Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ron Ritzman]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.

> Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.

In this situation, perhaps it was thought it would work better if it
looked like just another "wiki squabble" over sources. We have plenty
of those but "office actions" are rare.

"Hey, those idiots at Wikipedia can't even decide on whether or not
this kidnapping's notable. He's just a shmoe, let him go".

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Gerard]

2009/6/30  :

> Was there rationale given for the stifling ?  That's the issue.  If it's
> reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
> given for why?


You keep saying it was reported by Al Jazeera. It wasn't.


- d.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Andrew Gray]

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard :

> The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you
> that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is;
> the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors
> will back-off.

> That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less
> sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those
> grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO
> that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually
> behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.

Yeah. I think in many ways that we're seeing a case here of a fairly
reasonable judgement call being defended by quite slipshod means. (I
could see myself having done the same thing). If we had people more
confident to *say* "this is a judgement call, there are Serious
Things", and a community more willing to trust established users to
say that and not be playing tricks...

...well, we'd have a different community. But it'd be one where this
sort of situation would be more likely to play out without abuse of
"the rules" to get the intended result.

I guess, as you note above, we could probably see more use of OTRS in
a future situation; a way to note that the problem's been looked at by
someone generally-trusted, that there's something that probably
shouldn't be poked too hard, and please could people leave it there or
ask discreetly for details.

This is, on the other hand, not something that has historically proved
popular to codify. Hmm.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
> Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list?  This is not an abstract
> referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
> discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim.  To
> the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards
> the safety and fate of others like him.

1) There were ways to suppress the information without breaking Wikipedia
rules, such as OFFICE.  It could be argued that this still endangers lives,
but to a *much* smaller degree.
2) In most cases (and in pretty much all cases which don't involve a
well-connected person) we wouldn't suppress the information to protect
lives--we'd publish it.  The exact same arguments that are used here would
be considered speculative and lacking in proof if anyone else tried them.
3) Giving in to kidnappers like this could help one person, but endanger the
safety of more people in the future.  It's like how paying ransom can save
a person, but also makes it more likely kidnappers would kidnap more people.
What do we do if terrorists learn from this and start making other demands
on us? 


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

> George wrote:

> My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
> eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
> ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
> islamic terrorists.  I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
> way and I hope and think that they're right.
>

The first thing that Muslim world news orgs would have to do in that regard
is to stop calling terrorists "jihadis" or "jihadist organizations."  Both
Muslim and Western world sources use "jihad" incorrectly in reference to
Islamic terrorism:

1) In Muslim context, the word "jihad" has positive meaning.The word
"muharib" or "hirabis" on the other hand connote barbarianism, piracy,
vandalism, and uncleanliness (spiritual) etc. (AIUI).

2) The West in fact uses "jihad" in an ironic way -- to highlight
Muslim-world conventional usage of the term as being supportive and even
praising of murder.

Hence there is a sort of a dualistic game going on wherein both sides are
abusive of the terminology.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

stevertigo wrote:

> > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> > officials
>

George Herbert  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM,
wrote:


> The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
> professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
> it.  They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
> them kidnapped before.
>
> I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
> they know perfect.
>

What's would make us "presume" that they know better? In fact your'e
comparing the management of a small newspaper to the staff of a very large
encyclopedia. It appears that you give great credit to management.

> 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact,
> makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future.
>
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.


And thus, if they have not the Google, nor the Wikipedia, why then black
them out?

That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
> Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
> after they're generally disclosed.


[Citation needed]


> Government intelligence agency and
> military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.
>

Seems this can be abstracted a bit to general social cognition concepts and
might remain true. But abstraction will probably reveal different dimensions
to the concept that you have perhaps "hardened" into a idea about government
intelligence.

A near-contradiction of terms, by the way.

> 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> > Western news orgs claim to follow?
>


> I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile.


The point being that it draws a seriously subjective distinction between
certain news orgs and others, in as far as how they deal with
extra-journalistic modes of operation that overlap or circumuvent journalism
itself.

Ostensibly, blacking out reportage of war crimes also "saves lives" too --
not the lives of the people in the conflict, but the lives of the soldiers
who happen to be associated with the hellbound jerks who committed the
crimes. The continued blackout of Iraq abuse photos qualifies. In reality
its a bit subjective. Not that anyone wants to actually see the photos --
its just that censorship of evidence of factual events deviates from our
understanding of human history.

Just to correct Mark (?) Al Jazeera at first did report it, but then joined
the blackout after being contacted by NYT.  An archived version of Al
Jazeera's story would have sufficed as a source, and bypassed their
blackout. This is all trying to deal a bit with Wales' point that if a less
illegitimate news source reported it, keeping it under wraps would have been
difficult. The real criticism here is not that they made the wrong call, but
that they appear to be attributing to their own cunning and skill what
better may be attributable to plain good-old good luck.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Goodman]

I am not advocating, but trying to explain.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM,  wrote:
> In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
>> like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
>> individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
>> when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
>> others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
>> it for granted.>>
>>
>
> -
>
> Which parts of the above are you advocating?
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list?  This is not an abstract
referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim.  To
the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards
the safety and fate of others like him.

