[Foundation-l] Adult and Illegal content on Wikimedia projects

[Ray Saintonge]

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