On 4/17/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/07, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
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.
I agree entirely with this as a statement of principle.
Turning to the case at hand, I think that the article on methods
should be merged into the main article on suicide. That way we can
continue to present factual content in an informative manner. But we
will also be able to present the information in context, in an article
which already discusses reasons for suicide, the impact of suicide and
a range of views on suicide. This is a responsible way to present this
information.
I should say that there is substantial room for improvement in both articles.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com