[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as moral tool?

[geni]

On 6/6/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> It's not at all impossible. Detailed information about private people is harmful. Even >excessively detailed information about public figures. publishing private phone numbers of >celebrities is an obvious pain in the ass.

Such information is not encyclopedic.

> We don't need to know if George Bush has Herpes.

Until it becomes a political issue.

>People have a right to live without a spotlight turned on them.

Not under US law.

> Likewise detailed information about how to kill people is rather obviously harmful.

And yet there don't appear to be any shortage of self defence classes
or shooting galleries.

> None of the statements you made are true. Rough approximations may be arrived at with >respect to all 3.

Going by your above examples this would not appear to be the case.
Detailed information about how to kill can be used for good or ill.


> The question is whether dissemination of the information is useful or harmful.

"useful or harmful" is even worse since it fails to define who it is useful for.
-- 
geni