Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 10

message: I saw Karmann added a new bullet point talking about restricting statistics to infoboxes.  (He placed it in WP:NOT#IINFO, but I moved it to the "Not a directory" section since the directory section talks about lists of loosely related facts. Seemed like a more appropriate section.)  
However, it doesn't look like this Statistics point was discussed at all prior to adding it to the policy.  Since this isn't a trivial change to the policy, I thought it might be prudent to see what you all think of his addition.  Is there consensus for it, or does it need to be changed/removed?  Personally I haven't really gotten my head around it enough to say yet whether I agree with having it in policy or not so I'm curious to see what you guys think. Dugwiki 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the "infoboxes" sentence but couldn't disagree with the basic principle of the edit.  Good catch to move it to the right section, though.  Rossami (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with the broad premise that an article shouldn't just be a string of datapoints.  It should contain at least some encyclopedic text explanation that puts the data in context.  If all you have is a large set of numbers, then Wikisource seems like a better place to put that data.  After all, that's what Wikisource is supposed to be - a place that has freely available data that editors can use for reference when citing or writing about a topic. In fact, maybe Wikisource should be mentioned as an alternative as well. Dugwiki 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of modifying the text to advise that articles have explanatory text and to mention Wikisource as above. Feel free to modify or revert or delete. Dugwiki 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with this premise.  Precisely because Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles., then, that information should be split out to its own article.  Stand-alone articles like United States presidential election, 2004, in Alabama allow Wikipedia to present detail on events that would significantly clutter a single article about the whole election. Neier 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But note that the article United States presidential election, 2004, in Alabama you mentioned could also be transwikied, for example, to Wikisource instead of being represented as an "encyclopedia style article" on Wikipedia.  So it's not a question of whether the information in that article is useful or not. It's a question of whether "articles" that are just statistical tables would be better served appearing in Wikisource than here on Wikipedia (since the main purpose of Wikisource is to act as a source of viable references for Wiki authors). Dugwiki 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An analogy would be that dictionary definitions for words are obviously useful, but an article which is solely a dictionary definitionn is better served by being in Wiktionary than as an "encyclopedia article" on Wikipedia. Dugwiki 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karrmann's new Statistic's bullet point? 

message: This page should be renamed from What Wikipedia is not to Wikipedia should not be. The majority of the things listed on this page of what Wikipedia is not happens every day, which  goes against the title of this page. 70.118.89.142 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way, might I ask? bibliomaniac15 04:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, I once observed the same point as 70... on a blog post - there are blog pages and whatnot in Wikipedia, and I take it upon myself to find them and list them for deletion.  And yes, Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, in the sense that sublime articles on philosophy coexist with the latest episode from The Simpsons.  But as for the name, it is proscriptive, not descriptive, i.e. Wikipedia is not a place where indiscriminate information (as defined in that section) is allowed.  If it were descriptive, it wouldn't be policy.  Its existence as policy, by definition, mandates us to shape the wiki to conform with the definitions laid out here. YechielMan 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be renamed... 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them."
Wrong. It is mandated that others must have written about them before they can be included in Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SPS etc. In the absence of independent sources (ie. those written by people other than the one(s) holding the opinion in question), notability can't even be established. mike4ty4 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is referring to the person himself writing about it on Wikipedia, not so much to the sources. Still, the wording needs to be stronger than "preferable". —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is mandated, not "preferable" 

message: Could we also say that Wikipedia is also not a source for listing products, unless they are especially noteworthy? Take a look at Category:Quest Software, for example. — Loadmaster 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no to that, since Notability is a guideline, not policy.  As a guideline it is not assumed to have demonstrated the same level of editorial consensus as a policy and therefore doesn't quite have the same level of enforcability.  So while guidelines should refer to existing policies in their text, policies should almost never refer to guidelines for enforcement.  Dugwiki 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a product listing service 

message: Is removing comments that violate this policy from the talk page allowed?--Sefringle 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Talk pages are discussion pages, not articles, and therefore don't require references or citations.  In fact, virtually everything on talk pages is going to be editorial opinion, questions and arguments back and forth.  For example, I don't need to show that my reply to you is based on something previously published.  So no, comments shouldn't be removed from talk pages based on being "original research". Dugwiki 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

