Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jimbo quote

That email from jimbo said nude models on the main page, not hardcore pornography! --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

He is actually quoted as saying that Wikipedia could display "full-blown mainstream pornography" on the main page without violating any laws. I've changed the paragraph to say "full-blown pornography" rather than "hardcore pornography" since that was his actual quote.

"We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States. It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia." - Jimbo Wales

Kaldari 21:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I checked. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, what say we include the other part of the quote too? The one the Decency folks have? WikidSmaht (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Kill this project

Suggestion: kill this project now, before it generates even more heat on the whole discussion than the project that inspired it. Kill this project and all other political projects. A more rotten way of undermining consensus has never been invented. Do not segregate users into camps. Nobody wants Wikipedia to be censored (because "censorship" = "bad"), and that's not what the discussion, such as it is, was ever about. Do we need a neutral place to discuss when what content is most appropriate for the goal of writing an encyclopedia? Yes. Do we need factionalized niches where people can organize in "pro" and "con" camps and attack each other from the far ends? No. In its goal this project may be very noble. In its execution it is fundamentally undermining Wikipedia (as is, in its current form, its sister project that ostensibly promotes "decency"). This WikiProject madness has to stop. Where is the WikiLove, people? JRM · Talk 21:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, please stop....this is madness...polarizing madness. Rx StrangeLove 22:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is deleted, I will probably nominate this project for deletion as well. Otherwise, this project is necessary to coordinate defense against an organized effort to undermine Wikipedia policies. Kaldari 21:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. Have you even considered the possibility that we can just edit and "reeducate" that WikiProject if it is not deleted? You have already lost in accepting that we must "organize efforts" against each other. We must not. We will not as long as I have anything to say about it. If the project is kept (and there is all the signs that it will) then both that project and this one will disappear and be merged into one project that does have value to Wikipedia, or I am severely misjudging what Wikipedia is. JRM · Talk 21:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea: merging the two projects. How would you propose to do that? Keep in mind that this project is not specifically about indecency, but is also for defending against political and other forms of censorship.

A project specifically about indecency was never worthwhile. And neither is one for defending against censorship! Both decency and censorship are loaded and overloaded concepts, and are very much in the eye of the beholder. (Is removing an utterly non-notable POV in compliance with NPOV censorship? You better believe its proponent(s) will argue so.) What you want doesn't need a WikiProject designed from the outset to polarize matters by labeling some things "censorship". WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be taking care of business, and they don't need a WikiProject to be defended: everyone is expected to work in harmony with them. You want discussions on individual topics, but there is simply no added value to a project where all these discussions are centralized, unless you fancy gathering lots of sheep votes in issues. Who doesn't want to oppose censorship? Who will not argue removing this or that is censorship, when it suits them? This project is poorly defined and offers no constructive goal to work to; instead it encourages "opposition" of an abstraction.
What should replace these projects? I don't know. I don't have all the answers either. We should first identify the issues that are problematic, then deal with them. Directly, not in generalizations. "Possibly offensive images" is one clear issue. We could have a place (and I'm not saying it should be a WikiProject) to discuss what images are appropriate where, and under what circumstances, in a less acrimonious environment than WP:IFD; a way to integrate the individual discussions on images that have been going on now. The discussions would still be charged, but they wouldn't be doomed from the outset to degenerate into "well you're just from the pro-censorship project so obviously you're evil" discussions. JRM · Talk 22:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with you. However, I would be reluctant to remove this project while the other was still functioning, as it is ostensibly acting as a counter-balance. If you have a specific proposal for merging or deleting both projects, I would be open to your suggestions. Kaldari 23:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that. When the VfD on that other thing runs out, there are going to be suggestions, you can be sure of that. Very strong, bold suggestions. In fact, I may just move the whole shebang and completely rewrite it. :-) I feel very strongly about there not being any "Wikipedians against/for X" projects. They must be refactored or perish in the attempt, otherwise Wikipedia really will end up like "just a bunch of flamewars". JRM · Talk 23:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JRM. See my WikiEN-L post for more details. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JRM, but rather than kill it just put it on ice. If the "Wikipedians for Decency" project doesn't get deleted then this project may come in handy. Christiaan 21:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "put it on ice". Kaldari 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Suspend its development. Christiaan 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this project was ostensibly created in response to Wikipedians for Decency, I believe the value of this project can be much broader than opposing those who would censor Wikipedia in the name of decency. Wikipedia is also commonly the target of political censorship - usually the removal of information which is useful to those opposing a certain group, person, or situation. Recent examples include articles concerning Scientology, Lyndon LaRouche, the Nationalist Movement, etc. Is it not valuable to have a place where people interested in opposing censorship can be notified of such issues? Kaldari 22:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

JRM is completely correct that this project will undermine the fundamental way of doing things here, by taking a first step toward institutionalizing the factionalism and politicization that so far just simmers and breaks out in incoherent ways. But separately, this project is misguided. It states as its purpose to defend against something that does not exist here, and essentially cannot exist. Censorship happens when a group in a position of power directs that something not be published, and that directive is enforced, by the cops or whoever. The WfD people just can't censor in that sense. They can edit something out of an article, and that's it. Guess what, people. You can just put it back. The processes that are already in place here will make sure that people who care about the content of a particular article find out when it's edited by a bluenose, and bowdlerizing will quickly get reverted. Same goes for articles on topics that attract, um, excitable types like Scientologists and LaRoucheniks. No censorship, nothing that needs to get organized to defend against. The harm from this project is going to outweigh any benefit of having an organized clearinghouse against the WfD people. -EDM 05:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship doesn't require cops. Censorship happens when someone destroys or prevents access to a work of communication for the purpose of suppressing a viewpoint. For instance, there have been many cases in the United States where radical groups at universities have stolen campus newspapers when those newspapers have expressed views to the groups' disliking. This is censorship, even though the radical group is still a marginalized group with no access to cops to enforce their way of thinking.

An organized group with the purpose of censoring Wikipedia can certainly do a great deal of damage, and could, for instance:

1. "win" revert wars by being able to deploy editors to revert in an organized fashion -- locking the censored articles up in revert war and suppressing their development;
2. suppress whole articles by deploying editors to VfD in an organized fashion, in the manner of the group that campaigns against deletion of articles about schools;
3. drive people off the project with intimidation, insults, and harassment; or simply because people who thought Wikipedia was an open-minded project will be very dismayed to find their contributions labeled "indecent".

The presence of an organized, efficient pro-censorship group, willing to defy Wikipedia policy or to "game the system", is a hazard for these reasons. Wikipedia procedures such as VfD are not immune to gaming or to being overwhelmed by an organized group, even if that group is far from the whole project's consensus. Just because there are more of us who oppose censorship than there are people who are for it, doesn't mean that we should slack off if they organize.

Because censorship is antithetical to Wikipedia's policies, it is entirely reasonable that a group intent on censoring Wikipedia be disallowed from organizing -- just as a group intent on vandalizing, or creating vanity articles, or posting personal attacks, or in any other way breaking the rules should be disallowed from organizing. But if it cannot be prevented, those who wish to protect Wikipedia's policies against censorship should likewise organize: to draw attention to abuses committed by censors; to countervail organized efforts to revert or delete articles for the purpose of censorship; to offer support to those being intimidated by censors; and to advocate for the protection and enforcement of policies against censorship and harassment. --FOo 16:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget that they would sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Fluoridation of the drinking water is the way your basic hard-core censor operates. WikiProject Purity of Essence is needed to provide counterbalance.

Applying your analogy, explain to me what added value WikiProject Vandalism, WikiProject Vanity and WikiProject Personal Attacks would have. No, wait, I know: centralizing. Organizing. Specializing. Factionalizing.

"If it cannot be prevented", but it can. And no centralized anti-censorship project will improve things if it can't. We are already lost if that's the case. The next step would be witchhunts for invisible "terrorist" censorship organizations: "I suspect you have ties to al-POVda, the group we stamped out last month... Tell us the other members of your organization and repent, or be banned!"

Countervailing organized efforts to revert? How? By organizing efforts to prevent reverting no matter what? By organizing reverts yourself? Policies against censorship? Like what? "Don't remove things just because you don't like them"? I think we got that part covered.

I know I'm being violently and unproductively dismissive of the idea, but this has a good reason. I know how this project sounds in theory (yay free speech! Boo censorship! Fuzzy feelings!), but it will never work in practice. What we are talking about here, and let's call it what it is, is a project against POV pushing. It works on the assumption that centralizing and organizing will be effective to stamp out individual cases. Sure it will—you just get enough people to hit the POV pusher and he'll go away.

