> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>
>>> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
>>> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press
>>> won't
>>> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
>>> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerar
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/9/10 Fred Bauder :
>> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
>> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
>> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
>> wi
Fred Bauder wrote:
> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
> will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the
2009/9/10 Fred Bauder :
> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
> will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness t
Previous post correction diff:
-commented about "Iranian" news
+commented about an "Iranian" news
-about all of familiar sources
+about all of our familiar sources
-tabloids and the slowly
+tabloids and then slowly
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they
> probably are much more reliable then other media.
I was about to say... you earlier commented about "Iranian" news
source and its reliability. You framed it as a question, "is [source]
reliable?" but gave th
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>>> Link please.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
ke you are
> cracking your whip at the group for being bad and chatting.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Emily Monroe
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
> reporter in A
Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
>> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't
>> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
>> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there
That's a very nice interpretation, and in retrospect, I think that's
what Will meant.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe
> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>> <>
>>>
>>> Your n
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>> Link please.
>>
> I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
> a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at
2009/9/10 Bryan Derksen :
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>
> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
> exactly the same way.
Did the Foundation have anythi
> And even if "do no harm" really _was_ a universal principle that we all
> followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like
> this actually does cause harm.
Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm
needs to be accurate and common sense appli
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>>> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
>>> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
>>> exactly the same way.
>>
>> Any responsible journa
>
>
> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't
> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so,
>
geni wrote:
> 2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness :
>
>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>>> "plans".
>>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>>> equipme
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness :
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>> "plans".
>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>> equipment in order to enrich the uranium
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
> "plans".
> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
> chea
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> We are supposed to be community-driven.
> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
> Link please.
>
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with
either smiles
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> It may not actually be as clear cut as you assume.
>
> Psychological tests may for instance be crucial in
> deciding issues in criminal cases, and as such may
> have a very remote chance of affecting life and
> death issues.
So
George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO.
>> The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people"
>> argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorscha
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
>>> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
>>> harm; any problem with that?
>> At the very least consens
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
>> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
>> exactly the same way.
>
> Any responsible journalist wil
d chatting.
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
What? I'm confused.
Emily
On Se
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Emily wrote:
>
>> <>
>>
>> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
>
> What? I'm confused.
I think he is saying that you correctly pointed out that people were
drifting off-topic, and h
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>
> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
> exactly the same way.
Any responsible journalist will.
Fred
__
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>>> Link please.
>>
>> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
>> harm; any problem with that?
>
> At the very least consensus can't be said to b
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO.
> The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people"
> argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars.
There is no reasonable
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>> Link please.
>
> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
> harm; any problem with that?
At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
What? I'm confused.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Emily wrote:
> <>
>
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Emily wrote:
<>
Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/9/10 George Herbert :
>> This is wishful thinking, Geni.
>>
>> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
>> sized ones (1 ton) is not.
>
>
> Uk's first attempt failed and
2009/9/10 George Herbert :
> This is wishful thinking, Geni.
>
> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
> sized ones (1 ton) is not.
Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that
qualifies as tricky.
> And the explosive lenses get easier the more
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/10 George Herbert :
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
>>> 2009/9/9 :
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
"plans".
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The prob
2009/9/10 George Herbert :
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/9/9 :
>>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>>> "plans".
>>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>>> eq
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/9/9 :
>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>> "plans".
>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>> equipment in order to enrich the uran
-Original Message-
From: geni
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 :
> The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret
to
> me is flat. I
2009/9/9 :
> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
> "plans".
> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
> cheap thing to do.
rgument meaningless,
or without adequate justification.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
> Interesting her
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they
> probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a
> Taliban regional commander and got the story.
Iran and the Taliban don't exactly get on so unlikely they would just
repeat a taliban s
> Interesting here is what they say about themselves
> "
>
> Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
> news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
>
> Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
> Iranian and foreign media pro
2009/9/9 :
> I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping
> the hand that reaches".
> Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
> Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
> sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I r
Message-
From: Fred Bauder
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
> Once it's all over
> the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be
Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 :
> Well what were the sources?
> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn
> 2009/9/9 :
>> Well what were the sources?
>> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
>
> They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance,
> seems reliable:
Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is
that a reliable sour
> Once it's all over
> the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the
> article.
> - d.
Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
2009/9/9 :
> Well what were the sources?
> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance,
seems reliable:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105379§ionid=351020403
__
Well what were the sources?
Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikie
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>> Link please.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>
> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
> harm; any problem with that?
There is no such consensus. We
rmful to
his career I'm sure.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
> We are supposed to be community-driven.
> Where is t
2009/9/9 David Gerard :
>> BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living
>> people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be
>> removed (unless it is given undue weight).
>
>
> That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in
> what's acce
> We are supposed to be community-driven.
> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
> Link please.
>
> Will Johnson
>
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
Fred
___
WikiEN-l m
2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/9 :
>> I really don't see this as IAR.
>> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
>> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
>> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
>> flat
2009/9/9 :
> I really don't see this as IAR.
> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
> flat to me. But at any rate, if we we
to have a discussion on
finding consensus, I would expect it to revolve around BLP.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in A
and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
2009/9/9 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect
> wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping
> other more established news organizations, but in fact
> be there before all the other major news orgs with the
> full nitty gritty.
I don't.
2009/9/9 David Gerard :
> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>
>> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
>> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
>
>
> I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
> was entirely covered by BLP:
Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
> >From the Huffington Post:
>
> "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
> several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
> the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
> and later d
David Gerard wrote:
>
> I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
> was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
> potentially extremely harmful information.
>
> We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews
> for that. If we wait
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
po
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
More serious than life and death?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
T
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
Would you have us do different?
>>>
>>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>>> would suggest just protecti
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>>> Would you have us do different?
>>
>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a li
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>>> Would you have us do different?
>>
>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>> would suggest just protecting the art
> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> Would you have us do different?
>
> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
> the OTRS ticket. Such
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
the OTRS ticket. Such a protectio
Would you have us do different?
Fred
> Folks,
> From the Huffington Post:
>
> "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
> several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media
> around
> the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the
>
The protection referenced an OTRS ticket
(https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2009090610014951)
in the edit summary. I'd be interested to know more information on
that ticket, specifically if it was a request for protection from a
news organization.
I suppose
2009/9/9 Keith Old :
> Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the
> kidnapping seems justified. His article is here.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist)
>
That would rather depend on what was at the
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl
Folks,
>From the Huffington Post:
"Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
and later drew criticism for this from so
73 matches
Mail list logo
