[WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

[The Cunctator]

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 17:57, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Richard-
> > 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?
> 
> Depends on whether they cross the threshold of potential legal liability.
> 
> > Some information is suppressed for the "public good".
> 
> This is wrong. Censorship will never increase the public good. Those who  
> desire the information in question to do harm will find channels through  
> which they can obtain it, since they are already willing to commit a  
> crime. Meanwhile, those who need the information in order to prevent harm  
> will have difficulty finding it.
> 
> The only forms of censorship Wikipedia should abide by are those demanded  
> by United States law (or the respective local equivalents for the  
> international Wikipedias).

That is one view. As a practical matter, there's a lot of censorship
that, if removed, would lead to harm at least in the short term. The
less censorship, the more complicated the situation. And in a world with
some reliance on secrecy (such as of monetary information) there needs
to be some censorship.

I agree that long term and in general society would benefit from minimal
censorship, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be the one caught in
the bind of having information valuable to me being in the wrong hands.

All this is better discussed in Transparent Society, by the way.