On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com 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
2009/6/30 wjhon...@aol.com:
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.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
“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
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 ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com 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).
2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
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
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 ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally
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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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
On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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.
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
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
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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
On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com 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
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
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
2009/6/30 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
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
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
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
I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net 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
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).
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,
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.
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
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 wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
the slippery
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
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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net 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
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
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, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
Most (or almost all)
stevertigostv...@gmail.com 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 george.herb...@gmail.com Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM,
wrote:
The NY Times presumably
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
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
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
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
'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html
A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on
Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times
the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
“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.”
...
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com:
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
2009/6/29 geni geni...@gmail.com:
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
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
geni wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
“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
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
“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
2009/6/29 geni geni...@gmail.com:
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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
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
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.
2009/6/29 wjhon...@aol.com
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
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com 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
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
2009/6/29 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wjhon...@aol.com 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
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
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
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
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.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
: 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 risker...@gmail.com 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
-
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any
2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
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
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wjhon...@aol.com 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.
On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wjhon...@aol.com 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
Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
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
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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
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
- Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net 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.
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com 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
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
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
2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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.
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
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
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com 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
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.
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
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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com 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
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
84 matches
Mail list logo