Wikipedians have tangible editorial and policy responsibilities regarding
the latter.  The former is tangential politics.  It is best to keep these
matters separate.

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Gwern Branwen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> >
> >> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> >> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> >> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> >> value if executed).
> >>
> > I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that
> > has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security &
> > taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say
> > anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
> >
> >
> Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other
> great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know
> it.  I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of
> cost/benefit analysis.  Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be
> far more effective at saving more lives.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Ian Woollard wrote:
>> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
>> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
>> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
>> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
>> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>>
>
> I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any
> other politician.

Standard policy on-wiki is that administrators have to be willing to
explain and justify their actions.  OTRS is a venue for being somewhat
opaque; office is a venue for being more opaque.

Issues which rise to this level should presumably be handed to OTRS
and/or office - if they're that sensitive, the normal administrator
pool is not well enough known and trusted, and fundamentally don't
have appropriate private channels to discuss and decide on what to do.

If random administrators start playing cowboy on issues like this,
it's not helping anyone.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:


> Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
> like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
> individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
> when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
> others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
> it for granted.>>
> 

-

Which parts of the above are you advocating?

Will





**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Goodman]

Ethical problems in the RW are decided not by abstract principles but
of what actual people do, and we are inevitably influenced by our
social situation. Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
it for granted.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM,  wrote:
> Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in
> general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if 
> those
> effects are negative toward us or ours?  But it's evidently OK using the NYT
> double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward "the other".
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
> **
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in 
general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those 
effects are negative toward us or ours?  But it's evidently OK using the NYT 
double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward "the other".

Will




**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

Was there rationale given for the stifling ?  That's the issue.  If it's 
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation 
given for why?





**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Matt Jacobs]

There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we
are avoiding releasing by replying with, "Shhh. This is being kept quiet."
As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a
response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original
purpose.  If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work
as well as just saying the source is unreliable.

Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most
effective route.  I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the
response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective?

Sxeptomaniac

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700
> From: Durova
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
> To: English Wikipedia 
>
> Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
> the slippery slope of censorship.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard  >wrote:
>
> > On 30/06/2009, Durova  wrote:
> > > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> > > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> > when
> > > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be
> more
> > > careful rather than less careful
> >
> > Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> > to be codified.
> >
> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> > wikipedia.
> >
> > > -Durova
> >
> > --
> > -Ian Woollard
> >
> > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ray Saintonge]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
>   
I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any 
other politician.

Ec

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ray Saintonge]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
>   
>> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
>> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
>> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
>> value if executed).
>> 
> I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that
> has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security &
> taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say
> anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
>
>   
Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other 
great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know 
it.  I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of 
cost/benefit analysis.  Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be 
far more effective at saving more lives.

Ec

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Durova wrote:
> > Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step
> upon
> > the slippery slope of censorship.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
> >>
> >>> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> >>> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> when
> >>>
> >>> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be
> more
> >>> careful rather than less careful
> >>>
> >> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> >> to be codified.
> >>
> >> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> >> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> >> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> >> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> >> wikipedia.
> >>
> If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the
> already contentious BLP arena.  Endangering lives can apply just as
> easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies
> at all in the first place.
>
> If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan
> news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the
> first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes
> another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for
> determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source.  What will
> be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go
> through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources
> of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news
> consumption?  What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely
> because they support our preconceptions?
>
> If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we
> are so important that our reporting will make any difference.  If we are
> smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of
> Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest
> that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves.  Do we
> apply the policy even-handedly?  Doing so would require treating a
> Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same
> respect as a Western life.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ray Saintonge]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
>   
...not to mention techniques used by Western military interrogators.


Ec

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ray Saintonge]

Durova wrote:
> Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
> the slippery slope of censorship.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>   
>> On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
>> 
>>> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
>>> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
>>>   
>>> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
>>> careful rather than less careful
>>>   
>> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
>> to be codified.
>>
>> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
>> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
>> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
>> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
>> wikipedia.
>> 
If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the 
already contentious BLP arena.  Endangering lives can apply just as 
easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies 
at all in the first place.

If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan 
news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the 
first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes 
another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for 
determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source.  What will 
be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go 
through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources 
of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news 
consumption?  What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely 
because they support our preconceptions?

If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we 
are so important that our reporting will make any difference.  If we are 
smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of 
Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest 
that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves.  Do we 
apply the policy even-handedly?  Doing so would require treating a 
Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same 
respect as a Western life.

Ec

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/30 Risker :
> 2009/6/30 geni 
>
>> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard :
>> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
>> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
>> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
>> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
>> > wikipedia.
>>
>> Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
>> position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
>> protection.
>>
>> --
>>
> Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to
> contribute there.

Remove X bit of information that has not been previously widely
published or random kidnapped tourist dies.

But of course we don't have an article on random kidnapped tourist.


-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

2009/6/30 geni 

> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard :
> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> > wikipedia.
>
> Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
> position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
> protection.
>
> --
>
Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to
contribute there.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard :
> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> to be codified.

Can't be. We live in a world where there are people who if they know
we will censor if we consider lives to be in danger will put lives in
danger to get what they want.

I doubt FARC would hesitate to threaten a few of their hostages if it
meant we removed some of our more negative information about them.

