On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Sage Ross wrote:
This is very different from Brian Peppers. The rich
body of research
on these tests (too much for anyone to easily digest) actually points
to the need for a Wikipedia-style summary of the relevant data. It's
one thing to say that the general public shouldn't be exposed to that
data arbitrarily; it's quite another to say that it should be kept
from people who are searching for it (which is how people end up
reading the Wikipedia article on it).
That doesn't seem to be a relevant difference. In both cases, the argument
is being made that putting it on Wikipedia isn't causing any harm because
there are other places on the Internet where it can be found. That argument
stands or fails in both cases. It clearly fails for Peppers.
There is no question that the information about the
tests is important
and valuable knowledge (whether the tests themselves are clinically
useful is another matter). In contrast to Brian Peppers, here the
argument is that the info should be removed *because* it's important
and valuable.
In both cases, the argument is being made that harm will be caused by people
seeing it. (In other words, that it is harmful because it is valuable to
the people who use Wikipedia.)