On 14 May 2003 23:04:00 +0200, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de gave utterance to the following:
You're missing my point. My point is that, from an NPOV perspective, sexually explicit content is no different than any other content. It may offend some people, it may be desired by other people. Singling out sexualy explicit content for filtering would be a POV decision on our part, as we would be explicitly supporting filtering in this instance, but in no other. If we implement any filtering, it should be applicable to all types of content.
Ok then, consider a parallel case: For many years, the Encyclopedia Brittanica contained quite detailed information on the extraction of opitates from poppies (it may still do for all I know, but the only copy I have access to is 1970's) - probably enough for someone to be able to replicate it. Or perhaps the case of chemical recipies for explosives - should Wikipedia, in the interests of being NPOV and encyclopedic, include these? Some information is suppressed for the "public good". 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. -- Richard Grevers File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)