Heh censorship to avoid civil unrest or other risks to people's lives
is one of the oldest excuses in the book.

People can get really nasty about it. I mean obviously if wikipedia
and the western media hadn't carried all that information about Aung
San Suu Kyi and democracy the monks would not have marched and the
Burmese government would have not needed to restore order. With a
slight shift it can become an effective form of victim blaming.

Now fortunately the defenses are equally well practiced. It's you
thats killing them thus the blood is on your hands not ours. Thing is
that defense works far better if you never compromise on it.

> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> wikipedia.

Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
protection.

-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
the slippery slope of censorship.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> On 30/06/2009, Durova  wrote:
> > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> when
> > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
> > careful rather than less careful
>
> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> to be codified.
>
> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> wikipedia.
>
> > -Durova
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Judson Dunn]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathan wrote:
> In at
> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson
> and geni will prevail.

I'm not entirely sure what geni's position is. My impression is that
s/he is not necessarily opposed to the outcome, just the logic of
*why* we did it the way we did.

That is a very valid question in my opinion also. We need to know why
this decision was made so that we can consistently apply that logic in
the future so that there will be transparency and trust in a system
even when all the details *can't* be made public.

I would agree with other people in this thread, an OTRS or office
action would have been preferable to claiming problems with WP:RS when
they didn't exist. I agree OFFICE is a little high profile, but OTRS
isn't. We do have a system in place for saying, "there is more detail
here, but we can't publish it all now".

Not saying anyone did anything terribly bad by any means, there was a
lot of hard work involved in keeping this from being published and
posing a danger to the reporter. That doesn't mean we can't learn from
it though. :)

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ian Woollard]

On 30/06/2009, Durova  wrote:
> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
> careful rather than less careful

Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
to be codified.

Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
wikipedia.

> -Durova

-- 
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

No one is proposing a sweeping censorship.  It is imperative to prevent
incidents such as these from becoming wedge issues that could lead to
sweeping censorship.  In that respect we are in agreement.

Nonetheless, real danger exists in these situations.  Ultimately, we have to
assume a responsibility that an innocent person may live or die as a result
of what we publish.  That may not happen this time, or the next time, but
consider a span of ten years: we are the world's most popular reference
source.

Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
careful rather than less careful

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Gwern Branwen  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova wrote:
> > Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
> > who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news
> coverage.
> >
> > -Durova
> >
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
> claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
> before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
> naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Charles Matthews]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova wrote:
>   
>> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
>> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>> 
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified.
By calling it "censorship" you are of course assuming what you want to 
prove, that it was unjustified.  "Censor" is the name of an official 
position.  If there were a position within the WMF devoted to keeping 
_news_ out of Wikipedia when there are reliable sources, beyond a 
quibble, supporting it, just because someone was lobbying to have it 
suppressed, then you'd have a case.  I'm not aware of that type of 
arrangement.

Charles


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Rjd0060]

"OTRS actions" (for lack of a better term) should always stand on their own
merits.  OTRS volunteers have no special authority to do anything that a
regular administrator doesn't have.  Thus, we do not make actions "per
OTRS".  In the final protection I did note the summary with a link to the
OTRS ticket in case people decided to ask about it.  It was for
informational purposes only.  But there was no "drama" before.  Only a few
edits and a few reverts (as well as the previous protections).

---
Rjd0060
rjd0060.w...@gmail.com


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:

> I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an
> OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after
> branding a news agency "unreliable".
> Michel
>
> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard 
>
> > Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> > of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> > entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> > Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> > technically rouge admins?
> >
> > So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> > thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> > acceptable can be discussed.
> >
> > I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> > going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> > there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> > user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> > rather than some less savoury purpose?
> >
> > --
> > -Ian Woollard
> >
> > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Goodman]

I usually consider that BLP should be used very restrictively, but if
there ever was a case where do no harm applies, it is this, not the
convoluted arguments of possible harm to felons where it is usually
raised. I would have done just as JW did (except I would have done it
just as OTRS) . I can not imagine being willing to take the personal
responsibility of publishing this. There is an argument otherwise, but
that's abstract, and people judge differently when it is not abstract,
but a known individual.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova wrote:
>> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
>> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
> claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
> before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
> naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ian Woollard]

On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews  wrote:
> What are policies for?  We tend not to ask this often enough.
>
> I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable
> expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could
> call "normal circumstances".  We have IAR because not all circumstances
> are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.

The problem is that there are always cabals as well as single people
that simply believe strange things.

So if somebody (anybody, but particularly an admin) does something
strange, are they a member of a cabal or is there something happening
they can't tell you? If they're a member of a cabal or simply believe
something strange then they need to be resisted, but if there is
something they can't tell you then that's much more likely to be OK.

The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you
that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is;
the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors
will back-off.

> WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the
> greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding
> original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about
> ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising).
> Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high
> standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news
> agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I
> think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it
> says. That's the letter.

That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less
sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those
grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO
that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually
behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.

> Charles

-- 
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova wrote:
> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>
> -Durova
>

Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
their prisoners in a similar manner.

-- 
gwern

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Charles Matthews]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>   
What are policies for?  We tend not to ask this often enough. 

