On 29/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn. Likewise, chances are low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an aircraft.
The chances that somebody will solely consult the wikipedia for prescription information is very low also. The chances that somebody will be vandalising the article at the same time is enormously lower still, and that the prescribing person doesn't notice that it has been vandalised is lower again.
Even if that happens, it cannot be said that it is the wikipedia is at fault. We do not condone vandalism, nor do we condone using information based solely on the wikipedia in life-threatening scenarios; and I don't think that any other encyclopedia is different in this.
This is a ridiculous over-reaction to something that has never happened in real life, and is extremely unlikely to occur, and even if it did happen would not be the responsibility, in any sensible way, of the wikipedia.
This is where the common sense comes in: some types of information are more likely than others, *in practice*, to be used in situations where someone can get hurt.
Is there such thing as a situation where somebody cannot get hurt?
And what about the potential uses of information that could save people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm.