can come up with a policy statement that forbids the kind of "censorship" worth forbidding without impeding useful editing. Here are some of the criteria I think would have to go into it:
* Universality. One of the earlier noncensorship policy statements said that "Wikipedia is not censored for minors." When we generalize this, we get the rule that Wikipedia should not be censored to "protect" any particular group at the expense of encyclopedic universality. For instance, we aren't going to drop pictures of historically significant violence because they might traumatize someone.
* No whitewash. There are plenty of facts that some group or other would like to silence the discussion of. Some of these are political, others religious or historical, others scientific, literary, or biographical. Wikipedia needs to consistently resist attempts to whitewash cited and relevant facts.
* No veto. A common enough sight on controversial deletion discussions is an editor who says (in effect) "I don't want to work on an encyclopedia that includes it," or "If we include this subject matter it will drive editors away." Accepting this argument would give the most restrictive censorious view a veto over the whole project. If some people don't want to work on Wikipedia because it contains depictions of nudity or Mohammed or swastikas, well, we'll get along without them. (Or, better, they can go work on articles that don't bug them.)
* No heckler's veto. "Heckler's veto" means "If we include this, people who don't like it will vandalize / protest / raise hell / say nasty things about us, so let's leave it out." There will always be jerks; we can't decide what to cover based on dodging jerks. We have to report on controversies ... not avoid them because they're contentious. The fact that articles like George W. Bush, Satan, and Scientology get vandalized a lot doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, after all.
* "Offensive" means "I don't like it." It's a statement of opinion, or in Wikipedia jargon, "a POV". As such, "This is offensive" or "This is not offensive" doesn't form a legitimate argument here for removing or including anything.
* No legal threats. Real legal issues are really freakin' serious, but much of the time people say "illegal" to mean "I don't like it" -- for instance regarding republication of uncomplimentary but cited claims about a person. If someone has a serious concern about libel or other illegality of content, they need to report it to the Wikimedia Foundation. Other editors should not be expected to make editorial judgments on the basis of legal threats by IANALs.
Thoughts? --FOo 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your point of view.  I feel it is very one-sided: it almosts justifies the inclusion of everything that someone wants included, no matter whether other people believe it helps build a high-quality encyclopedia or not. --Audiovideo 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything on FOo's suggestion that would rule out the argument "this is not encyclopedic". Does Audiovideo mean the argument, "this is not classy"? If so, I disagree with him quite strongly. Septentrionalis 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does non-censorship mean ''practically''? 

message: How does he know that those who want to include such things as lolicon pictures are pedophiles? I think this is a horrifying and scary POV, and I suspect random guesswork. I think the former lolicon pictures did a good job in illustrating the topic at hand and to simply delete them 'with blessing' is simply frightening and outrageous. Like the autofellatio article, instead of showing it on the main page, a link could be shown to more controversial images if needed. So why did it not happen here? Why did it simply disappear? Severe, severe hypocrisy. Skinnyweed 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, when did he say this? I want to read the whole thing... --Osbus 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SW, editors proposed having a link to an offpage image, but other editors were adamant that the image had to stay. Since that attempt at compromise was not successful the dispute was eventually settled by changing the image altogether. Please read over the talk page archives before jumping to conclusions. -Will Beback 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Jimmy Wales quote is correct! Gerard Foley 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's correct, then let's have the whole quote so that we can be sure that nobody is taking it out of context. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - ''Jimmy Wales'' 

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

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

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

message: "It is not the responsibility for Wikipedia to ensure that what people read on this website pleases them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal to be informative and accurate. On Wikipedia, nothing shall be deleted, edited, added in, or otherwise changed for any reason except legal ones to ensure that it be legal where it is hosted if it shall entail the sacrifice of encylopedic value. Such reasons include social norms, potentially offensive content, controversial issues, and sensitive content. The burden of proof shall rest upon the those who want to edit it for one of those reasons to prove that it does not sacrifice any encyclopedic value. Encyclopedic value means that which keeps Wikipedia most informative, accurate, neutral, and porportionate attention to that which is important."
:Note: This may be redundant because of WP:NOT but I think that such a policy could clarify on what it means that Wikipedia is not censored. This could be slightly different to make it less wordy. So what do you people think?--A 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is a rejected policy. Unless you are planning to seek approval for it again rewriting it is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for the re-wording of the policy