message: Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of the internet
Wikipedia is not the internet
I bring these two up because of something I noticed: a tendency of internet users to pretty much assume that the internet is entirely composed off of a particular favorite site.  My sister in law favors Yahoo, in this regard, for example, and figures that if you don't have a Yahoo email address, you probably don't exist on the 'net.  Expand on this - in many AfD arguments, people will not only assume that this is a great place to dump data for hosting sake, are surprised when it lands in AfD, and will defend it to no end with all of the arguments found in WP:AADD as their rationale to keep the articles. --Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: What we are also not

message: Can we conclude from this official policy, that wikipedia is not a place to create pages with titles like "Islamic commands" where to list all Islamic religous commands, and things like that? (I don't mean to offend moslims here, this is just a fictional example.)huji—TALK 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think, except for the very fundumental and basic religious commands (like the Decalogue), the information does not belong to wikipedia, and can be moved to wikisource if this is a complete copy? What if this is neither a complete copy nor a set of fundumentals? For example, what if you face an article about "Islamic commands about how to hunt animals"? Do you request it to be deleted?huji—TALK 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia and religeous commands 

message: I think we need to follow "Wikipedia is not censored" with its counterpoint.  Controversial images should only be included when they serve an encyclopedic purpose.  We've all seen the prudes complaining that we're corrupting the youth and need to remove the paintings of naked ladies, but the other side of the coin is the people who put controversial images in an article where they don't really serve any informative purpose, and then defend them aggressively with a big stupid fight about how Wikipedia isn't censored and we shouldn't cater to the prudish Americans and blah blah.  Wikipedia is not a mission for evangelizing the unwashed masses to our superior Western mores. Our purpose is not to proselytize to the world and convert their primitive minds to our free, uninhibited ways.  It's to provide information in a neutral manner.  When shocking or controversial images are important to the topic of an article, by all means include them, but don't be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. — Omegatron 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a shock site 

message: In thinking about the recent afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre I realized that it might be helpful to add a sentence or two to the WP:MEMORIAL section to clarify the difference between an individual memorial or obituary and summary information about victims of tragedies.  
WP:MEMORIAL currently reads "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."  This clearly excludes obituary and memorial for individuals who are not otherwise somehow notable.
However, where confusion comes up is whether or how this affects victim lists or other summary information about the victims of a tragedy that involves multiple deaths.  My opinion, which seemed to be in the majority in the afd I mentioned above, is that the list of victims of a tragedy is an important part of the historical background of the event.  In an informational way it performs a similar function to the cast list of a film or television series by providing very basic information on everyone involved.  Therefore I think it's important to have that information easily available in some form to people interested in reading about the event that caused the deaths.
The main criteria is probably the size of the list and of the event's article.  If the list of names can be comfortably included within the article, then that is the best option.  If the list is fairly large, but not so large as to be unmanagable, and there is interesting or useful auxilliary information about the victims, then I think a list article supplementing the main article is the best option.  Finally, if the list is particularly long, such as with an event that involves hundreds or thousands of deaths or more, then the list as a whole should probably be placed instead as an openly available source document at Wikisource that articles about the event can interlink to for reference.
So all that being said, I'd like to suggest the following rewording of WP:MEMORIAL - 
"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of individual encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.  Information on dead individuals should be objective, free of overly emotional opinion, and from independently published reliable sources. In the special case of victims of notable tragedies, the victims' names should normally appear, space permitting, within the event's article.  For tragic events with larger numbers of victims which will not fit comfortably within the space of the main article, the list of victims should be split off either onto Wikisource as a reference page or, if there is sufficient encyclopedic treatment of the list entries, as a list article supplementing the main article."
So what do you guys think?  Feel free to agree or disagree or critique my proposed wording. Thanks! Dugwiki 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, mostly.  I might change the term "tragedy" to the less pov "incident" or "event."  Just so we don't get into disputes over what qualifies as a tragedy (I can definitely see that happening).  I might add that biographical information regarding the deceased should be limited to that which is relevant to the incident.Chunky Rice 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea and I would like to see Chunky Rice's suggestion to be included also.  Johntex\talk 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree that the information should be relevant to the event. I would, though, be open to the suggestion that very brief information that isn't directly relevant to the event but that gives insight into the cross section of people involved would be ok.  For instance, I'm ok with a list including names, occupations and ages of victims to give the reader a little bit of a sense of who was involved beyond just a name itself, even if the occupation and age aren't directly relevant to the event itself (that's assuming this information is all previously published). Detailed exposition on the victims' lives isn't normally necessary, though. Dugwiki 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  I mean, if their occupation had something to do with why they were there, then sure.  Take the recent Virginia Tech list.  It's relevant for us to know there who were professors and who were students.  But if one of the students had a late night fast-food shift, do we really need to include that?  I'm not too hung up on this point, I guess, but I think it's important to draw as sharp a line as possible, to make judgment calls easier.Chunky Rice 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I said I'm open to the suggestion of it.  The acceptability of occupational info would probably depend on the context of the specific article and list.  Dugwiki 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell if we're on the same page or not.  My feeling is that bio information should only be included if it is relevant to the event.  A certain base level of info is inherently relevant.  Name, age, how/where they died, etc.  Some things, like occupation, may or may not be, depending on the incident.  But without commenting on specifics like occupation, hobbies, etc., we can draw a line in the sand at relevance.  That's my opinion, anyway.Chunky Rice 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think we're on the same page.  The main grey area would be determining when specific information is "relevant" to studying an event, and that would have to be hashed out case by case. Dugwiki 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking to add a sentence or two to clarify WP:MEMORIAL 

