Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

Changelogs

KelleyCook (talk · contribs) removed the bullet point about changelogs earlier today, about three hours after one of his/her articles was nominated for deletion. Personally, I think this is a no-brainer, as the spirit would violate NOT's ideas about cataloguing and indiscriminate information anyway, but there are a worrying amount of glorified changelog articles (see, the AfDed articles)... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting directly on the AFDs, this was something that was spun out of the guidelines that have been used by the gaming wikiproject for a while now. In some instances it might be reason to remove an article. You might also consider reducing the coverage of the versions down to something more like a summary than a complete changelog. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To describe the history of a piece of software you have to have some description of how it has changed over time. For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors is worthwhile and provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype.

The only past discussion I could find about changelogs is here, and I agree with the editor who said "A brief summary of versions is appropriate. Listing individual bugfixes as they appeared in v2.08 build 1037 is obviously over the top." I suggest a tighter definition of "changelog" along these lines.

I think the previous wording, "avoid a complete step-by-step record of every release or update", was too broad. The current wording, which was incorrectly tagged as an Undo, is slightly better, but should be more explicit about the suggested level of detail, giving examples. The wording "violates other precepts of this policy" is too vague, if it is indiscriminate say so. Dcxf (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's actually still pretty indiscriminate to include bulk text of changelogs even if you are selectively pulling only the biggest changes. I would almost argue that the better way to look at these articles is that they should be changelogs as viewed from the standpoint of third-party/secondary sources. A new feature introduced to an OS update that is caught on by sources is appropriate to include. A significant bug fix that can only be sourced by pointing to the change log is not. We're an encyclopedia, and we should be summarizing the changelogs over time, examining it as a history/timeline, than a routine "version number and here's what changed" role. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, looking at the iOS version history article, for example, 4.1, the important changes, such as Game Center and HDR for the iPhone 4, it's lost in all stuff about iPhone 3G bugfixes. Same for iOS 5: there's a lot of stuff no-one really uses given equal prominence to the Notification Center and Siri; indeed, background changes to Safari get more bullet points than the introduction of a groundbreaking voice control app. Hence, the proposed text:

Release notes and changelogs: An article about a product should only discuss changes that have likewise been discussed in reliable secondary sources. New features and functionality should be discussed in the abstract rather than the specifics, and bug fixes, unless notable in themselves for fixing a major software flaw, should not be discussed.

Sceptre ^(talk) 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this approach--the excessive detail has concerned me, and without a rule, it's been difficult to get rid of it consistently. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Also strongly agree with this approach. This also reflects best practices on good/featured articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but there should not be a need to differentiate between features and bug fixes in the guide: WP:DUE weight applies in both cases. Uniplex (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll put in two cents: I really like being able to see changelogs on wikipedia in the well known, easy to read wikipedia format. The deletion note on the iOS page is what brought me here. I agree that the level of detail might be inappropriate, but deletion would be a shame and, I think, against the principle of the site. To me the contents on that page is relevant information. Glaux (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "well known easy to read wikipedia format"? By default, Wikipedia generally formats into prose, not tables. And like on that iOS page (which you note people are not saying should be deleted but should be radically rewritten) there's a lot of people arguing usefulness and the like, but "usefulness" or "utility" are not reasons to break the nature of WP as a tertiary, summarizing source. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"New features and functionality should be discussed in the abstract rather than the specifics": this seems too vague and could be interpreted in any number of ways. If I say that a new feature was added am I being abstract or specific? I suggest something like "Briefly summarize notable new features rather than describing every detail of their implementation". Also I don't think the requirement for secondary sources will help much for major packages like iOS as there are reliable sources that will happily list all the changes in great detail, e.g. [1]. I think a determined editor could source almost everything on the current list, so this policy would entrench the current version rather than shortening it. Dcxf (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The intention is that we say something like "Siri is a natural language processor for the iPhone 4S which replaces the Voice Control app in previous versions and is integrated into most of the device's stock software", instead of going all the way down the feature list (it can text people, make appointments... and tell you where to hide a dead body). Sceptre ^(talk) 08:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the best example. As a major feature in a major OS, it probably would warrant more detail, but not everything. (I was about to say we could probably justify an article on it, but there is one already, though I think it could use more detail. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the wording, but is a specific policy for changelogs even necessary? Since we seem to have established that a blanket ban on changelogs per se is not desirable, isn't everything else already covered by WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, WP:V, etc? I don't think the policy as written would "fix" the iOS version history article, so perhaps we should leave that up to editors. Dcxf (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also not happy with the wording (e.g. "the abstract" also means "the lead"). You're right inasmuch that if folk take on board the policy, this entire guideline is not necessary. However, a list of specific "don'ts" is often more accessible to newcomers than a list of general "dos". Uniplex (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a stab at some wording:

