> 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l