[WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

[Jimmy Wales]

Richard Grevers wrote:
> Ok then, consider a parallel case: For many years, the Encyclopedia 
> Brittanica contained quite detailed information on the extraction of 
> opitates from poppies (it may still do for all I know, but the only copy I 
> have access to is 1970's) - probably enough for someone to be able to 
> replicate it. Or perhaps the case of chemical recipies for explosives - 
> should Wikipedia, in the interests of being NPOV and encyclopedic, include 
> these?

Yes, I think so.  There might be some practical reasons to refrain in
some cases, i.e. if a legal battle which threatened the future of the
project seemed likely, then a tough decision would have to be made as to
the best course of action.  But that's highly unlikely.

> Some information is suppressed for the "public good". In fact the 
> scope of information that is suppressed is one of the key determinants of 
> whether we regard a particular political environment as being "free" or 
> not. -- Richard Grevers

Hopefully, wikipedia works in the service of the free flow of
information as much as we can.

--Jimbo