This project's vision of a noble bulwark against the organized masses of censorship is a chimera. If such groups ever formed, it stands to reason they have something to say that goes beyond "censorship", and opposing them on those grounds is silly. The people you oppose are the people you're not listening to.

Again, what is censorship? If a kook adds nonsense to a physics article and is reverted by everyone and their mother, will this project be under the obligation to "offer support"? Well, no, since that's not censorship, right?

"Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are no censors here. Only other editors. If they organize to push a POV, with reckless disregard to the representation of other POVs, they should be educated and integrated. If individuals cannot, they should be shown the door. But a centralized project to "oppose" other centralized projects? No. This is not Wikipedia's way. JRM · Talk 17:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This project is great and needs to stay. Wikipedia has starting to reach censorship on many articles and needs a group to protect against it. Anyone who wants to remove this group is a communist.

Jerry Jones 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The indecency tag

Who gets to decide who should have an indecency tag? How are they removed?

Tagging articles with this type of stuff is really a way of imposing a point of view on people. It is coercive and has to stop. --Gorgonzilla 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it was more of a joke than a serious criticism. Kaldari 21:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of the tags were put on articles by those in opposition to the Wikikepedians for decency in an effort to make them appear to be cnesors. If you trace my history of edits along with the other two users that originally signed up for the decency project, you'll see that I put none up and in only a few isolated incidents, did the other two users utilize the tag. The templates were voted out as far as I know in Tfd and I removed them from the decency project main page.--MONGO 05:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The question I was asking here was what the proposed use is and what the process to decide on their removal is intended to be. As it is I think I will just delete any tag I see as an offensive attempt to impose a POV. --Gorgonzilla 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this project

I see nothing wrong with this project and I encourage no one to try and nominate it for Vfd as it has a right to existence. I am completely opposed to censorship but I am not opposed to establishing a criteria of encyclopedic merit. Just my thoughts.--MONGO 05:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Depends in my view on what the role and scope of the project is. If it is to identify attempts to introduce bias through censorship and to redress them within the spirit and methods of Wikipedia, then all well and good. I am not sure that it is necessary, or desirable, at the present time given the serious issues with Wikipedians for Decency and the concentration a lot of people ar giving that. The Land 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO that we should keep this project. As I've said elsewhere, editors should have freedom to choose how to contribute and they should have the freedom of association with other editors, including the right to form projects to aid in their collaboration together. There are probably some projects that should not be allowed, like "Wikiproject to promote vandalism", but in general we should make room for WikiProjects. Johntex 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to Merge

The old Project for Decency has become Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. At this point I think it's clear that this project should be merged into that title, too; what's really important isn't mindlessly removing things or protecting them from removal, but including everything of encyclopedic merit, regardless of how people feel about it. Discussion of what constitutes the boundry of encyclopedic merit and what doesn't can then continue there, without the vitriolic and useless soapbox campaigning that these two projects have sparked. Aquillion 10:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Against merger. The big difference between the two projects is that in the merit project the members are "holier than thou" about explicit images and in the ant-censorship project the members are "holier than thou" about freedom of expression. Both views are being adhered to rigidly and without much compromise as it stands now. There is no way in the forseeable future that these two kinds of people can work together in a project. Not untill the trollcalling and nazicalling on both sides has subsided. In the mean time, both projects consist of member that have nothing but the wellbeing of Wikipedia as their highest goal. Just let the projects be and see what develops. --Lomedae 13:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see too many people refusing to compromise right now, actually. Everyone seems to be saying that other people will refuse to compromise, that the merge can't possibly succeed because of all the trollcallers and nazi-slingers with rigid views who apparently dominate one or both groups. Well, I think it's time to call those trollcallers out. Would anyone like to come forward as of Lomedae's hypothetical trollcalling, nazi-slinging rigid-viewers who would ruin any compromise as it stands now? I thought not.

Seriously, though, I am aware that there is a certain amount of bad blood between the two groups; that's a good part of why I suggested the merger in the first place. At the moment, that bad blood seem to me to entirely overshadowing anything that either of the two groups claims to stand for. Indeed, you yourself just admitted that these groups are often characterized by namecalling, holier-than-thou extremism, and rigid division. That is bad, a lot worse than any of the censorship or obscene images I've seen around here lately. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Removing an obscene image or reversing censorship just takes one click; getting hardheaded people to agree with each other takes a lot longer.

