Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Brian  wrote:

The fact that the "techies" do not actively seek out community input
> is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
> supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
> people who edit Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix
> servers etc...


You are not actually correct. Things develop the way they do because they
arise as the natural next step. All things improve incrementally, and in
accord with available tools and available understanding. You're too young to
remember what CamelCase is aren't you?

More technically minded
> folks believe that they can sit down and powwow about the technically best
> solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the
> community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation
> should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately
> characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions.


While you are certainly right about this idea that techs can get stuck in
certain places that non-tech insights could help with, you are wrong about
certain other things. The facts are: They deal with a lot already, they know
the work involved for any request, they understand the concepts well enough
to know what works and what doesn't, they can reconceptualize ideas and
solutions in ways that the rest of us cannot (seen this a dozen times here),
and they know very well where the tipping point is when things need to get
to the next step.

If there's a technical idea that the tech and general communities need to
interface about, write it up in detail on the meta wiki, and give us a link.
[[meta:New parser language]] or [[meta:New backend scripting language]]
might work.

-Stevertigo


PS: Other comments and responses:

The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.
>

What does that even mean? That everything in PHP code will be rewritten in
Python? Context for non-techies means something you may not yet understand.


It was wholly sufficient.


Your initial message, unlike perhaps your typical coded program, was neither
wholly sufficient nor actually sufficient. "Template parser functions" for
example, as Tom said, would have provided context.

I assume, having signed up to this list, that you understand what
> wikitech-l is and where it is located
>

1) Dont assume anything. 2) Always provide a link. 3) "Location" does not by
itself or in context indicate any relevance. 4) Terseness of the type you
provide does not facilitate *any understanding.
___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Steve Bennett]

Guys, please cool it. This thread is sucking.

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/1 Brian :
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas Dalton 
> wrote:
>
>> That's better done by surveying the community, not a community
>> discussion.
>>
>
> Yeah, still waiting for that survey. Or that community discussion. Or that
> usability study. Something tells me that without any griping I will wait
> forever. I wonder what it is. Oh that's right - precedence. I dug through
> all of the conversations around ParserFunctions. There wasn't much. It takes
> a lot of diligence to fully consult the community consensus. It's hard work
> that developers, historically speaking, haven't card one iota about. Whoever
> finishes their implementation first and is best friends with a core dev
> wins.

Technical decisions should not be made by a consensus of laymen.

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> That's better done by surveying the community, not a community
> discussion.
>

Yeah, still waiting for that survey. Or that community discussion. Or that
usability study. Something tells me that without any griping I will wait
forever. I wonder what it is. Oh that's right - precedence. I dug through
all of the conversations around ParserFunctions. There wasn't much. It takes
a lot of diligence to fully consult the community consensus. It's hard work
that developers, historically speaking, haven't card one iota about. Whoever
finishes their implementation first and is best friends with a core dev
wins.
___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/1 Brian :
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Thomas Dalton 
> wrote:
>
>> 2009/7/1 Brian :
>>
>>
>> You haven't responded to either of the points you quoted...
>>
>
> Yes, I did. Your comments demonstrate my points. More technically minded
> folks believe that they can sit down and powwow about the technically best
> solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the
> community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation
> should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately
> characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions.

That's better done by surveying the community, not a community
discussion. Anyway, that's only one of the points you quoted. You're
still talking as if the English Wikipedia is the only site using
MediaWiki.

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/7/1 Brian :
>
>
> You haven't responded to either of the points you quoted...
>

Yes, I did. Your comments demonstrate my points. More technically minded
folks believe that they can sit down and powwow about the technically best
solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the
community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation
should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately
characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions.
___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/1 Brian :
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see
>> how any of that would be fixed by community discussion. I'm not even
>> sure what community would discuss it - the core Mediawiki code is used
>> by far more than just the English Wikipedia (or even the whole of the
>> Wikimedia movement).
>
>
> I have not forgotten what many of you have.
>
> Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make
> sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately
> determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the
> community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales

You haven't responded to either of the points you quoted...

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
wrote:

> I don't see
> how any of that would be fixed by community discussion. I'm not even
> sure what community would discuss it - the core Mediawiki code is used
> by far more than just the English Wikipedia (or even the whole of the
> Wikimedia movement).


I have not forgotten what many of you have.

Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make
sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately
determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the
community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales
___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/1 Brian :
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>> You provide no context
>
> The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.

That doesn't even mention the word "template", which is what the whole
discussion is about.

>> (more to the point) you gave no indication that the techies actually want 
>> non-technical input.
>
> The fact that the "techies" do not actively seek out community input
> is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
> supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
> people who edit Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix
> servers etc...