• Product release-notes and ‘changelogs’ are primary sources of information, so their content is not in general suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. An article on a product (or, if it has been split, a sub-article) may discuss the product's (version) history, but such information should be obtained from discussion by secondary sources and be in proportion to their treatment of the overall topic. Alternatively, a stand-alone article on the version history of the product might be created, providing that the topic of the product's version history (distinct from that of the product, or individual product versions) meets Wikipedia's topic notability guideline (and the content is sourced accordingly).

Uniplex (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Dismissing primary sources is not going to fly well, they actually may be suitable for specific information. The point that Spectre's change is is to address the fact that we summarize info, not flatout repeat it, and thus should distill the key change features from what secondary sources say are important. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

They're not dismissed: the text says "in general", but if we're not trying to steer people away from including wads of primary sourced info, then maybe we don't need the guideline. Uniplex (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The simpler way to say this, in not so many words is "Discussion of the history of a software production should not include text from changelogs or patches verbatim, but should be summarized and filtered based on coverage from secondary sources." That's pretty much it. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the opinion that while primary sources are not to be dismissed altogether, the secondary sources must be the basis for decision what is included and what is not, and how the feature description must be summarized and further evaluated. I.e., the secondary sources must decide which information is encyclopedic. There is no reason to turn wikipedia into a product billboard. After all, everything must be easily found in the product website (if not, then the product support sucks). Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

While Sceptre's proposal is reasonable, the phrase "features and functionality should be discussed in the abstract rather than the specifics" is a way too abstract guideline. What is "abstract"? Have you had a change to read patent specs where definitions are as abstract as possible, to increase patent coverage? I would suggest a more direct advice: "Descriptions of functionality ("features" is functionality, right?) must be reasonably summarized, omitting technical details not essential to the understanding of the feature". Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that, at times, specific technical details may be the core part of why something's notable. I don't know of a specific example, but lets say on change in a changelog increases allowed memory use from 256 mg to 1 gb. By itself that's a technical detail with no relevance to a non-user of the product. If, on the other hand, third-party or secondary sources comment that the increase of memory to 1 gb drastically improves performance in a manner that can be related in an abstract way that the non-user can understand, that may be a detail to keep. More often than not, however, I think the results of summarizing such articles would be the new features added, as opposed to changes on old features. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, a possible correction: "...not essential to the understanding of the feature or of its importance". On the second thought, no correction is needed: if an independent party assers an importance of a fact, then this fact deserves incorporation regardless this policy. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Changelogs vs version or release history

An important distinction needs to be made between a changelog and a version history (or release history). I've seen many people confuse these two and attempt to use parts of WP:NOTDIR's Changelogs or release notes as justification for removing encyclopedic content, but while the two concepts are related, they serve very different purposes.

A changelog usually contains detail of each change made between each version. A version history usually just contains version numbers and release dates (and sometimes a summary or notes of major or important changes). It is a normal convention here on Wikipedia to summarise or include a version history for larger software programs with a significant history. A few such examples include Emacs#Release history and Mozilla firefox#Release history (also History of Firefox).

To give another real-world example with which I'm very familiar, the detailed Changes* files in Eggdrop's software repository are changelogs, while the Versions file is a version/release history. I'm familiar with these because a number of years ago I "volunteered" months of my time to comb through email and software/patch archives for this project in order to compile this information. While I had to build the version history from scratch using the various archives, many of the changelogs existed in various parts in past releases and patches, but still had to be brought together and unified in a common format.

The motivation for this work was two-fold. One, without it, the history of the project was buried and mostly inaccessible to most people because it was not readily available online. Two, without the changelogs, proper attribution was not being given to those whom had contributed their time and knowledge to the project.

As hard as it might be for many of us on Wikipedia to imagine, I caught some flack for "volunteering" my time on this. A number of others who sometimes contributed to that project thought I was "wasting my time" on something unimportant and would have preferred I work exclusively on bugfixes (which I've contributed in the past as well). I was also attacked here on Wikipedia by this guy and a couple of his friends after he tried to track down projects I had contributed to outside of Wikipedia, and tried to use that to attack me here on Wikipedia. (For those curious, most of it has since been documented at the top of my talk page.)

