Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship
GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"
The far more popular myth is the one that says that you have right to publish your opinion. To have your views be forced upon others, and that you have a right to know any and all things. Since you seem to be a consitutional lawyer, please show me using ONLY the language within the actual constitution the wording that forces any of those organizations I mentioned to publish your words. Stop making the term cheap by use of semantics in order to push the overblow imaginary "right to knonw" and publish an opinion.
Your post is funny but it's even more hilarious someone modded you offtopic. That tag just shouldn't exist on Slashdot.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"