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<arrom...@rahul.net> 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
