QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 10th July 2009, 2:25pm)
Wikipedia is not censored.
I wish this would stop getting repeated as dogma. First of all, everybody can agree that "Today's Featured Article" *is* censored, since Raul has said (quite correctly) that he would never put [[Jenna Jameson]] there. For another thing, Wikipedia does from time to time make decisions based on good taste in its articles; for example, if a celebrity's lewd photographs cause a furor, and that gets mentioned in the article about that celebrity, the photos in question generally won't turn up there, even though their presence there would certainly clear the non-free content criteria. So yes, Wikipedia is, to a degree, censored, and there's nothing wrong with that. It could probably use slightly more, actually, though I suspect I'm still towards the libertarian end of the spectrum here.
Where does the line get drawn? I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to see a Shankbone photo as the TFA shot, even if it was unquestionably relevant to the scholarly article accompanying it. On the other hand, I'm not so much for leaving out photos of Mohammed because they're offensive to a good portion of the Earth's population (though I wouldn't really want them as the TFA shot, either, and I wish we'd just put the damned things in collapsible boxes as a courtesy to our readers). I have a hard time being offended by "Gropecunt Lane" -- they're
words for Christ's sake -- but I suppose it's somewhat arbitrary to say that my value system should be the prevailing one.
So I don't know to what extent Wikipedia should be censored, but it certainly should be. And thankfully, it is.