To get fully back on the original topic though, version histories are encyclopedic and usually worth noting in an article, but there would be little value for most readers to include complete changelogs. Due to editor confusion, the Changelogs or release notes WP:NOTDIR entry which was added on 24 February 2011 in revision 415608718 either needs to be removed or clarified so that well meaning editors don't end up trying to remove encyclopedic content because they think the inclusion of a version or release history conflicts with Wikipedia policy. If this can't be clarified soon, in the interest of preventing edit wars and avoiding the loss of encyclopedic content, I'll remove this newer addition myself per WP:BRD until we can figure out how to keep such an addition to WP:NOT from conflicting with longstanding practice. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion of academics on Wikipedia

Greetings. I received an interesting email at the end of the summer from Sage Publishing, who produce many top-tier journals (at least in my area of Communication and Media). On their "10 Ways to Increase Usage and Citations of Your Article", the first suggestion is to "Contribute to Wikipedia". They write:

"We recognize that many students are increasingly using Wikipedia as the starting point for their research. If there are pages that relate to themes, subjects or research that your article covers, add your article as a reference, with a link to it on SAGE Journals Online. If there isn’t a page in existence, why not create one? You can find out how here."

This seems a little dicey to me. Sure, published journal articles make good citations for Wikipedia articles and add credibility to content, but it just seems to me a bit too close to home for academics to be, in essence, using Wikipedia for professional self-promotion. I'm interested in hearing what others think? UOJComm (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it, and am always glad to see academic interest in editing Wikipedia. Since the articles should be reliable(being published in Academic journals) and since no particular point of view is being expressed I think this has more potential to bring in new editors, activity, and sources the encyclopedia than it does harm. If someone is self promoting in a harmful way then we have current methods for handling that.AerobicFox (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Im good with it as well- so long as the new editors are up to date on policy and Coin. Id certaintly like to see more enduring science articles than all the video game related ones that flood wiki. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with it too if they follow the policies in a fairly reasonable way. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OK, as long as everybody will be made aware that nothing is cast in stone, that everything must be judged by notability criteria, that publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not an ultimate truth. It will be good to have more contributors, but when academics and their students will flock here, some articles may turn into chaotic collections of scentific trivia, which must be periodically refactored. But this may happen with every topic, see eg, the #Changelogs discussion. Possibly, new wikiepdia guidelines will be due. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What What Wikipedia is not is not

The guideline contains a wise phrase "Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of terrible ideas." Unfortunately it is at the very end, in the "And finally..." section. That is probably why there are so many failed suggestions to expand this policy. Therefore first of all, I would suggest to move this caveat to the preamble of the page.

Second, I think that "And finally..." gives a somewhat wrong, if indirect, advice: "Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated". If some smart-ass managed to do something stupid here, I don't think that this would be the reason to immediately document a ban on this new kind of stupidity. Therefore the preamble must include a phrase to the end that this policy documents common misconceptions about what and how wikipedia must be written.

In other words ,

I would also suggest to put a note to this end on top of this talk page as well. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on "verifiability, not truth"

There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

[insert begins here]

Note: the link above should read that the RfC can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence  Unscintillating (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[insert ends here]

The RfC is likely to close in a few days so if you want to comment, please do so soonish. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is a lot more complex than just removing the line ... but you can read it and the rational for it at the RfC... in any case, I echo SV's call for you to come and comment. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Is

Would it be correct to say, based on the information I have found on this page and on others, this:

Wikipedia is an organized compendium of knowledge. The knowledge contained in this compendium is fairly notable.

DCItalk 21:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea to start on the main missing policy "What Wikipedia is". But while the article subjects are notable, the individual pieces of information in the articles are not necessarily notable. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Engaging articles on notable topics. Uniplex (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See also: WP:ENC. Robofish (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What WP:NOTCENSORED is not

I'm starting this discussion in response to a dispute on WP:ANI over the use of images on the Muhammad article. This discussion is not about that particular dispute (although you can read it here if you want the grisly details). It's about what I see as a growing misuse of WP:NOTCENSORED. I think it's time we agreed on exactly what that policy means.

Here's how I see it: WP:NOTCENSORED simply means that Wikipedia is not subject to any formal censorship. There is no 'censor body', such as the FCC, the BBFC or the Comics Code Authority, controlling what appears on Wikipedia; there is no equivalent of the Hays code restricting what content we can include. The only restrictions we are formally subject to are the law in the state of Florida, and WP:OFFICE actions. Beyond that, in principle, anything goes. (There are additional restrictions we've imposed on ourselves, such as the requirements of WP:BLP, but not because any outside body has forced us to do so.)

