On 6/5/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
I have to say I completely disagree with that.
Maybe these things can't
be
quantified numerically, but I don't think
we'll ever live in a society
which
can handle giving all information to all people.
I forget who it was
that
said it, but someone in here mentioned that
Wikipedia is fortunate to be
constrained by certain external forces (mostly laws) which discourage us
from truly printing every fact known to man. I'll add that Wikipedia's
policy against original research and in favor of using reliable sources
saves us from considering a lot more bad ideas. I'd hate to see some of
the
arguments that would go on without these
constraints.
NOR and RS are to do with the information being correct not it's
relation to good or evil.
Right, but you're missing my point. NOR and RS aren't rules that we follow
to protect people's privacy, but they do have that positive side-effect.
The true information is generally legally fairly safe under US law
exceptions would be
There is stuff that is obscene.
Stuff that violates someone's IP
Perhaps born secret stuff.
Under certain conditions information the foundation itself collected
Under certain conditions trade secrets
Stuff that can't be released due to court orders?
Probably a couple of other things I've missed
For the most part the law has little effect on what we want to do.
That's a pretty long list in itself. I think U.S. law combined with the NOR
and reliable source rules adequetely eliminate the vast majority of the
undesirable information that might otherwise be in Wikipedia. But I'm much
more on the open access side than most people.