On 4/16/07, gjzilla(a)gmail.com <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Do you want to be "responsible" or write an
informative encyclopedia?
I don't know about anyone else, but I want both.
Keep in mind, if you choose the first option, what
will we exclude,
exactly? [[Suicide-by-cop]]? [[69 (sex position)]], because someone
might read it and want to do it, and then get an STD and die? Or
perhaps [[atheism]], because some think that if you don't believe, you
will go to [[hell]]? (That's surely worse than suicide.)
None of those sound like a "how to" to me. [[Suicide by cop]] seems
the most borderline of the bunch, but if it sticks to describing the
method in fiction and in history then I don't think it's
irresponsible.
[[Suicide methods]], now at least renamed to [[suicide method]], is
quite different. I do think an encyclopedic treatment of the topic
could be made, covering methods of suicide in history and in fiction,
but if it were done I think it'd fit better under the title
[[suicide]].
What I'm saying is, people can get this info from
other places online
(i.e. alt.suicide.holiday). Maybe, if we write a fair, non-glorifying
article on suicide methods, then we might save someone's life. Maybe
*that* is more "responsible" than simply driving a kid to those other
places.
Maybe. But I thought you didn't care about being responsible.
An article on how to commit suicide is, in my opinion, irresponsible,
regardless of whether or not there are other such guides already on
the Internet. But it also has no place in an encyclopedia.
I'd say redirect to [[suicide]], possibly merging some materials if
they can be made to fit.
Anthony