Wikipedia talk:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page

Article

When I argue that Wikipedia is censored because there is no pornography on the Main Page, I have been told more than once that WP:CENSORED doesn't apply to the Main Page because it says "article" and the Main Page is not an "article". So this argument should be mentioned in reverse, when Main Page censorship is discussed. Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it's already there. Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowdlerizing

This essay doesn't mention the bowdlerization of objectionable content, such as the replacement of some letters with inoffensive alternatives, as in F**k, sh-t or d_mn. Is such a stance supportable? I don't think so. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"less reliable, less accurate and less neutral"

I hear this repeatedly yet I fail to see how more explicit imagery improves reliability and accuracy. As for neutrality, it seems to me neutrality would involve being found in the median area of respected, widely distributed encyclopedias with respect to the display of explicit imagery as opposed to near the fringe like Wikipedia is.Bdell555 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who gets to choose what is censored?

Presumably if the main page is censored to avoid offending people, that means no pictures of women with their faces exposed can be shown, or are we censoring based on (a certain subset of) western values only? --81.149.74.231 (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely why there should be no censorship, full stop.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure either of you read the content of the essay. Should there be a quiz given to test for reading comprehension? Hmm. Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Which basically boils down to a "my censorship is the only good censorship" argument. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The alternative could be similarly oversimplified to "no reverting". Art LaPella (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The what should relate to the why. The why is presumably that we do not wish to turn users away from the site because e.g. they are worried they'd unintentionally be exposed to things that would be inconvenient to them - either because it is strongly repulsive to them personally (particularly relevant for images in practice), or because they are browsing the site in the company of others in a certain setting.

The what could then be deduced by the community either through consensus or voting based on the why rationale. If voting is unsuccessful and no consensuses are established, then we'd just continue as before.

A similar argument goes for whether or not certain types of images should require explicit interaction from the user in order to be shown within articles (which would not be censorship in the strictest meaning of the word as long as it is still easy for any user to view the images in question). --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Already censored

The main page is already "censored" in that not all content is "worthy" of being displayed. Not every article can go in TFA's spot (and there is a bias about which articles can actually ever become FAs because of the process), there are rules about how much of the DYK/ITN sections can be related to America, etc.

Gasp. Content is not added at random! WHO IS DOING ALL THIS CENSORING AND WHY.

Maybe there should be a section about this aspect in this essay? Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this essay talk page due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Jimbo

Figured some of you may like this related quote from Jimbo on NSFW images: "In all parts of the world, there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first - and with perfectly good and non-horrible reasons." May be worth working into the essay somehow. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)