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