You say that we should wait and see what develops? Well, so far they seem to have developed primarily three things: trollcalling, nazi-slinging, and a proposal. If you want things to develop any further, then sooner or later you're going to have to put your foot down about the first two and decide on something; it seems to me it might as well be this. Aquillion 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support. In the intersts of Wikilove, perhaps it would be best to merge, however, the other projcet could still use some editing to remove the pro-censorship bias. Kaldari 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Against merger. It should be obvious that this Project was formed as a reaction to the formation of the other project. Have the two projects now moved towards each other so much that they are now the same thing? Maybe. I don't think so. Maybe they will. There is no harm in keeping them separate a while to see how they each evolve.

Yes, people need to compromise, and strive for consensus, but for the time being we can have those discussions on article talk pages. If common themes are developing, then it may prove productive to work together on new guidelines such as "WP:When nudity is/is-not appropriate in an article" or "WP:When does a political point-of-view or new religious group merit an article?" or "WP:NPOV use of titles or honorifics (such as 'His Holiness' or 'Supreme Commander')".

I would also like to point out that we have made room for other sets of projects that are similar to each other. For example, we have a different projects for "Fix common mistakes", "Grammar", "Typo", "Wiki Syntax", etc. Yet we do not require them to merge into one big project to fix all gramatical and style problems. Similarly, we have not merged Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Battles or a host of other projects related to ships, airplanes, etc. just because they might be construed to have a similar focus. On the contrary, we let each group of people find their niche and contribute as they feel they are best able. Johntex 16:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Against merger. The two projects, as currently defined, have significantly different focuses. Both can be consistent with underlying WP goals and policies w/o thereby being identical in focus. Maybe in a month the matter could be reconsidered. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:11, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

• Against Merger, for oh so many reasons. 1. This group has a different focus then that group, this one opposes censorship, that one proports to support "encyclopedic merit". 2. Despite that name change that group has not changed to a significant degree and this group was created in direct opposition to that group. 3. Consensus appears to be against this merger espeically among this group's members.Gateman1997 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Toby

Perhaps ladies and gentlemen here will find this proposal acceptable, if not entirely palatable. I'm posting the same message here, as well as over in the opposite camp. Maybe all parties will find it equally unsatisfactory; that is the nature of compromise. But I hope that most will find it meets our needs. — Xiong熊talk* 04:19, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Project tag

Someone more knowledgable than I should make something we can put on our userpages. I suggest it include the image image:Autofree.png, currently up for IFD at [1].

GODS NO. I want a worksafe userpage. ~~ N (t/c) 14:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Not inline, linked? Hipocrite 14:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not just link to the project page, then? ~~ N (t/c) 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A resounding vote of NO for that image, linked or not, we're trying to be taken seriously here last time I checked. This project is not about sex per se, and choosing an image like that only opens us up to ridicule. Apart from that, an image and link to project page is indeed needed. I'm certainly no expert in making these thing but if no other images are forthcoming then I'll give it a go. Lomedae 09:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

How about Image:Censorship mosaic.jpg? Found it while looking through Category:Public domain images. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-27 T 16:49:29 Z

A bit more subtlety: [2]. Of course, a thumbnail could only be iconic, you need to look at fullsize to understand the significance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:25, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

File:Blue ribbon.png

Why reinvent the wheel when there's aleady an icon for this kind of initiative?--Lomedae 09:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah! ~~ N (t/c) 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

For those interested in more meta issues:

This is not in line with the goal of our project, but I'd think that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella might be of interest to many of the members here. "Troll*" appears to be a banned username if you believe in voting "keep" on VfDs. Hipocrite 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they're going to name yourself after an offense against the rules, they might expect to have their actions looked into a little more closely. If I set up a business called "Fubar's Thievery and Extortion", I'd expect to get investigated. Likewise, a user named "troll" or "POV pusher" or "Personal Attacker" or whatnot, should expect some resistance. --FOo 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For someone that has the word "fuck" in their username, you certainly are willing to take that first step down the cliff. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The user in question isn't a troll whatsoever, and no one has alledged that they are. Hipocrite 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