ParserFunctions were implemented because there was a demand for them.
One of the greatest strengths and also the greatest weaknesses of the
way MediaWiki is developed is that there is very little top-down
direction and people just get on and do what seems like a good idea.
That results in a lot of quick fixes, like ParserFunctions, which
means features that are high in demand get implemented quickly but it
also means that the solutions are often far from optimal. I don't see
how any of that would be fixed by community discussion. I'm not even
sure what community would discuss it - the core Mediawiki code is used
by far more than just the English Wikipedia (or even the whole of the
Wikimedia movement).

___
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] [[Linuxconf]] the second most popular article after Michael Jackson?

[Steve Bennett]

Who knows, it's gone now.

Though when I search for net links to the page, this page comes up:
http://essayparagraphs.hobby-site.com/linux_conf_a.html

Don't go there, it appears to be some sort of spam site. Maybe somehow
it ended up redirecting a lot of traffic to WP.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Dan
Dascalescu wrote:
> What exactly makes Linuxconf the second most popular Wikipedia article
> after Michael Jackson?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
> # Michael Jackson (33,092 hits last hour)
> # Linuxconf (12,512 hits last hour)
> ...
>
> --
> Dan
> http://dandascalescu.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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/7/1 Brian :
>>> They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
>>> program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
>>> conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
>>
>> "Program the encyclopaedia"? At least try and give people a meaningful
>> idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about...
>
> Dude. Go nitpick someone else.

Here's the quick summary: The senior techie MediaWiki people (Brion
Vibber, Tim Starling et al) are discussing alternatives to the current
ad-hoc templating language, including Python, PHP, Lua and server side
JavaScript. No decisions have been made, and nothing may eventuate,
but with Brion's support, something is sure to happen.

The thread is "On templates and programming languages" on Wikitech-L.

Steve

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> You provide no context

The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.

> no direct link to a substantive wikitech-l post

I assume, having signed up to this list, that you understand what
wikitech-l is and where it is located

> (more to the point) you gave no indication that the techies actually want 
> non-technical input.

The fact that the "techies" do not actively seek out community input
is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
people who edit Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix
servers etc...

Anyone interested by MediaWiki's new programming language will have no
problem finding the conversation based on the information I provided.
It is wholly sufficient.

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Brian  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > 2009/7/1 Brian :
> >> They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
> >> program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
> >> conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
> >
> > "Program the encyclopaedia"? At least try and give people a meaningful
> > idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about...
>
> Dude. Go nitpick someone else.


Your response to Thomas' legitimate point is in poor form. Thomas is right:
You provide no context, no direct link to a substantive wikitech-l post, no
link to an overview on a meta page, and (more to the point) you gave no
indication that the techies actually want non-technical input.

-S
___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Gwern Branwen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/1 Brian :
>> They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
>> program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
>> conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
>
> "Program the encyclopaedia"? At least try and give people a meaningful
> idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about...

Dude. Go nitpick someone else.

___
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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/1 Brian :
> They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
> program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
> conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)

"Program the encyclopaedia"? At least try and give people a meaningful
idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about...

There is a (rather technical) discussion going on about implementing a
new language for writing templates to replace the current mess of
parser functions.

___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Durova]

With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 :
>
> > Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
>
>
> I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
> That's actually a rule listed on Meta.
>
> “Keeping details out of a Wikipedia article on a living person just
> because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious
> conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the
> destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in
> the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are
> seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common
> sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next
> they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.”
>
> http://notnews.today.com/?p=546
>
>
> - 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
>



-- 
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

[WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[Brian]

They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)

___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression

[Matt Jacobs]

>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:52:14 EDT
> From: wjhon...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> 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 failed to read the article earlier.  Al Jazeera also did not report the
event until he was safe.  You are frequently making assumptions as to
motives and supposed double standards without giving any particular
reasoning as to why the assumptions are valid.  It has severely undermined
any argument you are attempting to make.

It also doesn't really matter if WP and the news outlets have been
consistent or not, as it was the right decision to make in this case.  I
can't say I've always been consistent, but it doesn't necessarily make me a
hypocrite when I do manage to make right choices.


>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:07:59 EDT
> From: wjhon...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies
>are not RSs)
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> apoc2...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > The reason to suppress the news
> > of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
> > protect Rohde.>>
> >
>
> ---
>
> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
> way.
>

I disagree.  WP would certainly be harmed if it was the only major media
organization to disseminate information the rest kept quiet, and worse if he
had died, whether or not if it could be traced to WP's actions.  We would
have been the assholes more interested in our own overinflated egos than a
man's life, and it would probably be the worst scandal yet, undermining the
site's credibility (further).

Sometimes improving WP means looking a little farther than the few
inches/centimeters to our computer screens.  It means recognizing that life,
particularly human life, is more important than a stupid collection of ones
and zeros on servers somewhere.  WP hasn't always made good choices, but I'm
glad it happened this time.

Sxeptomaniac
___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[David Gerard]

2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 :

> Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression


I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
That's actually a rule listed on Meta.

