On 4/16/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn. Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
I agree. Wikipedia is not a free-speech zone. It's a project to create an encyclopedia, one that needs a sense of responsibility commensurate with its popularity.
Sarah