message: Would it be OK to add that, with regard to future books, recordings, films, etc., the subject should have a definite (confirmed and verifiable) name, and be due for publication/release in the current year?  There's been a number of additions of the form So-and-so's third album, or of albums to be released some time in 2008 (after other not-yet-released albums).  Some articles are moved three or four times before their subjects are finally released.
These articles on future items are often real pains, being fought over by fans concerning their contents, nature, names, etc.  I'd rather see a policy to the effect that we should only have articles on things that exist and events that have occurred; future things and events can be mentioned and discussed in other articles (such as articles on writers, actors, or singers). --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal ball 

message: It seems that it is not true anymore that wikipedia is not censored. In particular the hex number [hex removed as unnecessary] is screened for. I don't know when/who/how this changed and I don't think it is a change for the better. --MarSch 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check out the official policy, WP:COPYVIO. It is not censorship, it's protecting copyright laws and preventing legal action from being brought against Wikipedia. dposse 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, in that case you won't mind if I paraphrase? Oh you do? Then it is not copyright. --MarSch 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally suggest you bring the matter up with WP:OFFICE somehow or other. With the demise of the general counsel, perhaps in one of the mailing lists? This is a complex legal issue. AFAIK we have not received a takedown notice yet. However it would probably be best to avoid receiving one unless the foundation indicates they feel any notice would be without merit and they would be willing to fight it (which I doubt, but who knows) as such I recommend the number be left out for now Nil Einne 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I know see the page has alreayd been protected awaiting office action. I suggest you just leave it at that. If office rules unfavourably, then there's really nothing you can do. I highly doubt they will change their mind on a legal issue such as this one because of any editor backlash. Unless of course your happen to have say $10 million or more and you're willing to use it to help defend the foundation in any legal case Nil Einne 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether it was a legitimate alteration depends on the individual statement modified it doesnt depend on whether the editor was an admin or not, you seem to be misunderstanding what admins are, they are not higherr up people, and it is either kosher or not to do it, it is never less kosher merely because the person doing it isnt an admin, SqueakBox 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would conform to my understanding, as well.  If there's a violation of policy on the talk page, any editor can remove it.  Now, whether or not this particular instance was a violation of policy, I'm not sure.  I don't think so, but I don't really understand what the nature of the hex-code is.Chunky Rice 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  censorship 

message: We should add to the chrystal ball section that the arguement "it has potential" should be invalid, because it hasn't happened yet.--Sefringle 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that's not obvious? Seems obvious. DreamGuy 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For Chrystal ball

message: Wikipedia is being abused, as if it were a social networking site like myspace. Many people have begun to use wikipedia as such, due to the fact that it is not blocked on institutional servers (e.g. schools). I've had issues with social networkers and harassment, recently. I would request that someone take this issue seriously. If this is allowed to continue, wikipedia's servers may be put at risk. These people are wasting bandwidth and server space, only to use wikipedia as if 'twere myspace. Please, someone, take this seriously! Respond to me on my talk page. There are numerous users who are using wikipedia as a social networking site, and this is clearly against policy WP:not#socialnet. Not to mention, a few of these people have been harassing me, as I've said. I want to keep this strictly encyclopedic, and being attacked by a couple of kids makes me want to quit wikipedia for good. Fuzzform 07:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples you can present? I'd be very amused to see what the kids construct to get around the school's block. --C.Logan 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They register accounts and use userpages. See User:MER-C/Spam#Pages to watch, Template:Spamsearch#Wikipedia is not a free web host and User:Calton/Userfied pages to watch. MER-C 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social networking 

