On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that > was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce > and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is > censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is > censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on. > > Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate > material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia. > > "Not censored" is about just that, it doesn't mean we throw out other > content policies, it means that we don't remove offensive material simply > for the sake of it's offensiveness. Other policies that call for removal of > material such as legal requirements to do so, BLP, notability, reliable > sources, still apply. Good taste, and encyclopedic nature generally should > still apply. The reason "not censored" even exists is to make sure that > censorship doesn't trump writing an encyclopedia, not so that people can go > out of their way to be offensive. As an example, an article about breast > cancer may very well have pictures of breasts in a medical context. Those > images are inherently encyclopedic in nature - "not censored" is meant to > give us firm ground to stand on when someone cries foul over those images. > or any other encyclopedic content. > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