Some people seem to take NOTCENSORED much further than that, to mean something along the lines of 'content must not be removed solely for the reasons of being offensive to someone', or even 'offensiveness is never a legitimate reason to remove content'. I don't think the policy says anything of the kind. All that NOTCENSORED means is that there are no rules requiring that offensive content must be automatically removed, as copyright infringements and libellous material about living people must be. But it doesn't mean that content can't ever be removed for being offensive, providing there is a consensus to do so.

The policy page currently states '"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds in itself for removal of content.'; but in reality, on several occasions images and text have been removed from various articles for being offensive or objectionable, where there was a local consensus to remove them, and that will continue to happen in future. (The only specific example I can think of at the moment is goatse.cx, but I'm sure it has happened on other articles as well.) Perhaps what the policy means is that offensiveness on its own is not enough, and content should only be removed where it is both offensive and of no educational value. But even if so, the offensiveness of the content is still a relevant factor to its removal.

Here's the TLDR version: that an image, or any other content, is offensive to many is not necessarily grounds for its removal from an article. But in some cases, it can be; and if a consensus of users agree that certain content is so offensive it should be removed, then it should be removed, and NOTCENSORED would not prevent that removal.

Please add your comments below. And remember, this is not about the specific Muhammad images (which I actually support including, for what it's worth), but the general principles here. Robofish (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Or, the even shorter, pithier version: 'WP:NOTCENSORED is not the First Amendment'.) Robofish (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding religious "offense" (for violating a religious edict, as the case you point to is about), it does indeed exactly say that. Last paragraph. With no waffle words like "should not". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. If you have a warranty on your reading comprehension, send it back and ask for a new one. Hans Adler 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• One cannot simply disconnect the various factors. They are, in order of causality, (1) a religious edict forbids those of certain sects of the Islamic faith from making or viewing such representations, (2) some from those sects believe such an edict applies to everyone, (3) their offense is over the fact that we are violating their understanding of their religious edict. They are all interconnected, and cannot stand alone when trying to make an unbiased point or argument on this matter. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree that we do not censor images unless legally bound by law or by the Foundation (eg child porn). But also agree that a consensus of editors can consider that an image may be inappropriate for an article despite the fact that it would otherwise be uncensored from the previous state. It would also behoove editors to consider appropriate community standards and chose images of least shock value if there are choices. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• One final note: people seem to forget that WP:CENSOR does not magically invalidate other policies and guidelines that must be applied, such as bias, undue, relevance, rs, etc. This is why I see nothing wrong with wp:censor as it is. Whether image or text or quote, all of those (and others) must be applied in conjunction with wp:censor - not separately. That raises (in my mind) only one question... for those who do not realize that this is already addressed in numerous other policies that work in conjunction with each other, is it an issue where we need to clarify that which they should already know, or an issue of competence in respect to them not understanding the most basic policies that "control" Wikipedia? If people deem that the policies are so overwhelming that it is reasonable to not understand that they must be applied together, then yes, we need clarification. Otherwise... in my opinion it's a competence issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps what the policy means is that offensiveness on its own is not enough" - that is precisely the argument that has been made in this specific case. What ends up happening is advocates of censorship in this case engage in circular arguments, basically making the claim that "these images have no value because Muslims are offended". And no matter how many people opine that there is value, such arguments are inevitably ignored as if they were never made or the goalposts get moved in a bid to place an unreasonably strict burden of proof on one article that does not exist on others. The end result is always the same, however: requests for removal are predicated on offensiveness alone, with no legitimate additional argument. So in that sense, the argument that "your being offended is irrelevant" is accurate, because that is not sufficient to justify a special exception. After all: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE (emphasis, Wikipedia's own) Resolute 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And ironically, though numerous other articles with similar "false" representations have been pointed out, and a Community-Wide RfC to address the claimed issue has been suggested, such is ignored or swatted aside, leaving these effortssingularly motivated towards "special case exception for this article" to avoid applying policies uniformly to it (as is done with other bios). Ironically, the page already has a bunch of special case exceptions, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. It is time we stop adding more special case exceptions to this topic - or we pass a policy that treats all other such topics equally (which will of course destroy Wikipedia). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No. What happens is that advocates of humiliating Muslims engage in circular arguments, basically making the claim that "the value of these images musts not be examined / is enormous because Muslims are offended". These images are atypical for Islam (the obvious context of the article on Muhammad) and therefore misleading about the traditional iconography of Muhammad. Since a legitimate purpose can barely be construed, the inevitable effect is the impression of deliberate breaking of Muslim norms on a key article, perhaps the most important article, on Islam. If that's not tantamount to deliberate humiliation of Muslims, then I don't know what is. Hans Adler 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"These images are atypical for Islam (the obvious context of the article on Muhammad)" - No, that is a single potential context. Personally, I believe the obvious context is that Muhammad was a historical individual, and view him in the same light as other major historical figures. Consequent to your poor assumption on how people view this topic, you have led yourself into the bad faith argument that "humiliating Muslims" is a motivation. Of course, the "we must not offend" position is dominated by bad faith out of necessity, because it is an untenable position if one does not attempt to demonize their opponent. Consequently, that argument can safely be discarded as the fallacy it is. After all, we provide tools by which Muslims can respect their own beliefs without infringing on that of others. Resolute 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking your claims of the context in which you see Muhammad at face value, for the sake of the argument, it is clearly at odds with the reception of Muhammad in reliable sources -- even after discarding all those that were written from a Muslim POV. Hans Adler 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Psst... the images came from reliable sources (check the sourcing and informational captions). And ironically, in the display on Islam, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is showcasing various similar images. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also make this part of the policy, since it's currently just in the editing guideline. Nothing should be retained out of fear that removal might be considered censorship. Honestly, I'd prefer rephrasing WP:NOTCENSORED into something like "Wikipedia allows controversial and offensive content where useful" instead of making it about "censorship", since the c-word is very loaded language to the American ear. Offensive content is a bit like fair use content: it has a place in the encyclopedia because sometimes there is no adequate substitute, but it should be used reluctantly and replaced when not needed. SDY (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all very utopian, but who are you to tell me what is offensive? Who am I to tell you the same? How many people have to agree that something is offensive before it is considered so? More to the point, I don't consider these images offensive in the least. That opinion does not contradict the fact others feel differently, but why should their POV overrule mine? Resolute 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is already covered in Wikipedia: Offensive material which already says don't cause undue offense. Undue offense is putting an image into an article that doesn't need to be there since it will cause undue offense (i.e. the image from dante's inferno was on the muhammad article and removed for undue offense.) It does however also state that if we are not creating undue offense then there needs to be an alternate reason for removing the image otherwise it falls under the purvue of WP:NOTCENSORED. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, and would just add that when balancing factors that weigh in favor and against the inclusion of an image, the offensiveness of the image should be weighed minimally. Monty₈₄₅ 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So, you are proposing clarity to wp:censor for things already in numerous other policies? As I said, if it's that confusing, I'm supportive of such.
• As for the word "censor", I think it should stay. Clearly, we have had numerous issues of attempted censorship by numerous religious organizations, governments, corporations and individuals. There is no other more accurate word to use. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm coming late to the party, but having read through the discussion to this point, I'm going to agree with SDY, to a point. However, a better phrasing might be "Wikipedia allows controversial content where such content's value to inform a casual reader overrides the potential to offend, as determined by WP:CONSENSUS." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't be gratuitous is already covered, true, but it's being missed, because WP:NOTCENSORED is being abused to force the retention of dubiously valuable content where it is easily demonstrated that it can and will be considered offensive. The arguments have revolved around "preventing censorship" instead of "writing a better article." As for Reso's question of "why should their POV overrule mine?" the obvious answer is that you are an editor, they are the reader, and we write the encyclopedia for the readers, not for the editors. SDY (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being gratuitous. The in depth explanations I go into about policies and guidelines for new and/or confused editors (including short breakdowns on my "Adoptee Guideline" page) will support such. As will the numerous times I've bugged more experienced editors to review such to ensure my understandings are correct (I think one or two such editors are active right here, for that matter). Not complaining about the "gratuitous" comment - fully aware it'd take digging through my activity here to realize such isn't the case, so it's an understandable mistake.