message: I noticed that in the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" the shortcut says "WP:NOT#IINFO", with two I's. I changed it to "WP:NOT#INFO", but now "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#INFO" goes to the top of the page, whereas the misspelling, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#IINFO" goes to the relivent section. Kevin 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought IINFO stood for Indiscriminate INFOrmation. —Celithemis 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Didn't know that. Someone already restored the shortcut anyway, so nevermind :-X. Kevin 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut problem 

message: Although it has been said that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED, in reality the file $wgSpamRegex can be used to block the use of arbitrary phrases other than spam.  This spam block is imposed by the Developers, who are exempt from the need to form WP:Consensus.  The list of phrases banned from Wikipedia under this mechanism is not public, and the identity of the offending blocked phrase will not be revealed to an editor when his edit is refused.  Phrases can be blocked by the developers on their own initiative in the absence of any policy or office action by the Wikimedia Foundation.  Community consensus to permit the use of a phrase on a particular page using the "Spam whitelist" mechanism is not sufficient to override this block, although administrators are free to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation to order the repeal of a specific block if its nature is known.  The Developers act in a hierarchy that is largely independent of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, with a small number of people determining who is granted or loses authority and access by a process that is not subject to public vote or notification.
Please - either add this to your policy, or make it not so.  Thank you. Mike Serfas 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a very common misconception about that section which you seem to have succumbed to. The point of the section is, as I have suggested elsewhere, to explain that we can not guarantee that all content will comply with some standard of good taste, nor will we exclude content that some people find objectionable for moral reasons (encyclopaedic material about sex, for example). It doesn't mean "not censored" in the sense of being totally anarchic, with no controls over content. Indeed, look elsewhere on this page and you'll see "Wikipedia is not an anarchy". --bainer (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As indicated in the subsection title, I am not suggesting a change to the "NOT#Censorship" or "NOT#Anarchy" titles.  The issue I'm raising is one of glasnost - "openness", "transparency".  There is considerable ground to argue that it is impossible for Wikipedia (or anyone) to exercise a strong freedom of speech under current laws.  But I think it has not yet been determined that the organization must have a secret list of things to be censored in order to be viable.  There is certainly some evidence in that direction - look at any Terms Of Service on the Internet and it always ends "etcetera" - but if that's a Core Principle of Wikipedia I don't think it's been proclaimed very loudly. Mike Serfas 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are not transparent with respect to items which are censored. In fact, we censor discussion of whether some things should be censored, because to discuss them is to publish them. Fred Bauder 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to be clear, this is truly necessary?  There is no other way Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wiki____ can possibly work, other than to have someone in the background quietly removing material without telling anyone what it is?  If you read that timid backroom officials at the Chinese Wikipedia were quietly removing and burying information frowned on by their government, maybe Tibetan Buddhism or pollution in the water, you would be willing to stand up for them and say they're right, those are the best practices possible, and that's the way Wikipedia works and always will work in every country? Mike Serfas 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is NOT transparent 

