Fred Bauder:
The question is whether, after due consideration, objectionable material is to be included as an accepted part of our presentation of knowledge.
Tony Sidaway:
Yes. I think we should tackle this question face-on. I won't lose any sleep, or leave the project, or have a hissy fit, if Wikipedia excludes objectionable material, because Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advancing my point of view. But at present I think I'm seeing a bifurcation--one which I've tried to illustrate in recent emails. Wikipedia at present does not exclude encyclopedic descriptions of, even legally permissible illustrations of, objectionable material ...
While this is clearly a matter of ongoing (i.e. permanent) concern, we are also not going to have a working definition of 'objectionable', now or later.
[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] is there; [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] mentions 'Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors'.
The potential of a forked site which contained 90% or more Wiki-en content, and which would not have to make those disclaimers, is there and growing in attractiveness with every passing month. Anyone doing that fork would be supplying their own operational definition of 'objectionable'; that is likely to involve self-censorship of some kind, a term I wouldn't accept for how WP operates.
The operational WP criterion is 'adds to the encyclopedia', and on the whole this is fine for what we do; its opposite would be more like 'gratuitous', rather than 'could offend someone'. It is obvious enough why we can't use 'could offend someone' and still write WP. I'm not great myself at watching graphic bits of medical dramas on television; I would make that a reason for not clicking around pages on surgery, rather than any sort of criterion for what is there.
Kids and the Internet - well, it's a parental responsibility, like them crossing the road.
We should not have any 'incitement' at all on WP; that is not about offending, that is a responsibility as, in effect, a public broadcaster.
There is a bottom line, really, in that those who don't come to WP are missing out. The aim anyway is to make WP _more attractive_, rather than _less unattractive_.
Charles