Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 16 December 2010 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 35.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Question

I'd like to know if it is common to use

on the top of talk pages. So far I am aware of it being used here and here. My personal opinion is that the template shouldn't be used like this. On the Man talk page it feels like it's being used to make a point since an RFC cleared up the disagreements, so it now serves no use other than to rub it in editors faces who disagreed with the issue. I suspect the same thing occurred at the other article, the differences were resolved. So what point would it be to have this boldly displayed like it is? Thanka in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm information, but I have noticed a couple of occurrences of such a template. I guess it serves the function of a FAQ template to save talk page regulars from having to repeat the same arguments over and over (it's easier and more authoritative to point to a FAQ showing previous consensus, with a review of the arguments). However, I agree with the sentiment you have expressed: this NOTCENSORED template is not necessary and should be replaced with a FAQ, like at Talk:Evolution or Talk:Barack Obama. I have seen many cases where NOTCENSORED is misused so attempts to argue that a certain statement or picture should be replaced are howled down as "censorship" (whereas censorship is actually the suppression of material by an external government-like authority). NOTCENSORED makes the point that if material is needed because of its encyclopedic value, we do not remove it on the grounds that it might be offensive. However, any particular text or image has to pass the "encyclopedic value" assessment by consensus (and WP:5P). Accordingly, a NOTCENSORED template offers no value to a talk page, whereas a FAQ could explain that consensus has decided that certain material is useful, with some reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it used on pornography pages to try to quash debate on images. Attempts to remove are generally shouted down. You also get stuff like this on the article pages:


or the notices in nowiki brackets in the article noting that "attempts to remove the image will be considered vandalism". Oh well, for good or ill, none of that is likely to change. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Wikipedia is not censored"

A point made in the above thread has also been in my mind. Do you realize that the "Wikipedia is not censored" section is misnamed? I think it needs to be renamed, but as such a venerable and popular policy that would require an extensive discussion, an RfC at least. But let me offer a few thoughts.

Semantics
Drawing from our article Censorship, I see that "censorship" is editorial control by an external entity. When people speak of censorship, they are first of all mainly talking about state censorship, whether by prior restraint (a Censor's Office) or by after-publication sanctions.

This is mentioned in passing in the "Wikipedia is not censored" section, where we acknowledge that we submit to the laws of Florida, but it is not the main thrust of the section and the policy is not generally cited for that reason. (And in fact FWIW, that passage highlights the fact that the Wikipedia is censored (by Florida), and although the censorship is pretty light (we are not allowed to conspire to commit felonies, show child porn, commit deliberate fraud, and a few other things like that) it does mean that, technically, the statement "Wikipedia is not censored" is false.)

Then there is censorship by non-state entities. The old Hayes Office, the Comics Code Authority, etc. have or had quasi-state censorship powers. And then there are other, weaker, forms of external control - an organized boycott of a publication, or an unstated agreement among theater owners, that sort of thing. These things might rise to the level of "censorship" depending on your definition.

But none of this has anything to do with the gist of "Wikipedia is not censored". The core of "Wikipedia is not censored" is summarized in its last sentence, which reads "...'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

But that has nothing to do with external entities. That is a statement addressing our own internal editorial controls.

I mean, The Britannica exercises considerably more editorial control over "objectionable" content than we do. Would you say then that The Britannica is "censored"? But it's not. The Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored. And doesn't the following statement seem rather imprecise and frankly silly:

"The Britannica is censored, and the Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored, the two conditions are similar enough that we can use the same term."

But then, informal usage
But then, on the other hand, in informal usage "censorship" is used more broadly. "Wikipedia is not censored" is sporty and kind of gets the point across. I think that most people get right off that the title "Wikipedia is not censored" probably doesn't mean "Wikipedia has a special exemption from the laws of Florida" or "Wikipedia refuses to submit to the laws of Florida", it probably means something like... like... well, what does it mean?

Well, let's see. If you see a sign on a theater that proclaims "UNCENSORED REVUE LIVE GIRLS!", what comes to mind? That the distaff citizens mentioned will be discussing the works of Wilhelm Reich or Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution? (It's kind of like the term "Adult". An "Adult Newstand" must be one that carries The Economist, right? Oh, wait.)

I don't want to be pedant about not using informal terminology, but should we be using nod-and-a-wink terms terms like "not censored" or "adult content" or whatever?