They're not a troll, perhaps, but someone here is. --FOo 15:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm merely pointing out that by taking this (worthless) step against usernames, you, or I, could be next. Who wants a hypocrite editing here, especially one who can't spell? Who want's someone who is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition, but hiding it? That I am a troll dosen't mean I'm trolling. That his username had "troll" in it, means neither that they are a troll nor that they were trolling. Hipocrite 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Technological Solution for Allowing users to select what images they see

I (and others) have suggested at various times that ultimately a technological solution could exist. Images could be tagged with descriptive words such as "simulated violence" "partial nudity" "sexuality". Users would then have the option (probably through browser cookies) of choosing that they are OK with seeing nudity but not sexuality, or whatever their choice is. I recognize that there will still be arguments, (E.g. "what about a picture of two people kissing, does that qualify as sexuality?") but at least it would be an improvement. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I paste here some comments that came into the Help desk which is relevant to this discussion: [3]

"Is it possible to sanitise content within Wikipedia for profane language, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt , for use within a Primary school. We would like to use this resource as its probably more complete then any encyclopedia we currently have access to, but we need to make sure that things that parents might object to cannot be viewed easly. Thanks, John Bradshaw"

• He was basically pointed in the direction of filtering software - but it was pointed out that filtering software can't interpret images. He was also told he could mirror Wikipedia and remove objectionable content itself (true, but a ton of work, and loses the ongoing additions to the project).
• Then, apparently still John Bradshaw but now with a username said:

"...is it possible to suggest to the 'powers that be' some sort of Family Filter similar to google, where you actively have to click off or view if someone considers this to be unsafe material. Similar to the 'This content is controversial' options that you can have on entries into the encyclopedia? Machtzu 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"

• I would like to reiterate my support for such a technological solution. This would allow the user to have some control over the encyclopedic nature of their experience here. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Filterware is only as good as the filter. Who decides what's blocked? I'll tell you right now that I think war is far more disgusting than penises, and would block accordingly. Hipocrite 17:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, with the right browser, one can always browse with images turned off in the browser, and selectively view images as necessary. All I'd ask for is that the image tags are accurate, so that an image tagged as "Pink fluffy bunnies in a field of buttercups" isn't actually the goatse.cx image. It is possible to argue that the article text should, to the extent possible, be capable of standing alone (which would help blind users of Wikipedia, as would accurate image tagging).
  From a technological point of view, it would certainly be possible to add labels to each image saying "Passed for viewing by the Brobdignagian Committee" and/or "Passed for viewing by the Liliputian Committee", and digitally signed by the appropiate committee. Then, all you have to do is decide whether your viewpoint co-incides with one or several committees, and view only those images passed by them. Libertarians would of course, browse viewing *all* images - thus censorship would apply only to those who wanted it. While conceivable, such a system would require a lot of development, so anyone wanting it would probably be encourage to fork Wikipedia and design it to meet their own ends.
  That brings us to the crux of the matter - those wishing to censor Wikipedia are in fact attempting to take a commonhold resource and bend it to their own ends, and I object to that. Nobody is forced to use Wikipedia, and anyone may take a copy, so interest groups that attempt to restrict Wikipedia are in fact being selfish. Such interest groups are completely free to set up a Wiki according to their own rules, even using Wikipedia content - the fact that they choose not to indicates to me that they do not believe their goals are sufficiently interesting to enough people to make such a project viable. WLD 21:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

They name it Orphanage

Amber Evans is the second try. Sad sad sad .MutterErde 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

all from today : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/August_31%2C_2005 , all from one guy ( OR. — THOR 21:01, 31 August )

see also  : : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noitall#Image:JoanSeverance-PBApril1990.JPG and its history [4] .

Many of them are commons images. This individual probably used my gallery to compile this list. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-1 T 00:55:35 Z

• NOTE THOR´s VfD-Gallery was moved by Lulu and .... on September 13 to:
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery

Here comes "decency"

Starting with porn: [5] [6] Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• That's right User:Hipocrite (how about signing those posts you are so proud of), it is call unencyclopedic and your comments and actions are extremely juvenile. Also, your actions today trolling edits and making bad faith edits because you don't get your way promoting your kiddie porn shows your true self. --Noitall 04:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)Deleted because User demonstrated capability for good faith edits. --Noitall 05:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The actress in question was born on January 4, 1980, making a 2003 shot of her from when she was 23, a 2004 shot of her from 24, and a 2005 shot of her from 25. I can't believe I married my wife when she was underage! Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment was lined out and kiddie referred to mental age, not actual age. --Noitall 05:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Latest news: [7] , so called consensus ( = minus 3 Bobbi Eden pics ) , published by a well known Zombie, who possibly have returned for that purpose . MutterErde 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC) File:Cry.gif