message: Recently, myself and few other editors have instigated a cleanup of images and galleries in the Wikiproject Dog articles after reaching consensus that they needed monitoring. We agreed that per WP:NOT, galleries were causing more harm than aid as many articles constantly need policing against anons and users treating them as places to upload images of their pets willy-nilly. So far the cleanup has been successful, but it is still an uphill battle. I would like to propose adding a small sentence to WP:NOT specifically addressing this application of image policy to make dealing with this easier in the future. Maybe an addition to the fourth point of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files section such as, "Wikipedia is not a gallery for personal images of you, your family, friends, pets or possessions ." Maybe with a point of explanantion similar to, "Just as a traditional paper encyclopedia refrains from illustrations of it's editors in its entries, personal images contributed to articles must have encyclopedic merit". There should also be some sort of qualifier to keep this from being used to prevent simply uploading self-related images, which of course does not violate policy and is done on a vast scale. VanTucky 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me, from your description, why the current policy is insufficient.Chunky Rice 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that what the above says is already partly covered by the current language, but the current policy only states, "...Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context." In other words, it expressly discourages only articles that are pure galleries, not the misuse of otherwise good encyclopedic articles as galleries (not that I'm advocating the banning of the gallery as a tool within the proper context). VanTucky 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, are people disputing your removal of these galleries from dog articles?  And yes, my username comes from Good-bye, Chunky Rice.  Chunky Rice 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had some grumbling from people who like having their pet's pictures up on the page (even if they recognize it's unencyclopedic), but no one has really started a serious edit war over them. I just noticed in the course of our discussions that the current policy only technically applies to creating articles that contain only galleries. To most experienced users it's pretty obvious that the section warns against galleries without encyclopedic merit placed inside good articles; for those who don't already understand/follow the policy it is not black and white enough. The real problem is not anons or established users, but new users who sign in for the express purpose of uploading pet photos. I've personally encountered at least ten such users in the last week alone. They tend to have very little understanding of Wikipedia policy, and if there isn't a clear reference to the fact that Wikipedia is not a gallery for their pet photos then they either argue around the language or say they can simply ignore it (as it isn't literal). It seems to me that all the regular users who've become involved have consented to the interpretation of the policy, so for those who don't get it I'd like to see some more explicit language. VanTucky 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little concerned at the idea of modifying policy for the purpose of clarifying something that's basically an edge case.  It would be too easy to push the line a little too far against inclusion of images.  Personal photographs are a good source of free images, and the project needs more good free images in general.  Rephrasing this policy may prevent somebody posting a photograph that is a suitable, higher-quality replacement for one that is currently in use, or which illustrates a point in the article that currently does not have an associated photograph.  Yes, I'm aware of the problems with pet photographs (I have a picture that I've been thinking about contributing to Maine Coon for several months now; IMO it illustrates the distinctive shape of the breed's ears in a way better than any of the other current pictures, but the article is already picture heavy and I don't see it replacing any of the existing pictures).  Perhaps a comment in a guideline somewhere would be more appropriate.  What is the guideline on image inclusion?  I can't seem to find one... JulesH 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about being careful not to discourage uploading self-made images, they are vital. I want to include some language that basically says, "don't place personal images of...in articles simply for any purpose other than highlighting/explaining/as encyclopedic content." in other words, if it's not justified/necessitated by the text, then don't add it. This applies irregardless of source, but the specific problem is personal images so clarification of that is needed. This pretty much covers creating superflous gallery sections, but still allows for gallery sections of say, artist's works or geography. Maybe the spot you're thinking of is this. VanTucky 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, now that I've instigated a similar cleanup of the cat breed articles, I have encountered significant dispute over whether WP:NOT policy supports preventing collections of unencyclopedic images. One more reason for a clarification somewhere VanTucky 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the mention of all the old discussion on this, seems I'm definitely not the first to propose something along these lines. I believe WP:Gallery was deemed inactive because most of its clout was to be based upon a rewording of WP:NOT images to ban unencyclopedic collections of images in the same way as my suggestion. The poll conducted shows no conclusion (supports/opposes were pretty neck and neck) other than that obviously the changes did not happen. I'm not usre where to go from here, as it seems to me there is a serious hole in image policy concerning galleries. Could we even just tone down my addition? Maybe just something suggesting that large galleries without clear parameters for the type/purpose of the images to be included should probably be redirected to Commons? VanTucky 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about the general case, but we could discuss two specific cases where I've used galleries, and see what opinon is on those. Try La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial for one example, and Frodo Baggins#Adaptations for a photogallery of different adaptations of a character from a book. What do you think of those examples? Carcharoth 14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The point is that Wikipedia is not censored period. Not for kids, nor for adults, not for good taste, not for poor taste, not for anything. >Radiant< 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the logic that saying something extra (which leaves the impression that while wikipedia is not censored for good taste, implies it could easily be censored for political or other reasons) is pointless when it is fine the way it is now. Has some conflict sparked up from trying to censor wikipedia because of the way the sentence is worded or something? DarkSaber2k 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It might be