As for the readers/editors comment, I agree - but I think you are misapplying it. The vast majority of our readers do not follow any Islamic traditions or beliefs (language barrier, vast majority of Muslims not living in the US, specific Wikis in their languages and/or countries, etc). Thus, the vast majority of our readers (contrary to what may be perceived from the vocal minority) couldn't care less about this issue. I can provide the demographics if you like - they're on Wikipedia in one of the religion articles on my Watchlist as well as the "Wikipedians by religion" category (also on my watchlist). Thus, by your own argument, we're back at non censoring due to religious beliefs. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"because WP:NOTCENSORED is being abused to force the retention of dubiously valuable content" - that is disingenuous. NOTCENSORED is being cited to explain why simply being offended is not a valid argument. And that is separate from the fact that I strongly disagree with the opinion that the images are "dubiously valuable content". So far, the only reason put forward to challenge the value of the content is "it offends", which is a circular argument. Resolute 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to add something to NOTCENSORED, clearly indicating that while NOTCENSORED does not prevent the inclusion of questionable material within an article, consensus can decide to avoid the use of questionable material that otherwise meets all content inclusion policies on per-article bases. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone already thought of that in less ambiguous terms (ie: it's already there) "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)[...]" Anyway, in this particular issue, that's already been hashed and rehashed, including with RfCs that went image by image and a stop at the Village Pump. The end result of weighing in exactly that (which always applied, new resolution or not) is what you see at the article now. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree with Tivanir2. Different articles should have different expectations of what kind of imagry should and should not be there based on shock value. For a topic on the depreciation of Muhammad in the media, one should expect to see such images. A general topic about Islam, probably not. A topic about Muhammad himself, possibly, but not nessasarily. In none of those should a picture of dante's inferno be placed. Maybe in an article about the historic definitions of Muslims by Christians, but even then not necessarily.

Changing it to allow "objectionable" to be a key factor would not only affect articles like those, but a lot more articles where the images do have a clear benifit to the reader (and the fact that they find them distateful may in fact drive home the point that the RS commentary says) and without those images there the quality would suffer.∞陣内Jinnai 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In part, all I think it needs is a statement that objectionable content can be removed when there's no consensus that it's useful for the article, and screaming "censorship!" does not overrule consensus. I agree that offensiveness is a minor consideration in a relative sense, but WP:NOTCENSORED should not be a valid argument for retention of material by itself and we should steer editors towards "It's useful for the article" as the defense against "the image is offensive" instead of jumping straight for the policy. SDY (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(to SDY) Exactly the reason why, after numerous consensus, an RfC and a Village Pump attempt, the images have remained. That would make this a "non-issue" then. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific proposal for a change to NOTCENSORED here? I will likely oppose any change that gives greater weight to people's feeling of offense. The problem in most instances is not that material is intrinsically offensive; instead, some people choose to take offense. I doubt there are good reasons to cater to those choices. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No material is ever intrinsically offensive. Someone always has to choose to take offence. That's just the way it works. --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There may be one forthcoming - or more disruptiveness on the Muhammad/Images talk page. The gist does seem to be that a few editors are suggesting such, even though it hasn't been ironed out. This is in relation to the new resolution (already included in the top of wp:censor) and applying it in just such a fashion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is actually what we are trying to point out. In one of my more aggresive posts on the subject (sorry to keep bringing it up but as the reason its being discussed it is the perfect example) I pointed out the top front page wasn't a picture of the danish cartoon bomb hat muhammad. I also pointed out we didn't have explicitly offensive images, since the only reason they are being objected to is they are of the muhammad (in the biography.) If the editors were trying to be offensive there are dozens of pictures out there that can be used to actual try to offend anyone. Besides a religious proscription there is nothing offense about any of the images at hand, so that falls perfectly under WP:NOTCENSORED in my mind. But then as I have pointed out I am also willing to remove pictures from the article that don't add value or support unless of course we want to change the article to have a reason to include them. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"the top front page wasn't a picture of the danish cartoon bomb hat muhammad" -- correct, but surely not for want of trying. The Muhammad article always insults Muslims exactly up to the point that it can get away with it. For some time this included a painting of Muhammad in hell. Hans Adler 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who wish their religious beliefs to trump my quest for scientific, artistic and historic knowledge always offend/insult me exactly up to the point that they can get away with it. Hmmm... works both ways. Guess we should turn to policy to see what to do. Oh, yeah, prohibition on catering to any religious belief, and goal of increasing scientific, artistic and historic information. Hmmm... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm actually it is for the fact that we don't try to offend. As I already pointed out the Dante's inferno pictures were removed for being needlessly offensive in the article. That is why people supported they be removed in the first place. I reiterate that if the image was in any biography, and depicted anyone else, this entire point would be moot. The only reason it is in contestation now is because people are bringing in religious views covered under NOTCENSORED. I am fairly certain the editors that are using NOTCENSORED would come down quickly and harshly on anyone assuming the bomb hat muhammad image would be appropriate for the section. Pictures of him preaching to his congregation (one example) are every bit as acceptable as any other religious figure under the same exact circumstances. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

We might consider an RfC, but just as a general "sense of the senate" approach. If you want to, give a yea/nay or short comment in the blocks provided.

