On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)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.