I don't disagree with that consensus. The pictures are terrible - the box covers are just stupid to leave out there without comment.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

em , but you have reverted the attacks of the mullahs ?! How can this version ( = minus 3 pics ) be a consense ? Confused MutterErde 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC) btw. What´s wrong with this pic Image:Bobbi-eden-please-flesh10.jpg ?? ( only one example) 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The box covers don't make the article better - both from an informative perspective, and from a visual perspective. The big picture to the right does. Find more glamor shots and I'll defend them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT wikipedia:USA

by the way: This is not wikipedia:USA , this is wikipedia:en , and that includes not only the christian mullahs , that includes some more english speaking countries round the world. For example: While Mom is buying a newspaper in Sydney her kids can watch all these gorgeous boobs on the covers. They seem to whisper: "Buy us! Buy us! When you have not enough money , help your Mom washing the dishes. You will get a little money and then come back.We have not only gorgeous boobs - we can show you what your Daddy loves most on your Mom."

Lucky minors outside the USA !

Image:GoddardPlayboyEspana0195.jpg , Image:PBSamanthaFox11-88.JPG , Image:PBDrewBarrymoreGreeceFeb95.jpg , Image:HollyWitt-PB-February1996.JPG , Image:BoDerek-Dec-1994.JPG

MutterErde 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Special offer to the christian mullah crew , section USA:

[link spam] Have fun MutterErde 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: Link spam/commercial advertisement is not permitted in WP. Not even in the talk pages where the intention is obviously just googlebombing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(just because the commercial site seems to have something to do with pornography/dating doesn't make it of interest to an anti-censorship project)

• bla bla bla MutterErde 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that. I must also add:

• Not only is wikipedia:en there for English speaking countries which are not USA, it's also there for any other people who can read (and write) in English. Many of which live in countries with completely different norms and mindsets than in the USA (or even any other English-speaking country). Wikipedia:en is a Wikipedia written in a most widespread language on Earth, and so it bears the responsibility of actually being the whole world's Wikipedia; biases should be avoided here even more than on any other language Wikipedia.
• Similarly to the example from Australia above, here where I live, the last thing I'd try to protect my children from, would be seeing a pair of boobs or stuff like that. Come on, aren't there more important stuff out there? Why such an obsession with censoring stuff which mainly deal with sex? I can see that sex is presented as something horrible, and plain nudity and such are very much mixed up with the actual sex (and plain nudity and pornography should really be treated different). If I had to choose, I myself would prefer to let my children watch a mainstream movie sex-scene, than a firefight scene full of blood and death. I actually find it disturbing that American censorship principles work exactly the opposite. --Arny 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship Alert

Let's actually use this project for its purpose and now is our chance:

images up for deletion

It appears many images that were released under the GNU FDL are up for deletion by a user called THOR with no explanation given as to the problem. --ShaunMacPherson 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Censorship alert

SPUI (talk · contribs) made a recent test run of the WP:TOBY proposal, which basically calls for people to put the Toby image on any pages they object to for any reason, so that other people won't see those pages any more (through a requested software feature that hides all pages containing that image, and makes it impossible to remove the image once in place). In other words, a censorship policy. Maybe some people should go to that proposal's talk page and explain why it's not a good idea. Radiant_>|< 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Toby is more complicated than that - for one, it's opt-in, so images are only hidden from people who choose to have images hidden. Also, it's not forever - there's some complicated algorithm (Wikipedia:Toby/Do) that allows it to fade over time (or something like that, I don't quite get the idea). But do feel free to come comment on the proposal. ~~ N (t/c) 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Userbox

I know the big blue ribbon is already out there, but it's big so I made a userbox:

File:Blue ribbon.pngThis user supports Wikipedians against censorship

Tom 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, but it's really difficult to read the lettering against that shade of blue. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

