Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Gavin Chait wrote:
>Take this a little further, though. A "guide" to
terrorism (or rape
for
>that matter) exposes how the "trick"
is performed
and so allows others to
>come up with strategies to combat that act.
>
>The question, of course, is whether or not that
ups the game. Every new
>computer virus that comes out has to get
through
an ever more sophisticated
>set of virus scanners and so there is an
evolutionary process.
>
>But the terrorist attack of September 11 already
upped that game. Surely it
>is helpful to know how terrorists and other
nutcases plan their attacks so
>that we, who are not homicidal, can at least
have
some insight into how the
other side
thinks?
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this
matter. I would like to
point out, however, that it is opinions like this
that seem to encourage
this type of content to remain, and is at odds
with
what Jimbo seems to
have been saying that this should be deleted
immediately without even a
VfD vote as a form of vandalism. This is exactly
the dilemma that I'm
facing right now, to completely ignore opinions
like this one above or
to take it into consideration to form a community
concensus.
>
Perhaps another way to approach this is with
requirements on verifiablity. If Wikibooks poclicy
would limit itself to information that is verifiable
by reputable sources (of course that would need to be
defined)and not just randomly found on the internet
that would cut out alot of this material. I also
think that policy would have very little collteral
damage on the information you do want, although I am
not familar enough with the scope of Wikibooks to be
sure of that.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around