On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:22:04 -0700, Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia(a)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?
--
Richard Grevers
File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)