According to these policies, Wikipedia imposes certain restrictions on freedom of speech, even though Wikipedia is not censored. Are any changes to these policies necessary, and is it possible for these policies to coexist without contradicting each other? Jarble (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not restricting anyone's free speech, since we're not preventing them from discussing their opinions elsewhere. We are limiting what they can say on the project that may be harmful (like BLP issues), but that's neither censoring or interfering with their free speech since the Foundation only controls what content is happening on WP. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED appears to be a misleading title, since Wikipedia's deletion policies specifically allow various types of censorship, including speedy deletion of various types of content by administrators.Jarble (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not censorship. We are not preventing you for speaking your mind elsewhere. There's just certain things we will not host. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be consistent with the usual definition of censorship, since content is actually being removed from Wikipedia according to various criteria. Jarble (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But WP's removal of material doesn't prevent you from using any other website to post that information; we just don't want it posted here. Censorship would require us to be working with all online sites on a massive scale to prevent information from being posted, and that's certainly not what is happening. --MASEM (t)

No. Is this a trick question? Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because both are talking about very different things. WP:NOTFREESPEECH focuses on user behavior and simply means that you can't say anything you want on Wikipedia. This ranges from hoaxes, soapboxing/advertising, personal attacks or other forms of harassment towards other users. WP:NOTCENSORED is strictly limited to article content. So long as the content is verifiable by a published, reliable source, isn't undue weight or original research, an otherwise meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards, it cannot be removed from an article on the bases that it is "dangerous", "offensive", or otherwise objectionable. —Farix (t | c) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite exactly. Mind you, there can be some instances of clash between the policies (e.g. in BLPs we sometimes do not include sourced information out of concerns of privacy for the BLP subject -that is, the information is dangerous/objectionable, and thus one could say we censor it). But on average the difference stands.--cyclopia^speak! 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I found this to fall through is in the case of spelling with or without diacritics. I'm not talking about titling, I'm talking content anywhere in an article. Once a title spelling is agreed upon by consensus (let's use a non-diacritic spelling for argument sake), we are "not allowed" to mention anywhere in the rest of the article any alternate diacritic spelling, no matter the amount of sourcing, no matter if the diacritic spelling is used 90% of the time. This is applied vice-versa also. I'm not saying this is Wikipedia's direct policy so it's easy for Wikipedia to stand back and say "we don't have anything like that in our policies", but through rfc's and guidelines Wikipedia indirectly supports it. It's a done deal... cannot be mentioned in any article. I assume if this pocket of excising exists then others like it might exists too that simply haven't been brought to our attention. So while Wikipedia proper may not censor, by allowing its editors and administrators complete freedom to do what they want, an article or broad spectrum of articles/topics may not contain all the info they could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again? Fyunck's oft-WP:CANVASSED conviction that spelling "foreign" tennis players' names with non basic fonts constitutes "censorship" of "their English names" (i.e. having Björn Borg is "censoring" the "English name" found on Wimbledon's wooden scoreboards) has been put to the test twice at WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 with WP:SNOW results both times. Spelling tennis players in line with every other bio on en.wp does not constitute "censorship". Fyunck, long past time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a warning in the WP:NOTADVERTISING section about crowdfunding (Kickstarter and Indiegogo) since their use has become very prevalent? Talk:Kickstarter#Kickstarter_as_a_source_in_articles states that a reference to the crowdfunding webpage shouldn't be included in an article until AFTER the funding period had ended. Thoughts? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a rule, its one editor making a suggestion, having a brief discussion with few people, and then giving up on it. There is nothing wrong with referencing the page someone is mentioned is getting funding from. [1] Dream Focus 22:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KS pages and the like should be treated as WP:SPS - they're fine as sources alongside third-party and secondary sources, but alone will appear promotional and primary, insufficient to support an article. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about them being used to establish the notability of an article. We're talking about articles mentioning they got funding from them, that something relevant that should be included in the article. Nothing wrong with linking to the primary source for the information. If we mention someone got a grant of money from the government, we can have a reference linking to official government webpage confirming that information. Same way with referencing an official announcement on a website for a notable award. Dream Focus 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a perfectly legit reason to use KS as long as other sources establish notability and/or importance. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is allowed general discussion on article talks, but suddenly only when you seen in the main article. --Allen ^Talk 03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people have used the WP:WINC redirect ... people generally use one of the 4 redirects listed in that section. Anyone mind if I steal it for Wikimedia North Carolina? (This wasn't my idea, btw, members have asked for it.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the WINC shortcut only has about 10-some uses [2] so it would seem reasonable to reuse it for the NC project, as long as the above cases are relinked appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gets almost no hits either [3] (3 in 90 days is indistinguishable from background noise), but a hatnote at the new target would be a good thing in case there are human users. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some problem with WP:WMNC? VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... "Wikimedia" isn't a unanimous choice (I don't have a preference). Also, WMNC is unpronounceable as an acronym. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]