[WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>
>>> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
>>> an A-Bomb.  Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press
>>> won't
>>> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
>>> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does
>>> so,
>>> because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that
>>> this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world.
>>
>> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
>> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
>> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
>> will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea
>> fizzles.
>>
>> That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And
>> that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff.
>
> I think it is far more likely that it's because we just don't _have_ the
> detailed information that'd be needed to make an atomic bomb work. I'm
> sure you don't really think that North Korea would go to Wikipedia for
> that information, though. And anything that detailed would be more
> suitable for WikiHow or WikiSource anyway.
>
> Perhaps a more grounded-in-reality example of an article that has
> information that causes "harm" is the [[AACS encryption key
> controversy]], which contains a cryptographic key that the movie
> industry claimed was a secret vital to their business that shouldn't be
> revealed. It's not directly a life or limb thing but economic harm is
> harm nonetheless.

The problem with that one was that it was already all over, although I
don't think we should have had it even then. Each of these is different,
mainly in how widespread the information is already.

Fred