On 4/19/07, Doc glasgow <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
There is a flaw in your moral relativism. Hijacking planes and slamming them
into buildings, lynching blacks, screwing pre-pubescent boys, and gassing
Jews have all be considered perfectly valid options by certain people in
certain cultural contexts. Would we list the methods by which one might do
such things in a morally-disinterested manner?
Certainly. Of course we would also list the techniques people have
found effective in preventing the above from happening
Is that what NPOV demands? Is
that responsible?
I think this falls under the security by obscurity debate.
Further, if it is wrong to limit information on
suicide because wikipedia is
culturally amoral, why should your proviso "without crippling yourself or
others" stand? It too is a value-judgement? Why not include methods that are
designed to cause maximum devastation?
We do [[kamikaze]].
Yes, policy says Wikipedia is 'not censored',
but our policies were never
intended to be 'suicide pacts' that had to be followed to their logical
conclusions no matter how absurd. Policy is no substitute for good
judgement. And anyone who thinks we can make decisions in wikipedia without
using 'subjectivity' just isn't living in the real world. Or perhaps they
want to programme bots to make content decisions....
Orphanbot has being doing that for ages.
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article
actually does give me
great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and
cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
It has been said that information is not intrinsically good or evil
but rather the use.
--
geni