I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable 
expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could 
call "normal circumstances".  We have IAR because not all circumstances 
are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.

WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the 
greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding 
original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about 
ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising). 
Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high 
standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news 
agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I 
think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it 
says. That's the letter.

Charles


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>
> So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> acceptable can be discussed.
>
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen 

> Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are),
> there were still other sources:
>
> "Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his
> second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage
> of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos
> International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of
> blogs into action."
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html
>

Sorry, Adnkronos International is not a reliable source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=next&oldid=277012138


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> value if executed).
>
> -Sage (User:Ragesoss)

I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that
has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security &
taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say
anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.

After all, massive publicity hardly worked out badly for [[Jill Carroll]].

-- 
gwern

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an
OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after
branding a news agency "unreliable".
Michel

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard 

> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>
> So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> acceptable can be discussed.
>
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>> really hard time with it if it had.”"
>> ...
>
> The question is though is is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
> reliable source?

Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are),
there were still other sources:

"Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his
second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage
of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos
International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of
blogs into action."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html

-- 
gwern

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ian Woollard]

Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
technically rouge admins?

So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
acceptable can be discussed.

I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
rather than some less savoury purpose?

-- 
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
> newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
> out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
> Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
> journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
> might be validated.
>   
Trouble is, not even a scoop or Pulitzer can make a source "reliable", 
which is a concept more to do with minimum rather than maximum 
standards.  "Verifiability from reliable sources" is a good policy, but 
the good part is the verifiability. What we have had to say about 
"reliable sources" has never been that impressive.  I hear all the time 
on the radio that "unconfirmed reports" say something has happened; 
obviously that means the source concerned is not, stand-alone, 100% 
reliable as far as the BBC is concerned.  And that's how it is: rumour 
and correct facts get mixed into primary news reporting.  The fact that 
a rumour may check out afterwards is hardly the issue.

Anyway, if there had been several independent sources for the Rohde 
business, the dam would have broken.  As it is, I think the systemic 
bias around WP in favour of including high amounts of detail about 
living English-speaking journalists is very noticeable. 

Charles


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, George Herbert wrote:
> > 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
> > problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that
> > after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were
> > substantially contributive to any success in this case.
> 
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.

This reasoning sounds good, but is not consistent with what we hear whenever
we want to remove information from Wikipedia to help protect a person, but the
person isn't as well connected to the media as a newspaper reporter.  When
we want to protect a non-reporter, we are told that since Wikipedia is just
republishing information that is already out there and causing damage
anyway, the person will probably have been hurt just as much without the
Wikipedia article.  And of course, Wikipedia is not censored, and that
the five pillars of Wikipedia require the free flow of information and can
never be compromised.

Certainly, someone who tried to suppress information in the same way, but was
not Jimmy Wales or otherwise important on Wikipedia, even if they did it to
save a life, would be accused of edit warring, told that they are abusing
the rules, and taken to Arbcom and banned.  Of course, in the process they
would be told that their idea that they are saving a life is speculative and
can't be proven.  If one such person were to justify their actions by
claiming that terrorists can't use the Internet well, we would reply "nice
idea, but you really have no proof for that.  You're just speculating.  You
don't know that that's true.  Now stop the edit warring and the rules abuse--
we can certainly prove *that*."

You're making a good case that publishing information can harm someone.  But
this same good case has been made countless other times and it's never been
accepted, saving a life or not.


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Stephen Bain]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>
> 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> Western news orgs claim to follow?

Al-Jazeera participated in the blackout:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who
subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his
life.

In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the
United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy.  Here's the
situation he faced.

"Before the trial begins, the judge tells me to pick a name out of his hat.
"What does he win?" I asked, indicating the big, black-turbaned Talib with
the shit-eating grin. "He gets to shoot you, just as soon as we finish this
formality of a trial. Okay, let's get started!" Ya gotta love these guys and
their wacky black humour! Did I mention that my translator, a doctor from
the Malaysian refugee camp where I'd started the day, was convinced I was
guilty and never missed an opportunity to tell me or the judge so?"

Afterward they actually aimed a rifle at him and pulled the trigger, in an
effort to get him to talk.  They didn't tell him the clip was empty.

Just about at the point where he thought he was persuading the authorities
that he really wasn't a spy, the news of his situation spread through the
Canadian and international press.  Journal de Montréal published a fact that
put his life right back in danger: he was Jewish.  The Taliban had Internet
connections; they picked up on that.

It wasn't possible for him to publish those circumstances in a reliable
source until after his release.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/120601/news8.html

-Lise

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> > Three more points:
> >
> > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> > officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
> > Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have
> raised
> > the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in
> particular -
> > and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context.
>
> The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
> professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
> it.  They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
> them kidnapped before.
>
> I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
> they know perfect.
>
> > 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact,
> makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
> > problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement
> that
> > after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics
> were
> > substantially contributive to any success in this case.
>
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.  Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al
> Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather
> useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear
> weapons.  All the key info they're looking for is on the web and
> searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled
> from Google.
>
> The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor
> intelligence other than regarding shipowners.
>
> That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
> Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
> after they're generally disclosed.  Government intelligence agency and
> military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.
>
> > 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> > Western news orgs claim to follow?
>
> I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile.  They're
> trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in
> the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective.  They're
> smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all
> sides.  Around here, that usually means they're both accurate,
> zealous, and impartial.
>
> That does not always serve US short term interests.  But then, from
> the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times.
>
> My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
> eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
> ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
> islamic terrorists.  I think Al Jazeera's staff see thems

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Three more points:
>
> 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
> Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised
> the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular -
> and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context.

