[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Thu Jul 29 23:49:10 UTC 2010

Ting Chen wrote:
>   Hello Alec,
>> I don't oppose people 'censoring' themselves if that's truly their
>> choice-- what I oppose is someone censoring US against our consent.
>> What I oppose is WMF trying take a NONCENSORED project swap out
>> NPOV/NOTCENSORED in favor of a fiat-imposed  "potential-offensiveness"
>> standard.
> This is the passage from your mail that confuses me at most. Whom do you 
> mean with US? You wrote that Wikipedia is notcensored, but ar-wp is also 
> Wikipedia, as well as the other 270 some language versions of Wikipedia, 
> including the ace-wp, or not? Is it censored or is it notcensored?
> And as I mentioned, even en-wp is not notcensored. Also en-wp has rules 
> and policies that imposes biases.

Exactly here we have a page that has been heavily censored:


there were once a number of images on that page but now they are gone 
and the current page has no images at all:


The original images have been deleted from the site too.


So we can clearly say that en:wp is most definitely not notcensored:


purged, and made safe for Western sensibilities.

On the more mundane and that all the worst here we have a typical 
example of a group on en:wp queuing up to be offended and punish the 


for a user name that almost 100% of users wouldn't give a second glance. 
There is also another bit of nonsense on that page to do with Niabot 
started by Robofish:


who seems oblivious that his own username 'Robo' is a prefix of Robot of 
which Bot is the suffix. en:wp is crawling with so many censorious 
little narcs creating trouble it is unreal.

Later you say that "I am not comparing any Wikimedian with the Red 
Guards" but that is exactly what it appears to be at times. See this:


it is completely ridiculous that every few months or so some impudent 
little so and so feels it necessary to harass that account:


one is amazed at the forbearance and patience of that account. Be wary 
the current incumbent does leave, someone new might not be prepared to 
deal with the Cadres at all.

> This is the reason why I said notcensored is a bad argument, because it 
> doesn't describe the reality. We have consensus on a lot of points, for 
> example I think every language version agrees that we want to use 
> neutral languages to describe the facts, we don't want an article to use 
> to emotional or enthusiastic words. We want to include as much opinions 
> about an issue as possible and we don't want to omit any opinion that is 
> important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. And so on and so on.

That is the point that the NOTCENSORED brigands miss. That they only 
have room for one opinion - their own - and cannot conceive of a world 
which isn't black and white. Where consuming content is situational and 
where the user has a choice of what and when they read or view something.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list