On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:22:04 -0700, Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu gave utterance to the following:
Richard Grevers wrote in part:
Some information is suppressed for the "public good".
Hmm ... who here believes that suppressing anatomical photographs of genitals is in fact in the "public good"? I guess LittleDan -- who else?
I don't - although if their inclusion results in W being banned from schools etc then it becomes debatable as to whether inclusion is in Wikipedia's best interests.
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.
I vote to keep Wikipedia "free". ^_^
Well in the "free" United States since recent regulations, if someone posted information that certain agencies decided were an aid to terrorists, could not those agencies arrest Jimbo for refusing to disclose information on the user who posted it?