Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia Uncensored


 * The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created

Description
WikiProject Uncensored would be a WikiProject for editors who want to collaborate on articles of a more risqué nature, including culturally sensitive and even taboo topics. Editors could also collaborate on articles related to illegal substances, sexually explicit content, or other topics that one might be otherwise embarrassed to edit. Having a group of editors dedicated to tackling these topics would improve articles that individuals, acting alone, might be intimated to revise. This group would be a reminder that Wikipedia is not censored. If Wikipedia is truly meant to be the sum of all human knowledge, then we need editors who are willing to create and improved content about all topics. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
 * 1) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
There seem to me to be a number of active WikiProjects dealing with topics of this sort already. Can you point out any specific topic areas which you think this proposal would deal with which aren't adequately dealt with by one or more extant projects? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of a "Today's article for improvement" sort of project where editors decide to collaborate on a specific article each week (or other time interval). One week it might be latent homosexuality, the next speedball, followed by phone sex... etc. Or even more "embarrassing" topics like douche or wart or male lactation. Sure, all of these articles are already tagged by other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Medicine or WikiProject Sexuality, but I just thought that having a group dedicated to improving articles about these sorts of topics might reduce editors' hesitation to work on these topics on their own. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, like TAFI, this project would not be tagging tons of article talk pages with "WikiProject Wikipedia Uncensored" banners. It would probably have a banner similar to Template:Former TAFI to designate which articles have been created or improved by the group. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I'm sympathetic to the idea, and has presented the case well, I find a few issues here. First, that Wikipedia is not censored is one of our most well known policies. We hardly need a "reminder" of that. In fact, we are reminded of the policy quite frequently in consensus seeking discussions. Sometimes those reminders are appropriate, and sometimes misguided. But I don't think it would benefit the encyclopedia to have a group of editors who are publicly declaring their willingness to trump-card discussions with "but Wikipedia is not censored!" – that amounts to a divisive cabal like the deletionists and inclusionists. Further, I think most experienced editors familiar with their subject matters are already used to e.g. watching problematic pages and thwart any efforts at censorship. These subject matters are varied (as pointed out by Another Believer) and I find it more likely that editors want to organized themselves in WikiProjects that center around these topics, rather than anti-censorship attitude. While TAFI is a great example of collaboration, it's virtually the only one that has sustained itself. Collaborations on Wikipedia tend to die out very quickly, especially if niche (such as the one suggested here; cf. the completely opposite catch-all attitude of TAFI). (ping ) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think maybe in this instance one of the best ways to go might be to find reference sources which relate directly to the areas you are considering and get together lists of the topics they cover. I think most of us would agree that material in reference works probably merits at least consideration for inclusion somewhere here, regardless of the nature of the reference work, and having a good idea as to what such works exist, what they cover, and what they specifically say, might be one of the more productive ways to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose This really sounds more like an area of personal interest an editor might like to explore than a WikiProject, per se. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.