The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
it.  They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
them kidnapped before.

I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
they know perfect.

> 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes
> such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
> problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that
> after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were
> substantially contributive to any success in this case.

You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
communications.  Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al
Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather
useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear
weapons.  All the key info they're looking for is on the web and
searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled
from Google.

The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor
intelligence other than regarding shipowners.

That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
after they're generally disclosed.  Government intelligence agency and
military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.

> 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> Western news orgs claim to follow?

I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile.  They're
trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in
the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective.  They're
smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all
sides.  Around here, that usually means they're both accurate,
zealous, and impartial.

That does not always serve US short term interests.  But then, from
the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times.

My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
islamic terrorists.  I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
way and I hope and think that they're right.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

Three more points:

1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised
the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular -
and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context.

2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes
such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that
after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were
substantially contributive to any success in this case.

3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
Western news orgs claim to follow?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Rjd0060]

I'd just like to clarify one point.  The NYT article does make it seem as if
the entire reason that the actions were done were because Jimmy asked or
requested it.  This is not the case and I know this first-hand, of course
being one of those administrators involved.  I did what I did because I felt
it was appropriate.  I did not do it for any other reason.  Of course I
cannot speak for others but I would only assume that they have similar
thoughts.

---
Rjd0060
rjd0060.w...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

Four thoughts:

1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,*
Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary,
Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or
"temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term.

A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third
string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab
world-based news agency, then "its [temporarily] not a reliable source."'

What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
might be validated.

2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also
a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did
Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an
issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration?


3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his
bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The "young white [fe]
male" dimension might have relevance.

Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued
own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news
organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not
based in vague concepts like professionalism or "reliable sources," but out
of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the
English-speaking world.

Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of
professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and
foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand
though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage
or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might
even shoot at Al Jazeera.*

Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each.

2) Found this on the Rohde talk page:
"Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor]
articles
about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... "

89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and
we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the
paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and
death.  Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there
are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism'
("perfect crime" etc.).

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Sage Ross]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbert wrote:

>
> The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among
> readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers.
> In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own
> internal review.

That's not the case.  See:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/8wnzh/jimmy_wales_cooperated_with_the_new_york_times_to/
(150+ comments on reddit)
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/29/was-wikipedia-correct-to-censor-news-of-david-rohdes-capture/
(Christian Science Monitor blog suggests that what is ethical for a
traditional news organization may not be for Wikipedia)
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/the-nytimes-wikipedia-whitewash/
(Michelle Malkin links this to the whole 'liberal media' meme: "Would
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have done this for Fox News or the
Washington Times? ")

-Sage

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody
actually holding him prisoner, was there?

I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is
in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of
behaviour that goes back centuries. Most of these kidnappings are
economically driven, and target anyone they think might have the money; the
overwhelming majority of kidnap victims are non-notable, so they would never
have an article about them into which their kidnapping could be added. But
people with a larger reputation have a different economic value, and they
can be sold to those who wish to make their kidnapping a political/religious
issue.  And once the people are being held for idealistic reasons, the rules
- and the risks - change.

Risker

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee 

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote:
> > While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> > the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
>
> I already posted this, but...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee :
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
>> I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through 
>> office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, 
>> it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest 
>> of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more 
>> problematic.
>>
>> As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the 
>> context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
>
> It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.

Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey :
>  "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:
>
>>
>> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
>> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
>> not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
>
> Office actions are taken over content all the time.

By the office, yes. ArbCom and functionaries are not part of the
office and, while I think technically Jimbo's name is on the list of
people that can take office actions, I don't think he's done on in a
while (nor has the office, for that matter, as far as I am aware).

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote:
> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.

I already posted this, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through 
> office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, 
> it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest 
> of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more 
> problematic. 
> 
> As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context 
> - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. 

It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.  Instead,
ordinary Wikipedians were being put in the position of being told by people
with authority that the rules demanded something that they manifestly did
not.  Yes, it was a reliable source, and they said it wasn't, and it's an
excuse.  Think about what you are really saying when you're saying "it's an
excuse".  We *trust* the people in charge of Wikipedia to enforce rules
fairly.  This trust was broken.  (And it was by no means the first time, it's
just that the cause was a little better this time.)


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM,  wrote:
>
>  George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a 
> causative effect.

I don't believe that our (Jimmy et al's private) actions here "caused"
anything.  The combined effect of all of the media together embargoing
this is unclear.  What the NYT felt and convinced others was that the
situation, which was arguably very bad in real life, would not get
worse if it was held confidential for a time.  Causality is hard to
prove or argue, but it was held confidential for a time, and did not
get worse.

> But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics 
> debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others 
> media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting 
> something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think 
> suppressing from the general public, information already known to the 
> captors, could possibly do.