fallout from last week's hexadecimal crisis, or perhaps it's the perennial "OMG think of teh childern!!!one!". >Radiant< 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest reason for re-adding the words all sorts of content are removed. we just do so based on our policies or on laws and not based on religious or other morality. I've requested he come and discuss it here instead of edit warring, but just his last reason, I feel to see anything in there that has anything to do with adding 'for good taste' after 'Wikipedia is not censored' DarkSaber2k 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's a charter for wikilawyering. People could easily claim to remove, say, purportedly obscene images by saying that yes, they're good taste, but no, think of teh childrne!!! >Radiant< 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mind what wording is used, but putting nothing more than "Wikipedia is not censored" does actually convey the wrong impression to people who aren't familiar with the history of the paragraph. It implies that there are no controls at all over content, when in fact there are many, in our own policies and in the laws (of Florida and the US) to which the projects are subject. It is intended to convey the message that content is not governed by any particular social or religious norms. --bainer (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policies are nothing to do with censorship, they are there to prevent anyone from adding any old thing to wikipedia (although they still try). Not censored means just that, Wikipedia refuses to remove relevent information from an article (if it is sourced) just because one particular political group/religion/parent group/whatever finds something the encyclopedia contains offensive. Example: Evolution would not be removed just because Creationists say it is offensive to their beliefs. (That might work in kansas, but it wont over the internet!) That means Wikipedia is not censored for religious nutballs to enjoy browsing, which is nothing to do with good taste. As for law and the internet, I don't know how it applies, due to it being one hell of  aminefield, but why do you think Wikipedia has to answer to the laws of Florida specifically? (I edit Wikipedia in the UK, does that mean I have to obey their laws too? I obey Wikipedias policies, not another countries laws.) And what the heck has that got to do with adding the words 'for good taste' to 'Wikipedia is not censored'? DarkSaber2k 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a legal rather than censorship issue. Or if you will, it's censored because it's illegal. (Plus it's a no-brainer). And how the hell is everyone manage to miss the issue that's actually under discussion. The whole reason we are here is because we want to know why Thebainer keeps insisting 'Wikipedia is not censored for good taste' is a better choice than 'Wikipedia is not censored'. The actual issue of censorship is a different discussion for a different place. DarkSaber2k 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Occam's razor would dictate that the simple prohibition against any censorship is better. An explanation of the legal versus the ethical reasons for no censorship is gone into with detail elsewhere (in several places I think). VanTucky 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here I am. I hate this policy with all my heart. I've tried to explain why, but you hide behind legal reasons. "The policy says its not censored." Here I am trying to tell you that this policy MUST BE CHANGED! Look at this . Now you say what's the point? Well, people can't handle this, America is immature. Pornography is so immature, and we've stooped down. Your policy is not helping. People who were addicted to child porn, confessed that they started with little things, such as what you show. Lingerie probably started the first cravings. Don't tell me about natural physical attraction. I didn't start with the hormones. I started out by seeing those dirty Victoria's Secret magazines. I desired more. So, when the internet came around, I, ashamedly, looked at pornography. I started talking dirtier, I had less respect for women. In this same way, our youth is being poisoned by filth. Please, for everyone's sake, remove this policy. -Yancyfry 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the forum to discuss doing away with a fundamental precept of Wikipedia laid down by Jimbo himself. VanTucky 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a subtopic above about transparency, because even if it's illegal to have an uncensored encyclopedia, there's still a question of procedure.  If you don't want to leave some filthy comment about a child in the History, that's not a big deal - that's Oversight.  But oversight should be done by a known mechanism, known people, known policies, with logs that give at least an overall idea of what was done, and why, and how often.  Every other thing is logged here!  When there's a legal decision to be made there should be someone known to make that decision - even if you can't afford a lawyer on call all the time we should know who has been chosen to play one on Wikipedia.  And it should not be a secret that this is going on - we shouldn't be told it's a "spam filter" in action.  It should not run by a "loose hierarchy of devs", in the absence of any stated policy by the Wikimedia foundation.  I think it's not merely wrong, but also ineffective to rely on that kind of secret censorship, because it is ultimately a kind of security through obscurity.  Your filter could get divulged and become famous and then where would you be?  Meanwhile, people posting the AACS code worked out half a dozen loopholes in the scheme in hours to days.  You prevent little and allow much to go wrong by using it. Mike Serfas 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored for good taste, but this doesn't mean that adding inappropriate rubbish to pages isn't going to get deleted, particularly where there's massive legal issues. There's a world of difference, and imposing your personal moral judgements isn't going to change that. -Halo 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue here that I'm getting from the comments of those with concerns is that you're not differentiating between simple obscene nonsense (in whatever form) that is normally deleted as unencyclopedic, and content that could be considered obscene but has clear merit as encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is unequivocally not censored for decency or anything other than the policies for inclusion relating to encyclopedic merit and notabilty. You also might want to read the article concerning Obscenity#United_States obscenity law. To be criminally obscene Wikipedia has to pass the "Miller test". In other words obscenity is only when, "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." To paraphrase Jimbo, Wikipedia could show mainstream porn on the main page 24/7 and still not be obscene. As long as Wikipedia has at least one article that has serious informative value, it cannot be convicted of obscenity. Besides all that, this is not the place to discuss changing fundamental censorship policy on Wikipedia. This is the place to discuss improving the explanation of what policy already dictates Wikipedia is not. VanTucky 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censored 

