On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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.