The entire value here is in minimizing the apparent political and
media impact of the kidnapping, in terms of its value to the
kidnappers.  If they are focused on monetary gain, then minimizing the
apparent significance of the reporter by lowering their profile, and
humanizing them by carefully and in a limited fashion emphasizing
their humanitarian contributions, can reduce the expected ransom value
and enthusiasm with which the captors will bargain (and risk that
they'd kill him out of spite, if negotiations go badly).

If they are focused on making a media statement, either with PR
exploitation of the kidnapee or by murdering them in a very public
manner, the victim having a lower profile makes the value of such a
statement lower, and if they weren't rapidly killed to make a public
statement the odds that they will survive longer or eventually escape
or be rescued increase.

On the practical side, our (again, Jimmy et al's - I had no idea this
was going on) actions were consistent with what other media were
doing, embargoing the story as it were, and if it was ethical for the
BBC and Washington Post and Time and CNN to embargo it then I don't
believe it was unethical for us to.


On a more theoretical note...

Wikipedia's value is maximized if we're seen by our readers and our
writers as a combination of useful (can find what I'm looking for),
reliable (what I find is truthful), relatively complete, and ethical
source of information.

We chose not to publish many categories of information, because there
is a lack of reliable sources for it, it would be illegal to publish
it, or it would be unethical for us to publish it.

There is plenty of information I know which is not in Wikipedia - some
because I can't provide verifiable reliable sources, some because it
would be unethical to publish it, some because it's classified
information and while I learned it outside of "official" channels and
am not subject to security clearance related publication limits, it
would be better for at least the US and probably the world if it's not
discussed widely.

The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among
readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers.
In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own
internal review.  I would rather ten internal shitstorms than one
"Kidnapped reporter murdered - Wikipedia to blame" editorial in the
New York Times if we chose to do otherwise.  The overall balance says
we have done right here.

Thank you, Jimmy.  I believe that you and (functionaries, or whoever)
called this one right.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Andrew Turvey]

 "Thomas Dalton"  wrote: 

> 
> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The 
> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're 
> not allowed to question or get an explanation for. 

Office actions are taken over content all the time. 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Andrew Turvey]

- "Michael Peel"  wrote: 

> I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first 
> heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life 
> approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within 
> Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why 
> it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have 
> been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved 
> reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still 
> played out in the same fashion. 

I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 
1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing. 

I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office 
actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was 
largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who 
no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. 

As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - 
this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
 Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
 people" -
 that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control
 and
 responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.

 In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we
 can
 see
 just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent
 danger)
 would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
 compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
 lifespan
 of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case...
 In
 at
 least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
 WJohnson
 and geni will prevail.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
>>> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
>>> really impose a decision without discussion.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list.
>> A
>> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
>> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
>
> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
> not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
>

They are, in extreme instances, and the inability of the editors as a
whole to either maintain confidentiality or even make a decision, (to say
nothing of the transparency of the software) makes such decisions
necessary. What has to get done, get's done. I have some doubt that you
would actually disagree with any decision that has been made in this way.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Charles Matthews]

David Goodman wrote:
> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>   
That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a 
censor is not a valid deduction from that, but a trite fallacy.

The truth of the matter is that the policy on BLP involves us in 
casuistry, in the technical sense. Your first comment illustrates that 
point.

Charles


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
>>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>>> people" -
>>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
>>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>>
>>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can
>>> see
>>> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent
>>> danger)
>>> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
>>> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
>>> lifespan
>>> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In
>>> at
>>> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
>>> WJohnson
>>> and geni will prevail.
>>
>> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
>> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
>> really impose a decision without discussion.
>>
>
> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.

Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
not allowed to question or get an explanation for.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM,  wrote:

>
>  George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a
> causative effect.
> But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics
> debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others
> media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting
> something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think
> suppressing from the general public, information already known to the
> captors, could possibly do.
>
>

You may not understand it, but given that you appear to be the minority
perhaps you should consider that you may not be correct. There is no debate
about conveying facts to the captors that they don't already know. The
simple point is that making it public and giving the kidnapping a much
higher profile would have fundamentally changed the dynamics of the
situation, and not in a good way.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people"
> -
> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>
> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can
> see
> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger)
> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
> lifespan
> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In
> at
> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
> WJohnson
> and geni will prevail.
>
> Nathan
>

We simply can't let that happen. Their reputation must somehow be
factored into decision making.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[wjhonson]

 George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative 
effect.
But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate 
has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media 
outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting something or 
other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think suppressing from the 
general public, information already known to the captors, could possibly do.




<>



 


 


 

-Original Message-
From: George Herbert 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs










On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM,  wrote:
> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to
> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can
> go around the world in the opposite direction as well. ?And for twice as
> long.
>
> Smart thinking. ?Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it.
> Has.. that.. ever... worked... before?
> No it hasn't.

It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually.




-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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



 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Michael Peel]

On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM,  wrote:
>> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving  
>> on, is to
>> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship,  
>> so it can
>> go around the world in the opposite direction as well.  And for  
>> twice as
>> long.
>>
>> Smart thinking.  Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it.
>> Has.. that.. ever... worked... before?
>> No it hasn't.
>
> It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually.