message: Is this really necessary at this time?--Sefringle 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection

message: Ok, let's create consensus that plot summaries should be brief. his is an encyclopedia, and articles about works of fiction need not include scene-by-scene summaries of events. See, for example, much too lengthy plot summaries at Saw 3 or Dead Calm (film). Please allow the word "brief" to be added to this policy. Thanks. Not a dog 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this addition, and this is coming from a guy who did this:.  Brief is such a subjective term and larger subjects will merit longer plot summaries/timelines.  Current policy is more than sufficient.Chunky Rice 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c) I would support this, though it should already be implied by the word "summary." That means a condensed form, reduced to main points. Saw 3 is hardly condensed, giving almost every detail short of the script. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As Chunky Rice says though, brief is subjective and some articles should get longer summaries than others. Obviously a summary of a 3 hour movie should be longer than one for a short film. I would suggest using something like: "Plot summaries should be a summary, a condensed version of the stroyline, they should only include significant details." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brief" plot summaries 

message: Could we say that Wikipedia is also Not a lyric book? That just came to my mind. Tell me if you think that should not be in the article. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thing Wikipedia is not?

message: Somebody suggested merging Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic into Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I am against this merge, as this warrents its own section at a minimum. It would be better to just add it somewhere else on WP:NOT, or to not move it at all.--Sefringle 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific examples do not belong in WP:NOT, we are not a lot of things, but they are covered by the general topics at WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree--  WP:NOT is a page of our most important policies.  Not Aniconistic is a very specific minor case-- it might make for a great guideline, but it's not a good policy, and certainly not one of our most important ones. --Alecmconroy 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alecmconroy, some people may disagree with you on how "minor" a case it is.  You and Sefringle and I may agree that including pictures of so called "holy" images in Wikipedia is not a big deal.  We think it is a minor issue.  However, there are enough other folks here who would like to turn Wikipedia into some kind of Islamipedia, that making this into policy would be a good idea AND good policy. --ProtectWomen 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Can we have something like "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopaedia. Do not oversimplify language with the purpose of ensuring a five-year old child is fully able to comprehend it. If an article uses specialized jargon, an explanation would be advisable, do not however remove the terms for fear of misapprehension."? Far too often I've seen articles that make me want to bang my head against a wall, it's like an epidemic. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How far do we take that, though? It's obviously stupid to try to simplify quantum electrodynamics to a level that a five-year old can understand. But any article which is understandable by people other than subject matter experts will, by necessity, lose some technical jargon, because quantum physics is by far not easy. There's no need for a policy saying not to oversimplify; it's easier to determine case-by-case. -Amarkov moo! 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well there is the simple english Wikipedia, which can be used for this purpose. I know what you mean about those kinds of articles, but more often than not they appear to be just mediocre writing style as opposed to people removing jargonic terms and replacing them with simpler phrasing. I don't think "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopaedia" would be a very good name for a guideline though, because Wikipedia's supposed to be for all age groups and what have you; at the same time, it's not exclusively for academics either, hence why overly technical articles need simpler explanations to facilitate them. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I see your point. Thanks for explaining your position and not saying "no". :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *You may want to point people who disagree with you to the Simple Wikipedia, which is for many intents and purposes a children's 'pedia. >Radiant< 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection, put together by SOS Children and Wikipedians - meant for school use. You can see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection for more - there will be a downloadable version extremely soon, but the site is 100% of the content anyhow. JoeSmack Talk 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia is not trivial"? DrumCarton 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *cough* *cough* +Hexagon1 (t) 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children's encyclopaedia