Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically formatted information on notable subjects.

In the pursuit of completeness, Wikipedia includes truthful (sometimes "sensitive") information which can be considered as having possible uses which could be considered, illegal, immoral, unethical, or potentially harmful. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information; what people do with that information is entirely up to them and is either none of Wikipedia's concern or it is believed that the world is better overall for the information being available than if it were not. Wikipedia's ethos is to be informative. Also, trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information can be rather difficult; thus, making decisions based on such predictions in order to "protect" an entity is questionable.

Further, if Wikipedia was to censor on moral/ethical grounds, it would be necessary to choose a particular morality or code of ethics, but this would violate Wikipedia's neutrality; the furthest Wikipedia has gone in this area is WP:BLP, which is rather limited in scope. Just as Neutral Point of View requires a level of factual relativism in not favoring any one view as absolute truth, so is a level of moral relativism required in deciding when to omit content.

Policy proposals to censor on the aforementioned grounds have been made (and rejected) thrice; the seemingly perennial nature of such proposals inspired the writing of this essay.

Examples

 * Methamphetamine describes several ways of producing the illegal drug.
 * Rorschach test shows pictures of and gives popular responses to the test cards; such disclosure conflicts with the professional ethics of psychologists and has been alleged to indirectly harm future test subjects by undermining the test's effectiveness. Similarly, Snellen chart shows an image of the standard chart; memorizing the image ahead of time makes it possible to cheat on some eye tests.
 * AACS encryption key controversy provides an encryption key which could be used to break the DRM of home movies in violation of the DMCA or similar laws.
 * Inhalants describes the gases and solvents in household products that are inhaled to produce intoxication and the methods used to inhale these products.
 * Paywall mentions ways to circumvent paywalls; such circumvention is to the detriment of content producers and potentially violates their Terms of Service.
 * Articles on some politicians include unpleasant facts about them, which may harm their current/future political prospects.
 * Articles on some weapons such as improvised explosive devices or Molotov cocktails describe their designs and operating principles, which would be of aid to those wanting to make them.
 * Articles on sexuality include images, frank discussions, and detailed descriptions; some people find some of this immoral. (Covered more directly by WP:NOTCENSORED)
 * The Mousetrap reveals (without a "spoiler warning" per se) the play's twist ending, possibly harming the enjoyment of some when actually watching the play, and despite the rights-owner's wishes. (Covered more directly by WP:SPOILER.)
 * Articles on medicine may be imperfect; those who have not read our medical disclaimer may have excessive trust in such articles and use them to seek medical advice.
 * The Münchausen syndrome article can be used by would-be sufferers in preparing to fake having that problem.
 * Hypochondriacs reading articles on medical problems may become convinced they suffer from those problems and seek unnecessary tests or treatment.
 * Suicide methods contains details on methods used to commit suicide, which may encourage people suffering from depression to do so.
 * Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad include depictions of these religious figures; some Bahá'ís and Muslims consider such depictions immoral. (See also WP:Wikipedia is not aniconistic)

Exceptions
Information which has ethical, moral, or legal implications has been and can be validly excluded on other sound policy-based grounds, primarily WP:Verifiability. This is why most exclusion policy proposals are arguably policy creep; if information is solidly verifiable, then it's already "out there" in the reliable source. All removing the information from Wikipedia does is make it less accessible; it does not magically obliterate it from existence, and determined people can still find it. And if it's not in a reliable source, then mere lack of verifiability already justifies its removal. Building on verifiability, WP:BLP requires a high standard of verifiability in articles about living people, so as to avoid libel. These exceptions do not contradict the position espoused in this essay because unverified information is of uncertain truth value and thus does not contribute towards making the encyclopedia more informative.