This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
Wikileaks releases,
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
Wikipedia to
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our best sources is an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and
Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis
is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have
analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy
concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010
What?
Yours sincerely Princess Rebecca
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:27:52
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Reply-To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: foundation-l
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
Taking the nonexistence of an article
on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our best sources is
an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here
Perhaps we should write a guideline that editors should please wait with
the Wikileaks articles until there is secondary-source coverage, and that
they should sum up *that coverage* rather than the original document.
If Wikisource should decide they can host the original documents, it is
always
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I
was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York
Times
has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic
in detail but omits, say, the name and
Don't see an issue for this list:
1. The topic is apparently reliably sourced in that numerous credible
sources have discussed it and no credible source appears to claim it is a
hoax.
2. Legitimate is different from reliable - we may well cite from sources
that should not have come
I've seen editors -- editors which I respect -- argue for example that if
the terrorists beheading Iraqi hostages released Commons-licensed videos of
their beheadings, these would be suitable additions to Commons and the
biographies of the people concerned, per NOTCENSORED.
You might not see
I've seen editors -- editors which I respect -- argue for example that if
the terrorists beheading Iraqi hostages released Commons-licensed videos
of
their beheadings, these would be suitable additions to Commons and the
biographies of the people concerned, per NOTCENSORED.
You might not
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for
en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone,
but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste
Fred Bauder wrote:
[...]
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive
images, is inappropriate
[...]
Images of unveiled women are regarded as offensive by many. Should
we prohibit linking to or hosting them?
--
David Levy
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
-
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many
prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low
disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a
You may discover when you get to court that Justice Douglas cannot save
you...
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many
prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low
disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder
20 matches
Mail list logo
