Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Gavin Chait wrote:
Take this a little further, though. A
"guide" to terrorism (or rape for
that matter) exposes how the "trick" is performed and so allows others to
come up with strategies to combat that act.
The question, of course, is whether or not that ups the game. Every new
computer virus that comes out has to get through an ever more sophisticated
set of virus scanners and so there is an evolutionary process.
But the terrorist attack of September 11 already upped that game. Surely it
is helpful to know how terrorists and other nutcases plan their attacks so
that we, who are not homicidal, can at least have some insight into how the
other side thinks?
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter. I would like to
point out, however, that it is opinions like this that seem to encourage
this type of content to remain, and is at odds with what Jimbo seems to
have been saying that this should be deleted immediately without even a
VfD vote as a form of vandalism. This is exactly the dilemma that I'm
facing right now, to completely ignore opinions like this one above or
to take it into consideration to form a community concensus.
As I understand the US law it is not illegal to tell people how to make
bombs; it is only illegal to tell them thst those bombs can be used for
terrorist activities. (As if that would be tough for a terrorist to
figure out!) It would be perfectly legal to tell readers that they
could use those bombs to blow up a stump in their own back yards; it's
up to the person wanting to do that to find out about lacal ordinances
that forbid loud noises at 2:00 a.m. Approaches to this kind of issue
should be consistent both before and after a spectacular success for
terrorism. A lot of the activity following 9/11 is consistent with
closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Those who are good
at terrorism will have the gift of imagination and surprise; they are
unlikely to try the same trick twice; they don't need bomb making
lessons from the Wiki.
The problems with such an article is more likely to be in its effect on
the copycats and other unprofessional idiots. They are the last ones to
whom we would want to give ideas; some of them were so busy pushing
their issues that they flunked their chemistry class.
I am not personally involved in Wikibooks, so I'm not about to push my
policy views there, but I would be inclined to exclude such material on
the basis that it does more harm than good. At the same time I believe
in the importance of the community to Wikis. A community leader (and
Robert's regular comments in this mailing list suggest that he is such a
leader in Wikibooks) needs to exercise skills at building consensus, and
also needs to be able to override community opinion when he feels that
there is an important enough matter of principle at stake. When he does
that he needs to face the inevitable flak.
Calling on Jimbo to decide on something is a cop-out. It's a sad
admission that the community isn't strong enough to settle its own
problems. It is strategically unsound for a general to micromanage
local battles.
Ec