This is not specifically about the Muhammad article, which is in an WP:IAR situation anyway where general policy may simply not be applicable. Other articles have had similar problems in the past, and this is about the policy in general.

Offensiveness as argument

Complaints of offensiveness should be:

• (Option 1) Completely disregarded or treated as disruption.

1. Disregarded yes disruption no. The only reason to take in offense is if something is needlessly offensive which is already posted under other policies such as offensive material. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Struck the last half, as it is a different argument than the first half. That said, "this is offensive" is by definition a POV argument, and lending weight to such arguments violates a core policy. This is, of course, the same problem that moots option 3 on the third question about this policy overall: You simply cannot lend weight to the argument of offensiveness without first changing NPOV and the content disclaimer. Resolute 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. This is the option that I think is closest to my view, which is that offensiveness should be considered ever so slightly, but not as much as option two would suggest. If there is any decent argument in favor of inclusion then offensiveness should be totally disregarded. Monty₈₄₅ 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 2) Valid arguments that might tip the balance of already discussed alternatives.

• (Option 3) Valid arguments that are worth discussing in themselves.

1. Not particularly compelling arguments, but not disruptive or inappropriate to consider. SDY (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Actually, options 2 and 4 also sound OK. The only thing that's clearly not appropriate is option 1. Hans Adler 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 4) An indication of a serious problem that requires attention.
• (Option 5) Simply an indication that the editor may be unfamiliar with wp:NOTCENSORED. Consider {{welcome}}.

1. Added option 5. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. This. I've seen several editors who were not familiar with this and often putting up {{censor}} for appropriate pages cuts down on those issues raised 90%. There are a few who still complain, but at least they try to raise something better than they object.∞陣内Jinnai 21:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 6) Disregarded if religion is the only basis for the claim. As a secular encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not consider religious objections in its editorial policy. This should not be taken as a license for images which are intended to attack rather than illustrate: lack of censorship does not justify intentional attack.

1. —Kww(talk) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Censorship as argument

The argument that something should be retained per WP:NOTCENSORED with no other supporting arguments (i.e. why the content is good for the article) should be:

• (Option 1) Completely disregarded.

1. If the fact that something is offensive is the only reason to include it, then obviously it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a shock site. Hans Adler 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Per wp:MYSPACE, there are all kinds of things that don't belong-being disgusting doesn't change thatLeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. If they can't come up with a decent reason then it doesn't belong. This does not mean pointing to policies/guidelines (as the person could be a newbie), but if they cannot to come up with some other reason then it is clearly shock value if not vandalism.∞陣内Jinnai 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) <

• (Option 2) A valid argument that might tip the balance of an existing discussion.

1. If the utility of the content is unclear, lack of consensus should leave existing material intact. SDY (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • That wasn't the question, was it? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I guess I wasn't clear. The stance I'm taking is that potentially offensive content shouldn't be removed without a consensus to remove it. In the case of a deadlock, WP:NOTCENSORED would trump WP:BURDEN. SDY (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not you, it was the question that was unclear. "...something should be retained per WP:NOTCENSORED with no other supporting arguments ..." suggests articles could be random collections of stuff, purely by dint of that stuff being offensive to someone. There has to be much more than just some reason to consider content belongs in a specific article: it must be all of relevant, reliable, verifiable, etc. Being offensive simply has no bearing on those reasons.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I wrote the question, so I get blamed either way! ^^; Anyway, the point of the question is figuring out how much weight the WP:NOTCENSORED argument gets in content disputes, particularly with conflicting policies (e.g. verifiability, neutrality, etc...). The article where I encountered this issue had an image in the lead which had generated complaints, and attempts to replace it with a less interesting image were met with cries of censorship. The question is: how much weight does that cry of censorship get? It's hard to phrase into a succint question, and an actual RfC would require a better wording, but I'm just trying to get a sense of where we stand. SDY (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
          • The weight it receives is totally dependent on the justifications of those who are arguing in favor of removal. If someone wants to remove an image claiming that it violates NFCC, and I argue WP:NOTCENSORED with nothing more, I deserve a {{trout}}. If someone is arguing that the image is offensive, and should be removed to avoid offending people, but has not made any other arguments, my argument of WP:NOTCENSORED with nothing more should be compelling. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
            • This is exactly what I'm trying to get a sense of. It's a question of whether "offensive" can be answered with "notcensored" alone. The alternate view is that "offensive" requires a justification for inclusion. SDY (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
              • If there is not also an argument that what ever is being held offensive lacks value, then I would say yes, offensive can be answered with notcensored. If the argument is the inclusion is either totally or nearly useless, and its also offensive, then notcensored would be an insufficient response without more. Monty₈₄₅ 00:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• (Option 3) Valid arguments that should be a focus of discussion.

