On 6/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
born secret may not be constitutional
For those that don't know what this means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret
"*Born secret*" and "*born classified*" are both terms which refer to a
policy of information being classifiedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Informationfrom the moment of its inception, usually regardless of where it was being created, usually in reference to specific laws in the United Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States .
This is a whole other can of worms that Geni touched on directly involved with Wikipedia ethics and morality. Something be illegal, unconstitutional, and/or culturally immoral or unethical in certain locales and jurisdictions. Which gets to decide which is appropriate for Wikipedia? Florida and United States law? The ethics, morality, and legalities of the most vocal Wikipedians? Or the ethics, morality, and legalities of the most Wikipedians with the highest number of users? If something is blatantly illegal, say, in Turkey or the United Kingdom, but not in the United States, what happens? What if something is considered patently immoral if not depraved in large sections of the United States, but editors from other countries (or parts of the US) want to include it?
I agree based on this with the idea that applying ethical or moral standards without neutrality in them--ethics and morality that favors no one or one ideological, religious, or political standpoint over anyone else--is not tenable.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com