File:Blue ribbon.pngThis user supports Wikipedians against censorship

How about this version? The image is a little smaller, making the box narrower from the top to bottom, which (at least on my display) allows the text to fill it more. The background is changed from blue to lightblue, and the text is bolded. --FOo 18:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks much better! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks , I would like to have a similiar version , in red colour and with a instead of the blue ribbon. Anyone could do this for me and others? Greetings MutterErde 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not I. That image is copyrighted, and we don't have permission to use it for that purpose -- neither from the creator, nor the model, nor from fair use / fair comment. --FOo 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And in any case, why the hell would I want gratuitous nudity on my user page? ~~ N (t/c) 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This user supports Wikipedians against censorship{{{info}}}

OK OK , it was only an idea . Greetings MutterErde 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would more appropriate for a different group, like Wikipedians for pornography, which is not what this group is. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A woman with gorgeous boobs is "pornography" ? Hey Man , what you are doing here ?

Are you a spy of the christian mullah crew ? Hang him !

MutterErde 06:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The light blue one definitely looks better. Tom 12:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at hogtie bondage. There are two users, one an admin, who is determined to keep certain images off of the page, that don't actually show anything but he has deemed them to be nudity, and has also decided that he doesn't want them there, dispite a lot of discussion on the subject, the vast majority against what he has done. There is also heaps of talk about how Wikipedia shouldn't have such images at all and is "G" rated and heaps of other censorship rubbish. The original material was on the page hogtie, and in all fairness it may have been an inappropriate place to have such images, but there is no mistaking what the subject hogtie bondage is on about, yet the images have been chopped. The admin says that the images arn't neccessary to the subject, citing that nudity is irrelivent to the subject, but the article explains that this is a sexual practise and so such images are to be expected. Anyway, can someone please take a look at the original version before the Admins edits and post their opions here and/or on it's discussion page because I really think this guy is pro censorship. --61.9.148.239 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be porn, but it's encyclopediedic. The Republican 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

About "porn", "crv" and more

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#I_expect_your_excuse

MutterErde 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The following comment was added on article by User:Paeris

They have try and censor on Doggy style. Help please.

Userbox v2

I have made a userbox easy for people to use.

{{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Thanks to whoever made it originally (I saw it somewhere an added it to my page, then improved on it and made it a real template, you inspired me. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Doggy style

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doggy_style&diff=prev&oldid=32040635

Editor is trying to remove nude image (that doesn't actually even show anything just is suggestive..), keeping only drawn pictures. Reasoning in Talk:Doggy style#Image is "Nobody has ever been offended by an orange, but many are offended by sexual photos" (User:Hedley).. I'm not involved in this but I thought I'd point out what the problem is in a more articulate way than the poor paniced newbie :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Project Template

I looked at the project templates I have for the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and for AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, and thought to myself ' why doesn't WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship have one of these?. ' So, I made one:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship This anti-censorship WikiProject includes opposition to censorship of materials which some may deem indecent, but which are nevertheless encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia. It also includes political censorship, such as efforts to remove information about political dissent or information useful to those opposing a particular group, person, or situation.

WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship

What do you think? I think the text could use a rewording. I just copied the project info from the project page because I couldn't think of what to put. Any ideas?

The template is {{Freespeech}}, if anybody would like to use it now.

That should have been a userbox, it's way too big. The Republican 20:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that TfD has now deleted this template; the appearance above is hardcoded into this page.

That should be a userbox. The Republican 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is. Template:User freespeech. Gerard Foley 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm sorry you did not feel the issue at Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights was worth of notice on the notice board. The notice board states:

This notice board is intended to inform members of the project of votes or other current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project. Please do not list articles in need of attention here, but rather votes for deletion, votes for policy change or other current and ongoing events which warrant the immediate attention of the member base of this WikiProject. Please remove notices when votes are closed, or the event is no longer current.

and this is clearly a question of policy change. I also respectfully disagree that the question is related to censorship. Censorship takes many forms, one of which hides itself as adminstrative privelige.

I am adding my notice to the talk section here, in case other members of this assoication feel that the issue is worth consideration. --BostonMA 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

30 Dec 2005

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [8], [9], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [10] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [11] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [12]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[13] --BostonMA 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC

I do see how the proposed policy could be indirectly related to censorship, but the connection seems weak at best. I imagine most of the people watching the notice board are more interested in issues directly related to Wikipedia censorship. Perhaps a better place to promote the policy would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kaldari 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)