Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> >>> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make >>> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press >>> won't >>> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad >>> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does >>> so, >>> because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that >>> this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world. >> >> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate >> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or >> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans >> will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea >> fizzles. >> >> That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And >> that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. > > I think it is far more likely that it's because we just don't _have_ the > detailed information that'd be needed to make an atomic bomb work. I'm > sure you don't really think that North Korea would go to Wikipedia for > that information, though. And anything that detailed would be more > suitable for WikiHow or WikiSource anyway. > > Perhaps a more grounded-in-reality example of an article that has > information that causes "harm" is the [[AACS encryption key > controversy]], which contains a cryptographic key that the movie > industry claimed was a secret vital to their business that shouldn't be > revealed. It's not directly a life or limb thing but economic harm is > harm nonetheless. The problem with that one was that it was already all over, although I don't think we should have had it even then. Each of these is different, mainly in how widespread the information is already. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/9/10 Fred Bauder : >> To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate >> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or >> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans >> will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea >> fizzles. > > North Korean was a plutonium based implosion design and since we don't > have much info on explosive lenses not really relevant. > > Now our information can't really be said to be up to date since the > weapon type we have the most info about hasn't existed since 1991 (as > far as is known). > > But: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon More appropriately, the [[Little Boy]] article, and its current primary source (John Coster-Mullen's book). The general gun-type weapon article only contains generalities. The Little Boy article contains a precise but not dimensioned diagram of the weapon, and detailed dimensions and masses for the critical assembly (uranium parts), and weights for the subassemblies of the tamper/reflector and the steel casing components. John's book from which the diagram and details were derived has detailed dimensions (enough to draw a blueprint and manufacture a functional replica) on all the functional parts. John's book was derived from firsthand measurements of Little Boy units in museums, plus most of the design and development and assembly records, which were declassified (and then apparently reclassified, but the copies already out aren't legally recallable so they're effectively all public now). Of course, that's a 5-metric-ton weapon, which is not militarily useful at this point. -- -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: > To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate > information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or > reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans > will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea > fizzles. Ha. [citation needed] > That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And > that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. Doesn't seem to stop or slow down Arbcom. -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/10 Fred Bauder : > To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate > information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or > reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans > will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea > fizzles. North Korean was a plutonium based implosion design and since we don't have much info on explosive lenses not really relevant. Now our information can't really be said to be up to date since the weapon type we have the most info about hasn't existed since 1991 (as far as is known). But: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment Or for a rather messy method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron (actually you could in theory at least use that method to build a plutonium based gun type weapon but there would seem to be little point and no one has actually done it). > That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And > that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. > > Fred The benefit of the above it is makes it possible to form a reasonable assessment of politicians claims about say Iran's nuclear abilities. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Previous post correction diff: -commented about "Iranian" news +commented about an "Iranian" news -about all of familiar sources +about all of our familiar sources -tabloids and the slowly +tabloids and then slowly -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: > Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they > probably are much more reliable then other media. I was about to say... you earlier commented about "Iranian" news source and its reliability. You framed it as a question, "is [source] reliable?" but gave the impression that it somehow wasn't. I'm glad you made the point above, and if anyone doesn't understand it, they can start to think about all of familiar sources, starting with conspiracy theory sources, gossip rags, and tabloids and the slowly work their way up to People magazine. At that point they would probably be tired and would get the point: Don't knock it just because its "Iranian." > Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a > small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Only if we have reliable, well-researched, and peer-reviewed sources. -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Bryan Derksen wrote: > Surreptitiousness wrote: > >> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> We are supposed to be community-driven. >>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >>> Link please. >>> >>> >> I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need >> a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with >> either smiles or frowns, which we can link to at times like this. Since >> consensus is supposed to be emergent of the wiki process on Wikipedia, >> per foundation principles, I'm not sure what you mean. Didn't they link >> to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus? >> > > I imagine he was hoping for a link to an RFC or a talk page where the > subject had been discussed and a consensus had formed as a result. This > sort of thing happens all the time, I don't see what's amusing or > bizarre about the concept. > > Simply linking to the "situation and its resolution" doesn't show > consensus in this case because the "resolution" was imposed without > discussion by a small number of people. > > Hmmm. I must have mis-imagined the foundation principle, because I'm fairly sure it mentioned the wiki process as the consensus making method, not talking about stuff. There's no need to have an RFC or a talk page about everything, and quite often you'll find the consensus actually is the situation and its resolution. I'm amused that any situation where something hasn't been discussed equates to an imposition of will. I'm also amused we read into emails the worst possible meaning rather than adopt a general air of amusement. But in all seriousness, I was very particular in writing that the resolution was, to quote, "a consensus" rather than The Consensus. I'd also imagine that if Will's purpose was to challenge the consensus on media blackouts, Will would be doing so on Wikipedia via an RFC or talk page discussion. Asking where the consensus is documented is a little backwards, because the consensus is actually in what we do. RFC's and talk page discussions are just what we think, and policies and guidance just describe what we do. What we do is where the consensus lies. If you want to change what we do, that's one thing, but if you want to know where what we do is documented, that's another. It may be that the consensus hasn;t been documented yet, or it may be that consensus is fragile. We don't know. I just found it amusing that Will thinks we are community driven but also asked for a link to consensus. To me that is somewhat illogical, since you can;t link to the community. Either we are community driven or we are rules driven. We can't really be both, although there are obvious exceptions. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a > whip in a minidress Huh boy. I'm flattered. > Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not? Actually, it's a "bully breed" (ie bull dog) type dog tilting it's head. Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:38 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Easily confused? > I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a > whip in a minidress > > Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not? > Secondly your message "how does this relate?" sound like you are > cracking your whip at the group for being bad and chatting. > > > -Original Message- > From: Emily Monroe > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT > reporter in Afghanistan > > > > > > > > > > >> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" > > What? I'm confused. > > Emily > On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> Emily wrote: >> <> >> >> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" >> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: >> >> I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make >> an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't >> sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad >> from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, >> because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that >> this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world. > > To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate > information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or > reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans > will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea > fizzles. > > That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And > that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. I think it is far more likely that it's because we just don't _have_ the detailed information that'd be needed to make an atomic bomb work. I'm sure you don't really think that North Korea would go to Wikipedia for that information, though. And anything that detailed would be more suitable for WikiHow or WikiSource anyway. Perhaps a more grounded-in-reality example of an article that has information that causes "harm" is the [[AACS encryption key controversy]], which contains a cryptographic key that the movie industry claimed was a secret vital to their business that shouldn't be revealed. It's not directly a life or limb thing but economic harm is harm nonetheless. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
That's a very nice interpretation, and in retrospect, I think that's what Will meant. Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe > wrote: >> On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>> Emily wrote: >> >>> <> >>> >>> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" >> >> What? I'm confused. > > I think he is saying that you correctly pointed out that people were > drifting off-topic, and he sees you as a kitten (presumably "nice") > but with a whip, telling people to stop going off-topic. But there > might be other references I'm missing there. I'd take it as a > compliment and make up a nice nickname for Will for you to give him > next time he (or anyone) goes off-topic. > > Carcharoth > > ___ > 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Surreptitiousness wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> We are supposed to be community-driven. >> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >> Link please. >> > I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need > a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with > either smiles or frowns, which we can link to at times like this. Since > consensus is supposed to be emergent of the wiki process on Wikipedia, > per foundation principles, I'm not sure what you mean. Didn't they link > to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus? I imagine he was hoping for a link to an RFC or a talk page where the subject had been discussed and a consensus had formed as a result. This sort of thing happens all the time, I don't see what's amusing or bizarre about the concept. Simply linking to the "situation and its resolution" doesn't show consensus in this case because the "resolution" was imposed without discussion by a small number of people. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/10 Bryan Derksen : > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. > > Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential > compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in > exactly the same way. Did the Foundation have anything to do with this? I don't know about the latest instance, but the last one was, as far as I know, just Jimmy Wales and a handful of admins, not Foundation involvement. (Remember, Jimmy is just a board member, he has no individual power in the Foundation.) ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> And even if "do no harm" really _was_ a universal principle that we all > followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like > this actually does cause harm. Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm needs to be accurate and common sense applied. To a certain extent this conversation has been about, "Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results, tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?, Public relations? Piss on that!" Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. >>> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential >>> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in >>> exactly the same way. >> >> Any responsible journalist will. > > That doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking about journalists of > whatever particular type you consider "responsible" or not, I was > specifically asking if the Foundation would censor WikiNews in the same > way as has been done to Wikipedia. My point is that if the answer here > is yes, the suggestion that "Investigative Journalism should go to > WikiNews" isn't going to be useful in this case. Whatever happens at WikiNews should be responsible just as any other media is. If posting something on Wikipedia is harmful, it will be harmful there too. The question is how to make such judgments reasonably well, and not evoke such considerations in inappropriate circumstances. That is what the Foundation does in such cases, they pass information on from outside sources that are knowledgeable about the situation. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> > > I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make > an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't > sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad > from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, > because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that > this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world. To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans will produce a bomb that will barely go off, witness the North Korea fizzles. That is because we generally do what it takes to avoid doing harm. And that is a good thing. It is simply wrong to do dumb harmful stuff. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