“Keeping details out of a Wikipedia article on a living person just
because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious
conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the
destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in
the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are
seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common
sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next
they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.”

http://notnews.today.com/?p=546


- 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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
s...@eskimo.com writes:


> But we suppress news *all the time*.
> If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
> for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
> and rightly so.>>
> --

Different issue.  We're talking about the suppression of news which does 
not violate any policy.  Your example violates at least two.

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

[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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/30 Steve Summit :
> WJhonson wrote:
>> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
>> way.
>
> But we suppress news *all the time*.
> If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
> for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
> and rightly so.

That's not suppression, it's removal of content that is out of scope
and unverifiable. The intent is significant. Suppression involves
intending to keep people from knowing certain facts.

___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Steve Summit]

WJhonson wrote:
> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable 
> way.

But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.

___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[David Goodman]

IAR is based on the premise that it will be actions with which every
reasonable person here would agree. Otherwise "improve the
encyclopedia" is much too broad a criterion, not to mention "do what
is right".

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



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM,  wrote:
> In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> apoc2...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> The reason to suppress the news
>> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
>> protect Rohde.>>
>>
>
> ---
>
> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
> way.
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> 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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
apoc2...@gmail.com writes:


> The reason to suppress the news
> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
> protect Rohde.>>
> 

---

Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable 
way.





**
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee :
> I also think that this situation is a blatant case of *not* applying IAR
> (unless you think the rule being ignored is "don't lie about the reliable
> sources rule").  Actually applying IAR instead of abusing other rules
> would have been much better.

Generally applying IAR requires you to explain what you are doing and
why it is beneficial, which risks causing the very publicity we're
trying to avoid. I'm not a fan of misusing rules in the manner that
was done, but I'm struggling to see a good alternative.

___
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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Charles Matthews]

Apoc 2400 wrote:
> Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
>
> The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
> right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
> article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
> Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
> be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.
>
> Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
> you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
> protect Rohde.
>   
I like what IAR used to say:

"Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so 
there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one."

I think peoplr who think that codification is the only way to deal with 
anomalous situation, precedents, apparent gaps in policy, and so on, 
should take this to heart. In particular the restriction of IAR so that 
it only sometimes applies amounts to saying that common sense is only of 
limited value by area of application (which is wrong), rather than by 
mode of application (which is correct).

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

[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] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
> you from improving the encyclopedia. 

I've complained about this for some time (to no avail).  IAR may be short,
but it's not free of loopholes, and when a loophole in it is used, it's
almost always this particular one.  Usually it comes up in privacy situations
rather than life endangering ones, but it's the same loophole: IAR only lets
you ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia, helping someone's
privacy doesn't improve the encyclopedia, therefore, you're not allowed to
use IAR for that.

Perhaps a change to IAR.  Of course, most people who propose changes to IAR
quickly get shot down because the rule is supposed to be simple.  But here
I'm proposing a change which *widens* the rule, while most proposed changes
not only complicate it, but narrow its scope.  "If a rule prevents you from
improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or otherwise doing what's right, ignore
it."  I understand the desire not to turn IAR into paragraphs, since that
defeats its purpose, but it seems to be needed here.  "Otherwise doing
what's right" is still a vague term, but no more vague than the rest of IAR,
and it would plug the loophole, not just here, but for privacy and BLP
issues in general.

I also think that this situation is a blatant case of *not* applying IAR
(unless you think the rule being ignored is "don't lie about the reliable
sources rule").  Actually applying IAR instead of abusing other rules
would have been much better.


___
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

[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Apoc 2400]

Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression

The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.

Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.

It is still a draft, comments are welcome.
/Apoc2400



Newspapers sometimes avoid publishing information that could have
severe consequences to individuals if the public interest is small.
While Wikipedia is not a news source it is often updated with the
latest developments, leading to similar concerns.

Therefore, Wikipedia should not include information, even if it can be
reliably sourced, if:

 * Spreading it is likely to have very severe direct negative
consequences for one or more individuals.
 * It has not been widely published in reliable sources.
 * The public interest is small.
 * It is withheld only for a limited time.

Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report
should be taken into consideration.

Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly
explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would negate the
purpose (see Streissand effect). In those cases it would be prudent to
explain the reasoning later.

The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old
article revisions or discussion about the topic is often not
necessary.

Examples

 * When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in
Afghanistan in 2008, most news media did not report on it, because it
would put his life in greater risk. Only a few, rather obscure news
sources reported on the kidnapping. After nytimes contacted Jimmy
Wales, he and other Wikipedia andministrators kept any mention of the
kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article on David Rohde. They did the
right thing.

 * If there is an other scandal like the [[Abu Ghraib torture and
prisoner abuse]], then it could be argued that publishing it would
lead to more resentment and terrorist attacks against Americans in
Iraq. However, such news is of public interest, the danger is not to
specific individuals and the consequences are not direct. Therefore it
should not be excluded from Wikipedia if published in reliable
sources.

Related

* Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
* Wikipedia is not censored
* Wikipedia:Office actions
* Kidnapping of David Rohde
* Media blackout
* Gag order

___
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