• (Option 4) Compelling arguments that force a conclusion over consensus.

• (Option 5) Anyone who attempts to apply notcensored to the exclusion of other policies should be invited to review the policies they are breaking by doing so.

1. By following this, options 1-4 become moot. Ignoring all other policies while solely using notcensored is actually against policy (multiple policies). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. The validity of a WP:NOTCENSORED argument is too circumstantial to support the other options, but I think this one is correct, even if it doesn't fully answer the question. Monty₈₄₅ 23:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The current policy

The specific policy in the section WP:NOTCENSORED on this project page is:

• (Option 1) Perfectly clear as it is.

1. As Wikipedia works by applying all policies as well as relevant guidelines to each article (as opposed to one at the exclusion of the rest), the policies are perfect as is, since others need to be applied in conjunction, such as fringe/undue, bias, COI, censor, balance, pov, relevance, sourcing and others. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 2) Unclear and should explicitly state that offensiveness is not a meaningful concern.

#With the exception of just shock value and vandalism, it should not be a concern.∞陣内Jinnai 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 3) Unclear and should explicitly state that offensiveness is a meaningful concern.

1. By linking to the editing guideline regarding gratuitous content. SDY (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Actually, it is clear, but it has not been proofed against overinterpretation due to wishful thinking. This should be done. Hans Adler 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 4) Unclear and should remain so.

1. Added option 4. Clarity just feeds trolls, enables the wikilawyers, and is ultimately futile. Trust that the community will continue to recognize a good argument when it sees it.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Most reasonable of options presented thus far. As I note above, options 3 and 5 are moot. Placing meaningful weight on what offends someone is a violation of NPOV. Resolute 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
3. It's vague enough it allows wiggle room to eliminate things that go against good judgement. Again common sense should rein when dealing with things in this realm so we don't have knee jerk reactions with it but it should be a viable defense against sanitizing things for any particular group: political, ideological or any of the others. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
4. I feel comfortable with how it is applied now, I think trying to be more specific will limit flexibility. Monty₈₄₅ 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Option 5) Unclear and should explicity state that offensiveness is meaningful concern in some articles and meaningless in others based on what the article's subject matter.

1. Changed this after I struck my last statement. This is mentioned, but in a vague manner and not made explicitly clear that what may be objectionable in one article may be fine in another and vice versa simply because of what the article is about.∞陣内Jinnai 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

• Um, what? That proposal misconstrues many things. No one is arguing to ignore other policies (yet the implication exists). The last question is also ambiguous in that it implies things either contrary to policy or not applicable because of policy. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the questions or add other options. I'm just trying to get a sense of where people stand. In particular, I want to move this away from a discussion about Muhammad, because that is its own hot place down under. SDY (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry about that. I've added one more option and a comment in one of my responses to an existing one. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the option 4 on the third question is not "policy should be incomprehensible" but "policy should not be prescriptive." Do those who support that option think the policy is not likely to confuse readers, but desirably vague, and should remain unchanged? SDY (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Egads, the formatting of this straw poll or whatever it is now is quite a fractured clusterfuck. I don't see how the slightest bit of "sense of the senate" can be plucked form this, and it has only been a few hours. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on NOTCENSORED

Due to a number of disputes that have arisen over the years involving NOTCENSORED, as well as the above-noted conflict, I am opening a policy RfC on the question below, which as far as I can tell is the crux of the problem. I believe our position on this subtle point needs to be clarified, particularly in light of the Recent foundation resolution on controversial content.

RfC Question

NOTCENSORED is necessary to protect controversial content which makes a clear and unambiguous contributions to an article; This is a given. That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?

In other words, while there is a strong consensus that controversial images of (say) penises or vaginas are necessary on their namesake pages, or that the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are central to the topic of that article, it is not clear that this same consensus extends to protect images which are merely decorative elements, artistic illustrations, unneeded exemplifications, page fillers, or other material of negligible content value for the article. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples of places where the issue of applying NOTCENSORED to incidental material has arisen (more may be added as the RfC progresses):

• talk:Pregnancy over the use of an art nude image in the lead of the article
• talk:Muhammad/Images, over the use of non-representative artwork depicting Muhammad
• talk:Goatse.cx over the inclusion of a screenshot of the original shock site

NOTCENSORED does not protect incidental material

• Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates a difficult-to-resolve opening for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to be offensive, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic NOTCENSORED assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)