geni wrote: > 2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness : > >> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their >>> "plans". >>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known. >>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary >>> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a >>> cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. >>> >>> The how isn't the problem. >>> >>> >> I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does >> write the how to make a H-Bomb article. I'm sure they won't >> sensationalise it at all, once Will has explained it all. >> > > They haven't objected to our how to make an A-bomb info and our > (admittedly rather limited) stuff on chemical weaponry. And our > absolutely staggering amount of information on how to wage war in just > about any time period. > I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness : > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their >> "plans". >> The method of making an H bomb is widely known. >> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary >> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a >> cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. >> >> The how isn't the problem. >> > I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does > write the how to make a H-Bomb article. I'm sure they won't > sensationalise it at all, once Will has explained it all. They haven't objected to our how to make an A-bomb info and our (admittedly rather limited) stuff on chemical weaponry. And our absolutely staggering amount of information on how to wage war in just about any time period. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their > "plans". > The method of making an H bomb is widely known. > The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary > equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a > cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. > > The how isn't the problem. > I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does write the how to make a H-Bomb article. I'm sure they won't sensationalise it at all, once Will has explained it all. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > We are supposed to be community-driven. > Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? > Link please. > I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with either smiles or frowns, which we can link to at times like this. Since consensus is supposed to be emergent of the wiki process on Wikipedia, per foundation principles, I'm not sure what you mean. Didn't they link to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus? ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > It may not actually be as clear cut as you assume. > > Psychological tests may for instance be crucial in > deciding issues in criminal cases, and as such may > have a very remote chance of affecting life and > death issues. So might anything, potentially. FT2 ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
George Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote: > >> At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. >> The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" >> argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars. >> > > There is no reasonable comparison between potential reduced > effectiveness of psychological tests and potentially provoking the > beheading of a human being. > > > It may not actually be as clear cut as you assume. Psychological tests may for instance be crucial in deciding issues in criminal cases, and as such may have a very remote chance of affecting life and death issues. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: >> Fred Bauder wrote: We are supposed to be community-driven. Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? Link please. >>> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no >>> harm; any problem with that? >> At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. >> The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" >> argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach >> Wars. > > I didn't follow that, but I suspect they've been out there for a long > time. And using the same blots for decades is absurd anyway. And yet nevertheless there were editors who were arguing that exposing people to the ink blots was likely to cause serious harm. I'm not claiming the two cases are exactly equivalent, just enough so that I wouldn't say that it's reasonable to assume the opposite consensus in a related matter without looking for evidence first. > I think there are universal principles that we follow. Failures in one > instance or another is to be expected. The problem is that I don't think your principles are necessarily "universal". You're just assuming they are. And even if "do no harm" really _was_ a universal principle that we all followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like this actually does cause harm. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: >> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. >> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential >> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in >> exactly the same way. > > Any responsible journalist will. That doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking about journalists of whatever particular type you consider "responsible" or not, I was specifically asking if the Foundation would censor WikiNews in the same way as has been done to Wikipedia. My point is that if the answer here is yes, the suggestion that "Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews" isn't going to be useful in this case. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Easily confused? I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a whip in a minidress Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not? Secondly your message "how does this relate?" sound like you are cracking your whip at the group for being bad and chatting. -Original Message- From: Emily Monroe To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan > Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" What? I'm confused. Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Emily wrote: > <> > > Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe wrote: > On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Emily wrote: > >> <> >> >> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" > > What? I'm confused. I think he is saying that you correctly pointed out that people were drifting off-topic, and he sees you as a kitten (presumably "nice") but with a whip, telling people to stop going off-topic. But there might be other references I'm missing there. I'd take it as a compliment and make up a nice nickname for Will for you to give him next time he (or anyone) goes off-topic. Carcharoth ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. > > Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential > compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in > exactly the same way. Any responsible journalist will. Fred ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> We are supposed to be community-driven. >>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >>> Link please. >> >> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no >> harm; any problem with that? > > At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. > The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" > argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach > Wars. I didn't follow that, but I suspect they've been out there for a long time. And using the same blots for decades is absurd anyway. I think there are universal principles that we follow. Failures in one instance or another is to be expected. A pope having a wife and family does not negate the principles of Christianity. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote: > At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. > The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" > argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars. There is no reasonable comparison between potential reduced effectiveness of psychological tests and potentially provoking the beheading of a human being. -- -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Fred Bauder wrote: >> We are supposed to be community-driven. >> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >> Link please. > > Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no > harm; any problem with that? At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in exactly the same way. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" What? I'm confused. Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Emily wrote: > <> > > Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Emily wrote: <> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip" ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia? Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/9/10 George Herbert : >> This is wishful thinking, Geni. >> >> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium >> sized ones (1 ton) is not. > > > Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that > qualifies as tricky. > > >> And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to >> make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far >> harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later >> for a >> Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. >> >> Which are easier to design, but bigger and therefore somewhat harder >> to actually make, than the ones from five years after that in the >> [[B-61 nuclear bomb]], which are conceptually quite simple (and not >> that computationally hard). Which are harder to make, if a lot >> easier >> to calculate, than the [[W88]]. >> >> There are no WP:RS compatible sources one can cite for those >> developments and details, and WP:NOT a bomb manual, but thinking that >> they're that difficult just because they're not talked about widely >> is >> wishful thinking. > > North Korean attempt failed which suggests that unless you have the > plans to hand explosive lenses take work to get right. > > -- > 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 ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/10 George Herbert : > This is wishful thinking, Geni. > > Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium > sized ones (1 ton) is not. Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that qualifies as tricky. > And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to > make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far > harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a > Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. > > Which are easier to design, but bigger and therefore somewhat harder > to actually make, than the ones from five years after that in the > [[B-61 nuclear bomb]], which are conceptually quite simple (and not > that computationally hard). Which are harder to make, if a lot easier > to calculate, than the [[W88]]. > > There are no WP:RS compatible sources one can cite for those > developments and details, and WP:NOT a bomb manual, but thinking that > they're that difficult just because they're not talked about widely is > wishful thinking. North Korean attempt failed which suggests that unless you have the plans to hand explosive lenses take work to get right. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/9/10 George Herbert : >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote: >>> 2009/9/9 : It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their "plans". The method of making an H bomb is widely known. The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. >>> >>> No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are >>> problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of >>> speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest >>> it's not that easy. >> >> This is wishful thinking, Geni. >> >> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium >> sized ones (1 ton) is not. >> >> And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to >> make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far >> harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a >> Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. > > You have completely missed Geni's point. Fat Man was an A-bomb, not an > H-bomb. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design Geni's points were that A-bombs are not H-bombs (which I did not address, and is correct), that A-bomb explosive lenses are somewhat problematical (which I disagree with), and that H-bomb design contains significant elements of speculation (which I disagree with generally - specifically to large and mid-sized H-bombs, which are not that complicated - but I do not disagree so much about very compact H-bomb design, as the specific geometry of the use of Foglight in the last generation of designs is still somewhat opaque in public knowledge). I don't need to reread the article; I've written large parts of it, and could write a book sized version with all the ugly math and specific examples. -- -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/10 George Herbert : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote: >> 2009/9/9 : >>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their >>> "plans". >>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known. >>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary >>> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a >>> cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. >> >> No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are >> problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of >> speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest >> it's not that easy. > > This is wishful thinking, Geni. > > Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium > sized ones (1 ton) is not. > > And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to > make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far > harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a > Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. You have completely missed Geni's point. Fat Man was an A-bomb, not an H-bomb. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/9/9 : >> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their >> "plans". >> The method of making an H bomb is widely known. >> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary >> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a >> cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. > > No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are > problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of > speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest > it's not that easy. This is wishful thinking, Geni. Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium sized ones (1 ton) is not. And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. Which are easier to design, but bigger and therefore somewhat harder to actually make, than the ones from five years after that in the [[B-61 nuclear bomb]], which are conceptually quite simple (and not that computationally hard). Which are harder to make, if a lot easier to calculate, than the [[W88]]. There are no WP:RS compatible sources one can cite for those developments and details, and WP:NOT a bomb manual, but thinking that they're that difficult just because they're not talked about widely is wishful thinking. I wish people would stop using nuclear plans as the hypothetical for these discussions... -- -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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