In this case, it didn't matter that his profile was raised instantly  
to whatever level after his release - the important period was when  
he was held captive. It was more delay than suppression.

I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first  
heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life  
approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within  
Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why  
it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have  
been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved  
reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still  
played out in the same fashion.

Mike

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM,  wrote:
> So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to
> make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can
> go around the world in the opposite direction as well.  And for twice as
> long.
>
> Smart thinking.  Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it.
> Has.. that.. ever... worked... before?
> No it hasn't.

It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually.




-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

> But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
> Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's *live with this story, and I guess that's
> what's messing with me.
>

Eugh!  *Life.

-Stevertigo
Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki were in some ways like email, though.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of
context.

I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a
certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight
into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed.

Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered
publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New
York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't).

Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous
sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the
Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner
than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so
there's no conflict of interest.

The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher
principle of "killing the bad guy" and all, and that's really what's
interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares?

But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's
messing with me.

I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose.

-Stevertigo





On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
> > we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
> > really impose a decision without discussion.
>

> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/6/29 Nathan :
>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>> people" -
>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>
>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can
>> see
>> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent
>> danger)
>> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
>> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
>> lifespan
>> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In
>> at
>> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
>> WJohnson
>> and geni will prevail.
>
> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
> really impose a decision without discussion.
>

Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[wjhonson]

 Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've 
captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and 
as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because* 
they were famous for some reason.




Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the
24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no
one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the
latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?



 


 


 

-Original Message-
From: Nathan 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs










On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM,  wrote:

>
>  But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than
> they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the
> logic is.
>
>
>
>
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the
24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no
one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the
latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?

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



 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Nathan :
> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" -
> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>
> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see
> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger)
> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan
> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at
> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson
> and geni will prevail.

I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
really impose a decision without discussion.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM,  wrote:

>
>  But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than
> they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the
> logic is.
>
>
>
>
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the
24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no
one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the
latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Nathan]

Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" -
that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.

In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see
just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger)
would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan
of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at
least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson
and geni will prevail.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[wjhonson]

 But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they 
already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.


 


 

-Original Message-
From: Sam Blacketer 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs










On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker  wrote:

> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.


There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a
consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately
but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were
released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign
media has broken it either.

There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes
are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are
definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is
still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the
abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing
them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public
interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same
position but it is close enough.

* Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies
were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became
possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication.

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



 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[wjhonson]

 Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had 
kidnapped?
That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers 
first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just 
some joker who nobody cares about."

Or some claim that the kidnappers regularly watch Wikipedia to try to see who 
"John Smith" really is? Or something?? The entire logic of the news suppression 
escapes me somehow.? I don't see how suppressing who the person is, in the 
western media, would have any impact whatsoever on what the kidnappers do or 
don't.

Will




 


 

-Original Message-
From: Risker 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs










While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's
kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur
in the area.

Risker




2009/6/29 David Goodman 

> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find
> some way
> >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it.
> And that
> >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure
> news
> >> > agencies were reliable.
> >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
> >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
> >> frankly beyond me.
> >
> > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the
> information,
> > it should be taken out under IAR.  It should *not* be taken out by
> abusing
> > the rules to take it out.  That's why we have IAR in the first place.  If
> > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have
> > placed in the system.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer :
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
>> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
>
>
> There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a
> consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately
> but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were
> released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign
> media has broken it either.

Do you know it was an embargo and not simply that they didn't have the
information?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Sam Blacketer]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker  wrote:

> While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
> the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.


There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a
consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately
but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were
released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign
media has broken it either.

There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes
are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are
definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is
still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the
abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing
them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public
interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same
position but it is close enough.

* Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies
were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became
possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's
kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur
in the area.

Risker




2009/6/29 David Goodman 

> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find
> some way
> >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it.
> And that
> >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure
> news
> >> > agencies were reliable.
> >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
> >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
> >> frankly beyond me.
> >
> > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the
> information,
> > it should be taken out under IAR.  It should *not* be taken out by
> abusing
> > the rules to take it out.  That's why we have IAR in the first place.  If
> > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have
> > placed in the system.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Goodman]

would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?

preventing harm is the argument of all censors

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
>> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
>> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
>> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And 
>> > that
>> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
>> > agencies were reliable.
>> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
>> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
>> frankly beyond me.
>
> Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information,
> it should be taken out under IAR.  It should *not* be taken out by abusing
> the rules to take it out.  That's why we have IAR in the first place.  If
> you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have
> placed in the system.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
> > agencies were reliable.
> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
> frankly beyond me.

Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information,
it should be taken out under IAR.  It should *not* be taken out by abusing
the rules to take it out.  That's why we have IAR in the first place.  If
you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have
placed in the system.


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>>
>>> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
>> war situation.
>> --
>> geni
>>
>
> It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with the kidnappers.
>
> Fred

So? Total war and what is going on in Afghanistan are not comparable
to any useful extent and thus attempts to use examples from total war
situations are not helpful.


