Brian, would you be willing to draft something (maybe on a subpage of your userspace) that we could all look at? I think it would be easier to discuss/debate something that is already formulated than to philosophize without a clear idea of what, exactly, other people are referring to.
Joe, here is at least a rough draft of what I am thinking. Let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Policy reformulation: The Citizendium community does not tolerate content with needlessly explicit language or images.
(I am not married to this formulation; if anyone has a better idea, please let me know. The above is linked to a page with the text below, and I want to emphasize that the specific content proposals below are merely my suggestions that I think are in line with our general principles and, importantly, the reading level of our articles-- i.e., our offensive content policy should not be written (as our current one seems to be) on the assumption that there are going to be elementary or even middle school students reading unadulterated Citizendium articles)
New Policy Page-In including potentially offensive material in Citizendium articles, it is always prudent to proceed cautiously. If you suspect that material you want to include in a Citizendium article is too explicit, don't barge ahead and put it in without asking for editorial say-so. Citizendium contributors are encouraged to be bold in almost everything, but being cautious about the amount of explicit content on our site will help us reach the largest number of readers.
The inclusion of explicit material is a matter for editorial oversight, and only approved articles are permitted to have explicit material. Subject-area editors will have the final say on whether explicit material merits inclusion in the approved article.
In the case of explicit language, authors should place the text they would have in the main article in context on the talk page (with asterisks?-- BL). The procedure for images is basically the same, but to guard against unapproved offensive images being accessible from Citizendium, authors are kindly requested to keep such images off-site until they are to be placed in an approved article.
(Subjecting explicit content subject to editorial oversight will help assure the educational community that we are trying to be responsible. And until we get more editors, it will also have the effect that almost no explicit material makes its way to the main namespace of the site)
More seriously, putting explicit material in articles without editorial approval will be considered an act of vandalism.
Specific Content Areas*
Explicit or profane language. Citizendium's articles should be written professionally and article text should not include explicit or profane language. There are a small number of cases, however, where explicit or profane language is acceptable in an article in the context of a quotation or the discussion of a term, word or phrase. Inclusion of such material in an approved article is subject to editorial approval, and contributors are requested to draft two versions of their article: one on the main page (with the offensive language omitted) and one on the talk page (with the offensive language in context). This is in order to make life easier for our editors: when approving the article, the editor can decide whether the explicit language is necessary for a full and fair treatment of the subject at hand, and then simply pick one of the already-written texts as the approved text of the article.
*
Images with explicit sexual content. Articles discussing human sexuality do not need to be illustrated by photographs. Art History articles with sexual content may be justified, but there needs to be a compelling reason for having such images on-site. As with language, no sexually explicit images should ever be placed in unapproved articles, and proposed images should be linked from the talk page-- not uploaded to the site.
*
Images with graphic violence. Generally speaking, there is little justification for graphically violent or gory images on Citizendium. Murder, genocide and other atrocities are sufficiently awful when described verbally, and there is not a strong need to have pictures on-site. There are reasons for article illustrations to be horrifying, but they should not be graphically violent. However, authors who feel they have exceptions to this guideline are encouraged to follow the above process, and take it up with their editors on the talk pages.
Issues I have not addressed:
I have not spelled out just what language (what precise words) is subject to editorial control. Should we assume that our authors will censor themselves in egregious cases?
The other side of the issue is that if we were try to legislate just what words are permitted, permitting 'bitch' and 'ass' (e.g.), as does American broadcast television, we might be opening the door for some genuinely offensive material which is not technically in violation of our guidelines.
What are we to do about subjects where it is virtually impossible to treat a topic without using potentially offensive language?
I am thinking of gangsta rap, and the host of articles that could be legitimately written about profane topics (individual curse words, profanity in the US and UK, and so on).
Much the same issue is involved in trying to figure out just how many articles we should have on human sexuality, and just which topics we should cover. Are there articles we should exclude from Citizendium, up front?
One idea would be to stipulate that when dealing with potentially offensive subjects, the creation of specialized articles should lag behind broader ones. I.e., we should create an article on 'Hip hop' before we start in on 'gangsta rap.'
Thanks,
Brian
