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