User talk:SHB2000/Censorship

Hi. We need to discuss this before you propose to go live with it. One thing to look at is avoid negative reviews. Also, since we don't show thumbnails of everything, it absolutely makes sense to be selective and avoid using boring or ugly images when enough better ones are available to illustrate the page sufficient under the Image policy guidelines. As for whether to censor license plates in an image or not, that debate is quite contentious and I think it should remain on Wikimedia Commons. I wonder whether it might be better not to have this kind of page on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to put this up for the pub for feedback. It's still a work in progress so I'll see what more I can add before getting feedback from the pub. SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, I was actually inspired to create this page because of this SHB2000 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand, but that kind of thing is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion. In practice, we censor a bunch of stuff because (a) it's off-topic; (b) it's touting; (c) it violates the sex tourism or illegal activities policies; (d) it's got a rude or overly crude tone; (e) it's boring or unnecessarily ugly. I'd really rather not go live with this topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have a few reasons for thinking we might be better without this page:
 * Factuality. How is removing content per the sex tourism policy not censorship? I think censorship is exactly what it is. And that's ok.
 * The page says that removing inappropriate images would be an example of the censorship (that WV would not practise). Why would we keep inappropriate images??
 * I have seen a number of Wikipedia articles that contain what I consider to be gratuitous profanity - it seems to be allowed because it is contained within quotations, even though it is incidental to the point being made. And if one tries to paraphrase the content to remove the gratuitous profanity, it may be reverted on the basis that "Wikipedia is not censored", which in my view, is a misapplication of WP's censorship guideline, but it's not easy to argue against it. My concern for WV is that if we adopt a guideline that WV is not censored, it could be used to justify keeping expression that is objectionable, and unnecessarily so for a travel guide. If we had an anti-censorship guideline before we had the sex tourism policy, the latter may have been resisted on the basis that "we don't censor". I think WV strikes a balance between being family-friendly and not prudish (do we?) - at least that's what I think we should aim for. I wouldn't like us to be blocked by (reasonable) parental internet filters.
 * In summary, I agree with Ikan - we do moderate and appropriate censorship and that's ok. We're flying the flag of travel, not the flag of libertarian free expression. So I think we're doing ok without a censorship guideline. Nurg (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose moving this to the project space. It's inaccurate (for instance, our sex tourism policy is a form of censorship) and really unnecessary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)