On 14 May 2003 23:04:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)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)