[WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP

[Keitei]

On Jan 30, 2007, at 14:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> I bring this up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I  
>> found
>> most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility². Most  
>> especially the
>> practice of banning (punishing) members of the WP community for  
>> using words
>> and phrases considered by whoever made up the policy to be  
>> ³offensive².
>> This, to me, made WP free in every thing but speech.
>
> You misunderstand the policy. It's not about words, it's about
> behaviour. Using a particular word is not, in itself, incivil. It's
> what use you put the word to that is important, not what word it is.
> You can be incivil without cursing, and you can curse without being
> incivil - they are completely independent.

In the context of the news story he supplied, I think the point is  
not to go, "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT LIKE THAT," but instead to consider  
the inherently "offensive" nature of certain words and whether the  
mindset of "some words are so offensive that nobody should be allowed  
to say them" has permeated our culture. Also, where does one draw the  
line? "Nigger" has been rendered inoffensive in limited contexts, but  
what of other racial epithets? Where and why does one draw the line?

I think that Wikipedians have enough common sense to recognize that  
words are independent of their intentions. However, some are more  
sensitive about racial epithets or even references to race. While we  
strive to be collegial, slang certainly creeps into talk page and  
user talk pages. If one were of the mindset that some words are just  
so divisive that they shouldn't be used, how would one factor in  
slang use? Or would one just chalk it up to "they think it's slang,  
but they're actually racist"?

While WP:CIVIL does not say that the use of certain words merits a  
ban, I do see accusations flying left and right due to certain words  
in mediation and arbitration cases from time to time. So where is  
community feeling? Certain words shouldn't be used, but it's far too  
subjective for policy and better for a lot of people to object first?  
Do the loudest objectors win? (Well, they will, but do we want them to?)

I think it's an interesting topic, certainly not something which  
should be dismissed as a misunderstanding of policy.
--keitei