Emotional subtext
Censorship is a pretty serious thing, and a lot of people have died to fight it. And it trivializes the term to use if for this policy. Not only that, it's a highly charged term.

I think the use of the term "censorship" here causes people to, on some level, conflate "editorial discretion" and "jack-booted agents of the state" in their own minds. And that's not helpful.

Regarding WP:RS we can have reasonable discussions about what is or not a reliable source. Regarding WP:MUSIC we can have reasonable discussions about whether YouTube hits are or are not eclipsing album sales as a mark of notability. And so forth with other policies. But regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, it's harder to have reasonable discussions about what should or not be covered. And that's partly because of the highly charged term and inaccurate term "censorship".

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when the subtext of the very title of policy is "I am the living heir to Thomas Paine, and you are the blood kin of the thugs who beat up Oleg Kashin!" or whatever.

So now what?
OK, so what what would be a better name. I don't know. You could have say

  • Wikipedia contains objectionable content
  • Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable

But that would break the parallel structure of the NOT page. We could put it on its own page, but for now its here. So maybe you could have

  • Wikipedia is not edited to redact 'objectionable' content

But that has scare quotes, so that's no good, so maybe

  • Wikipedia does not remove content considered objectionable

But that's not true, if the content has other problems, so then

  • Wikipedia does not remove content solely because it may be considered objectionable

But now it's getting to long, so

  • Wikipedia is not.... [what]?

I don't know. Any ideas are welcome. And none of these are as sporty as "Wikipedia is not censored". Literary merit is a good thing, but at the cost of precision, not worthwhile in this case.

So my questions are twofold:

  1. What would be a better title? and
  2. Is it worth having a big formal discussion about this? Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence!

I was just visiting this talk page to propose a rename of exactly the same section, to "Wikipedia content is not censored"m] FT2 (Talk | email) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, is there really a difference? Only "content" can be censored, I think. You can't "censor" a person or building or organization, only what they say or write or display, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wikipedia is not bowdlerised. Takes care of the "conspire to commit felonies,... commit deliberate fraud, and a few other things like that." Marcus Qwertyus 04:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. Concise. Accurate, I think. Here's the def: bowdlerise. Is it common enough? Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support any attempt to oppose some of the sillier and unhelpful usages of NOTCENSORED, but I do not think removing the NOTCENSORED shortcut and text is achievable. Indeed, I'm sure someone could find examples where NOTCENSORED really is helpful (a statement like "I live in country X where image Y is prohibited" needs a polite reply along with NOTCENSORED). While it would not entirely solve the problem, it would be useful to add a statement to the text encapsulating the following:
If material is needed because of its encyclopedic value, it is not removed on the grounds that it might be offensive. However, any particular text or image has to pass the "encyclopedic value" assessment by consensus (and WP:5P). Explaining that material is offensive is not a reason for its removal, however, all material, particularly if controversial, needs to be carefully justified.
Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a good point. Perhaps the policy should be split in two. I think a policy called "Wikipedia is not censored" that states something to the effect of (and this could be written much better, I am just dashing it off) "Wikipedia content is subject only to the strictures of Florida and the USA. The laws of all other governments have no influence over Wikipedia, and Wikipedia ignores these laws as a matter of policy. No editing decision should be made or advocated referencing laws other than those of Florida and the USA." And possibly you could put the part about fraternal organizations (and maybe other powerful non-state entitities, e.g. Catholic Church or whatever). That would be OK, and then you could have a separate policy "Wikipedia is not bowlderized" (or whatever) to address "objectionable" content. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this. I didn't edit the text of the policy, I just moved it around, except that 1) I added the middle sentence in the "Wikipedia is not censored" section (it is italicized), and 2) I removed the entire paragraph beginning "Since anyone can edit an article...". That sentence is not intended as a policy at all, and if truly is a policy it means that Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is against policy. The rest of the paragraph is problematical but I don't want to get into that now, so I have put that paragraph aside for now. So that leaves us with:

Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia content adheres to the laws of the United States of America and to the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

Wikipedia is not bound to adhere to, and does not warrant that it will adhere to, the laws of any other state, nation, or other government entity.

Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

Wikipedia is not bowdlerised Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

There are still problems with the "not bowlderized" part, mainly that it is vague. But one thing at a time. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to move forward on this with an RfC (or maybe it'd be non-controversial and I should just make the edits), but none of the titles for the second section seem perfect. Using the thesaurus, we have "expurgate", but that's not really the right word either, and no other word seems to fit. In my personal opinion, the best two choices are these:

  • Wikipedia is not bowdlerised.
  • Wikipedia includes content that may be objectionable

Yes, I know that the second choice doesn't have a NOT in it. What can I say? There isn't any way to state as a negative that doesn't end either up in a long and ugly circumlocution or an inaccurate statement. So we have a policy on the NOT page that doesn't have a NOT in it, so what? The world won't end. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we already have the correct wording. Censorship is the universal term used by and about those who wish to remove the sort of material we wish to include. Furthermore , freedom from censorship is a noble cause which is part of our intellectual heritage, and closely related in principle to open content. That last suggestion emphasizes our possibly objectionable content--and, anyway, who are we to say that part of our content is objectionable? If it's a question of warning the potentially sensitive reader, "not censored" is as clear and direct as any wording can possibly be, and much more likely to be understood than any equivocation. Anyway, "bowdlerize" refers to removing parts of others innocuous materials, not for including the entirely unsafe-for-work also, as we do. The obvious exceptions, like copyright and libel, are covered elsewhere--nobody can seriously confuse them. And finally, changing the word would appear to be pandering to those who wish to censor. Any modified wording will be misused by them, by indicating that we are willing to modify the principle also. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DGG, you kind of make my point. Freedom from censorship is a noble cause, but censorship is editorial control by an external entity - that is a simple fact - and to wrap oneself in the flag of the noble cause when discussing internal editorial decisions is not helpful to reasoned discussion, but rather muddies the situation and introduces unwarranted inflammatory overtones. It is helpful as a political ploy of course. However, there's no particular reason why Wikipedians should allow any particular faction or point of view to purposely use incorrect terminology for political advantage. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's frustrating when someone cries censorship the first moment you revert their POV push or clean up their cruft. But that has little to do with this policy. People will cry censorship no matter what. The principle of avoiding censorship is still a good one. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. And if and when the government of the State of Florida or of the United States demands that all edits be routed through their censor's office for approval before being posted, I will oppose that. Herostratus (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "not bowlderized" does more accurately reflect the editorial policy regarding content that may be considered offensive. However, this simply is not part of the vocabulary of typical readers, so it probably does not work as a clear statement of policy. One would like to think that people who read encyclopedias would know or would look it up, but I suspect it would leave even more people confused than the already large population that seems to think "is not censored" means "has no editorial policies." There is little hope for the latter, so "not censored" is fine. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused. You referred to a "large population that seems to think 'is not censored' means "has no editorial policies'", but then said to keep "Not censored" (which seems to abet this confusion). Because there is "little hope" so the hell with it, or what? Herostratus (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that most people understand perfectly and that if some people do not want to accept what is clearly meant then there is really nothing we can do about it, for there will always be people who wish to misconstrue whatever may be said on the subject. The meaning of the section is abundantly clear, and the heading is not misleading. As I remarked here in a different thread a few months ago:[1]
“Section headings are not, and should not try to be, complete nutshells. Perhaps we need a whole new section like this:
Wikipedia is not for people who only read headlines
Someone who is reading an encyclopedia is digging for more information than can be gleaned by scanning headlines, and someone who volunteers to contribute to Wikipedia is expected to recognize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not to be interpreted by looking only at titles and section headings.
If a heading prevents you from understanding or applying a Wikipedia policy or guideline, ignore it.”
If someone misconstrues a catchphrase taken out of context then you can assume good faith and suggest they read the body of the captioned section or, if they are just trolling, you can ignore them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. But in the real world, people do misconstrue titles - Had someone refer me to WP:COMMON the other day, which he thought was about common knowledge when actually it's about common sense, and which anyway supports the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make. And you can't ignore them. So, since they do that, and you can't ignore them, at least let's try to make the title better match the policy. What's the harm? Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've got it! Use "Wikipedia includes content that may be objectionable" for the second section, but then move it off the NOT page onto its own page. This allows the use of (what I think is) the best name yet solves the not-expressed-as-a-negative problem, while at the same time moving this important policy to its own page where it can be (eventually, not part of this discussion) properly discussed and expanded. It's too short and vague for such an important and oft-invoked policy, and needs examples and more explanations etc. - compare to WP:BLP, also an important policy, which has its own page where it can breathe a little. Herostratus (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might Wikipedia:Offensive material be a good starting point? I'm a little concerned with this change on April 20, 2010 which turned a style guideline into a content guideline but if it were to be used as a basis for this, that could be addressed at the same time. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might. However, "might be addressed at the same time" is not a good idea my view - rather, it's better to separate possibly contentious issues into discrete parts and address them in sequence. The first step would be to separate out the current "Wikipedia is not censored" into its two component parts, with ""Wikipedia includes content that may be objectionable" (or whatever we want to call it) on its own page, as suggested above. Remember, "Wikipedia includes content that may be objectionable" (or whatever) is a policy, and has to remain a policy. After it's spun out onto it's own page, then a separate discussion over making any desired changes and refinements - possibly including bringing parts of the guideline [[Wikipedia:Offensive material into it - can be started.
I'm going to initiate a full WP:CENT RfC on the first issue soon, as soon as I put in place a mechanism for the discussion to be closed when its over. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive which also covers this issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Good essay. I think a good case could be made for incorporating parts of this (following discussion/consensus of course) into the policy which I am calling "Wikipedia includes content that may be objectionable" (perhaps "Wikipedia is comprehensive" would be a better name for the policy). This would strengthen the policy - and I am in no wise against strengthening the policy. All I seek (at this juncture) is clarity of terminology. But this, also, is outside the scope of this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. This is rather ironic because WP:Wikipedia is comprehensive was originally WP:Wikipedia is amoral, but ended up having to be moved due to people misunderstanding it based on its title (titles != perfect summaries). How droll. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think it sums up quite a bit of what has been discussed above. I remembered the essay but had trouble locating it due to the move from userspace and later rename. I'm not sure if you've followed this discussion, but it seems to be this exact sort of issue. It reminds me of what happened here on Wikipedia in April 2009 after The Pirate Bay trial and I suppose I should make a comment there, too. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does a given title & shortcut mean, is a good question...answered by the content of the section itself. I think there's a risk of becoming unable to see the wood for the trees, here. The 'pedia is bound by Federal and (FL) State law regardless. Regarding your two questions, right now I think the existing title works effectively and that there isn't a need to have a large formal discussion. I think that the position there's material relevance in a particular body's approach (whether it's The People's Republic of China or a given group from the annals of history) toward censorship--word or deed, is misguided. I've certainly seen people object to coverage of sexual content or depictions of religious figures here, particularly with regard to images. But I haven't seen anyone say they appreciate and applaud our stance on such material yet are strongly offended by the link-shortcut/title we use or objectively consider it an affront to dignity. For these reasons it seems to be, a solution in search of a problem, so to speak. –Whitehorse1 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-not dictionary??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – The commenter amused himself. Thus, success. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you got to be kidding me. According to this claim, thousands of articles need to be removed because they resemble nothing more than a dictionary. As wikipedia not being propaganda while always promoting one side as more valuable than the other one in sensitive topics...:)) I will only laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.135.6 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC) }}[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTRELIABLE?

