Cheney Shill wrote:
Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote: > I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation > for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations. > This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change. Because the page is > in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really > does belong on the page. WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx article or any porn from any porn stars article. What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations are not enforced?Blanking, whether in whole or "significant parts", is considered vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism.
Also, this is policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.
True. WP:NOT censored states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." It doesn't state: "It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
The current state of the JP article *is* offensive, whereas a linkimage compromise would still include all information about offensive material.
You do bring up a good point about the consistency of application, and you probably are correct, but you need actual examples of that happening. I'd keep in mind that shock material, like goatse images, is considered vandalism unless it's within the context of an article that's clearly about it. Most people don't know what to expect reading goatse. An article titled "Extreme sex acts", however, because people know by the title that they aren't entering an article about goats or facial hair, would be allowed a lot more discretion on what is and is not shock, at least as long as it involves sex. Consider these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Where would you expect to see the cartoon image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png