[Wikipedia-l] censorship

[Anthere]

>> You know Anthere is on the foundation board, right?

>Oh I knew. :)

>But I think the ideas are wrong and at odds with the published goals.
>If I do not misunderstand Anthere and the views are truly
>representative and accepting censorship based on some peoples
>non-neutral value judgements is acceptable ... then I think we should
>discuss the matter, because I think a lot of people are misled by the
>principal of neutrality 'as advertised'.

I think you are confusing censorship and neutrality
 
If we were claiming autofellatio is not possible, we would be incorrect.
If we were saying autofellatio is bad, we would be non-neutral.
If we were deleting the autofellatio article and pretending it does not exist, it would be censorship.
If we display a picture of autofellatio in the autofellation article, it is possibly displaying offensive content, or possibly not.
If we decide to use a drawing rather than the image in the autofellatio article, it is possibly admitting a taboo, or possibly not.
 
If we display autofellatio image in user talk page, it is hurting people who do not expect to see such a picture on a talk page (while they can choose not to go to the autofellatio)
If we do nothing to help those who spent hours cleaning up, it is lacking respect for other people time. It is unwikilove.
 
Both neutrality and censorship are "strong guidelines".
But neither are *rules*, in the sense none strictly and thoroughly explain exactly what should be from what should not be done. There is no page saying "if there is 1 cm3 blood, display. If there are 5 cm3 do not." There are examples given, but essentially, those are *guidelines*.
 
As for all guidelines applications, only editors have the authority to try to set rules to attempt to follow the guidelines.
 
On wikipedia, there is a strong desire to follow a couple of mandatory guidelines/principles, but there is an equally strong desire to let editors create themselves their own rules to try to fit the guidelines.
 
I think accepting that cultures have different taboos is right.
 
Calling other communities rules and opinions, when differing from yours, "non-neutral" is wrong. This is what you are doing. The decision of the english wikipedia is fine, but the rules applied on the english wikipedia, belongs to the english wikipedia. They should not impair the right of other communities to set their own rules, without those being called censorship.


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.