-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>>
>> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>>
>> Fred
>
> An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
> war situation.
> --
> geni
>

It's not a big war, but we certainly are "at war" with the kidnappers.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
>
> Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.
>
> Fred

An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total
war situation.
-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Sage Ross :
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM,  wrote:
>> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
>> life?  At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
>> the first place?
>>
>
> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> value if executed).
>
> -Sage (User:Ragesoss)

We are not the western media and that page gets under 500 views a month.

-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
>> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
>> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
>> value if executed).>>
>>
>
> --
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does?  Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would
> report it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.
>
> Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information
> outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger
> someone's
> life".  I'm not talking about outing secret agents here.
>
> Will
>

Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Sage Ross]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM,  wrote:
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does?  Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report 
> it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.

No.  In fact, the New York Times contacted a wide range of mainstream
media organizations (NPR, other national papers, etc.) to coordinate
the media blackout.  See
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059

-Sage

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

2009/6/29 

> In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com  writes:
>
>
> > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> > value if executed).>>
> >
>
> --
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does?  Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would
> report it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.
>
> Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information
> outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger
> someone's
> life".  I'm not talking about outing secret agents here.
>
> Will
>
>
>
> The reporter's kidnapping was well known amongst the Western media, but was
deliberately not reported, often at the request of the New York Times.
Similar situations have happened involving Canadian reporters and members of
NGOs who have been kidnapped; there is usually no report until they are
either released, escaped from captivity, or executed.  In almost every case,
the news media has been well aware of the situation and has a report ready
to run once safety/death is confirmed.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to 
make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can 
go around the world in the opposite direction as well.  And for twice as 
long.

Smart thinking.  Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it.
Has.. that.. ever... worked... before?
No it hasn't.

Will





**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:


> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> value if executed).>>
> 

--

So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other 
information outlet does?  Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report 
it, if 
they had a reliable source from which to do so.

Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information 
outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger 
someone's 
life".  I'm not talking about outing secret agents here.

Will




**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Risker]

2009/6/29 

> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
> life?  At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
> the first place?
>
> Will
>
>
> It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging
into his background, which could make him appear to be more of an "infidel"
and thus less worthy of basic human dignity, potentially subjected to
greater physical and mental privations. (Kidnappees who are considered to
be aligned with other nemeses are treated more harshly.) It would increase
the danger to those who were kidnapped with him, if they were perceived to
have been working for an infidel, and he and his fellow kidnappees would be
more likely to be executed as "examples" to others.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Sage Ross]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM,  wrote:
> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
> life?  At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
> the first place?
>

It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
value if executed).

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[WJhonson]

Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his 
life?  At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in 
the first place?

Will





**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder :
> When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in.

The government of Iran has made it fairly clear that further protests
carry the risks of further deaths. It's also fairly clear that the
protests in part at least are aimed at gaining western media coverage.
If they fail at that they are likely to stop more quickly. Should we
remove our content on the Iranian elections? After all lives are at
stake.

-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/6/29 geni :
>
>> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
>
>
> There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing
> so.
>
>
> - d.
>

Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a
reasonably good source, just not in the Western news loop the New York
Times is depending on. I'm proud to have Wikipedia in that loop, when
appropriate. That doesn't mean that when The New York Times goes to the
White House and gets orders to cover up some pernicious US plot that we
should obey, assuming we have any way of knowing. We did not seem to be
able to sort out the truth about Iraq. Hard to do so when you can almost
always rely on the New York Times.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> Sam Blacketer wrote:
>> This case is more about basic common sense...
>
> Well, no.  This case is about whether an editor at (in this case)
> The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other
> major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain
> fact out of the media for N months.  And can this still be done
> when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors,
> who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying
> to suppress some information that "wants to be free".
>

When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in. I
have no problem whatever with what the Times or Jimbo did.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Sam Blacketer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni  wrote:
>
>   
>> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
>> 
>>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>>> really hard time with it if it had.”"
>>> ...
>>>   
>> The question is though is is
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
>> reliable source?
>> 
>
>
> What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian
> Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity.
>
> This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
> would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
> agencies were reliable.
>
>   

Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
(Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
frankly beyond me.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

geni wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
>   
>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>> really hard time with it if it had.”"
>> ...
>> 
>
> The question is though is is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
> reliable source?
>
>
>
>   

If it isn't perhaps it should be removed from the four
other articles that use it as a source.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Steve Summit]

Sam Blacketer wrote:
> This case is more about basic common sense...

Well, no.  This case is about whether an editor at (in this case)
The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other
major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain
fact out of the media for N months.  And can this still be done
when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors,
who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying
to suppress some information that "wants to be free".

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[David Gerard]

2009/6/29 geni :

> Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.


There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so.


- d.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer :
> This case is more about basic common sense.

I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the
age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason.

> If someone's life may be
> endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
> would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
> agencies were reliable.

If editors were not concerned with the reliability of the news agency
they should just cite BLP on the basis that it's pretty much
impossible to show that any given edit doesn't violate it and the side
effects of rule lawyering with it are likely to be more limited.
Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.


-- 
geni

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Sam Blacketer]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni  wrote:

> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
> > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
> > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
> > really hard time with it if it had.”"
> > ...
>
> The question is though is is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
> reliable source?


What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian
Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity.

This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
agencies were reliable.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen :
> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
> really hard time with it if it had.”"
> ...

The question is though is is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
reliable source?



-- 
geni

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