On 6/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I have to say I completely disagree with that. Maybe these things can't
be
quantified numerically, but I don't think we'll ever live in a society
which
can handle giving all information to all people. I forget who it was
that
said it, but someone in here mentioned that Wikipedia is fortunate to be constrained by certain external forces (mostly laws) which discourage us from truly printing every fact known to man. I'll add that Wikipedia's policy against original research and in favor of using reliable sources saves us from considering a lot more bad ideas. I'd hate to see some of
the
arguments that would go on without these constraints.
NOR and RS are to do with the information being correct not it's relation to good or evil.
Right, but you're missing my point. NOR and RS aren't rules that we follow to protect people's privacy, but they do have that positive side-effect.
The true information is generally legally fairly safe under US law
exceptions would be
There is stuff that is obscene. Stuff that violates someone's IP Perhaps born secret stuff. Under certain conditions information the foundation itself collected Under certain conditions trade secrets Stuff that can't be released due to court orders? Probably a couple of other things I've missed
For the most part the law has little effect on what we want to do.
That's a pretty long list in itself. I think U.S. law combined with the NOR and reliable source rules adequetely eliminate the vast majority of the undesirable information that might otherwise be in Wikipedia. But I'm much more on the open access side than most people.