While this was touched on in the archives, it was never really resolved.

  • Wikipedia is not independently reliable
  • The strength or weakness of its articles rests entirely on the sources cited and used. Readers are only able to verify sources for themselves when those sources are both cited and available.

Variations on this idea keep cropping up, but we need a succinct statement to the effect. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure we do. The disclaimer is linked from the footer at the bottom of every article, plus the Main page. Beyond that, disclaimers within articles come under a different guideline. The two halves of the policy (Content & Community) tend to be for people adding, or wanting to add, article material of some sort. That is, with the exception of referring people to WP:NOTCENSORED, it's mainly for editors rather than readers. I think it'd be preaching to the choir. Still, I haven't any strong views on it. –Whitehorse1 16:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general disclaimer is already linked from the bottom of every page on Wikipedia, and linked from the general disclaimer page are the risk disclaimer, medical disclaimer, legal disclaimer, and the content disclaimer. I think those pages adequately covers this, or would be the spot to clarify if you feel it's not adequately addressed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Most of the "is nots" are things that Wikipedia editors should strive to avoid yet this one is not. It probably belongs somewhere else. Just thinking out loud, not opposing... Marcus Qwertyus 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. Oddly, it has been years since I last read the general disclaimer. Still, it is directed to the reader, whereas wp:NOT is directed to the editor. Novice editors sometimes just don't grasp the relationship between V, CITE, and RS. See for instance the recent diatribes about Softpedia here. I'd suggest we can avoid all that unpleasantness with a succinct statement. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=402660854"