-Original Message- From: geni To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 : > The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret to > me is flat. I do not see the logic behind the belief that it will > preserve their lives in any way, for example. Well this time around 3 civilians died. Not sure if that counts as successful. geni Those who support the idea of keeping this information secret would probably argue that more would have died if it weren't. And those who oppose it would say, "See it didn't work". Something for everybody! Will Johnson ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 : > It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their > "plans". > The method of making an H bomb is widely known. > The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary > equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a > cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest it's not that easy. > The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret to > me is flat. I do not see the logic behind the belief that it will > preserve their lives in any way, for example. Well this time around 3 civilians died. Not sure if that counts as successful. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their "plans". The method of making an H bomb is widely known. The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. The how isn't the problem. The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret to me is flat. I do not see the logic behind the belief that it will preserve their lives in any way, for example. So even if the community were to agree to "do no harm" (whatever that means), the further necessary step is to show, in a concrete way, how revealing the name of a victim does "harm". I'm sure you can see that. Just as I'm sure that you can see, that people other than yourself, might find the entire argument meaningless, or without adequate justification. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Fred Bauder To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan > Interesting here is what they say about themselves > " > > Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international > news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. > > Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding > Iranian and foreign media professionals. > > Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's > most strategic cities." > ENDQUOTE > > We're put in the unenviable position of determining whether this is a > reliable source. > They certainly seem internet-savvy from mousing around their site. > > Will > Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a Taliban regional commander and got the story. I'm sure the CIA took their information seriously. It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, say, the President of Afghanistan. However, we need not be so clever as all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they > probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a > Taliban regional commander and got the story. Iran and the Taliban don't exactly get on so unlikely they would just repeat a taliban story. It's fairly clear that the story wasn't really secret within Afghanistan. >I'm sure the CIA took their > information seriously. I'm sure they already knew if they felt they needed to. > It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it > is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, > say, the President of Afghanistan. Nah they are probably about level. >However, we need not be so clever as > all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this > information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably > perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and > inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Except there were other sources. > Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a > small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Depends where I got it from. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Interesting here is what they say about themselves > " > > Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international > news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. > > Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding > Iranian and foreign media professionals. > > Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's > most strategic cities." > ENDQUOTE > > We're put in the unenviable position of determining whether this is a > reliable source. > They certainly seem internet-savvy from mousing around their site. > > Will > Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a Taliban regional commander and got the story. I'm sure the CIA took their information seriously. It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, say, the President of Afghanistan. However, we need not be so clever as all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 : > I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping > the hand that reaches". > Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding. > Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple > sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what > that implies. Perhaps the NYT can stop being double-faced and come > clean on their exact argument for blackouts. > > Was this even a blackout? Or was it merely the case that there were > not enough sources reporting it yet? Several days with out the western media really talking about it and that OTRS email suggests blackout. I As for the sources the long war journal is a rather better source than it initially appears: http://www.longwarjournal.org/staff.php And the South African independent is certainly legit if we can show that the article existed at the point it was linked to. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping the hand that reaches". Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding. Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what that implies. Perhaps the NYT can stop being double-faced and come clean on their exact argument for blackouts. Was this even a blackout? Or was it merely the case that there were not enough sources reporting it yet? -Original Message- From: Fred Bauder To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan > Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. > - d. Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Interesting here is what they say about themselves " Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals. Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's most strategic cities." ENDQUOTE We're put in the unenviable position of determining whether this is a reliable source. They certainly seem internet-savvy from mousing around their site. Will -Original Message- From: Thomas Dalton To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:50 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 : > Well what were the sources? > Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance, seems reliable: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105379§ionid=351020403 ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> 2009/9/9 : >> Well what were the sources? >> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. > > They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance, > seems reliable: Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is that a reliable source? Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. > - d. Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 : > Well what were the sources? > Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance, seems reliable: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105379§ionid=351020403 ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Well what were the sources? Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >> We are supposed to be community-driven. >> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? >> Link please. >> >> Will Johnson >> > > Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no > harm; any problem with that? There is no such consensus. We try to minimise harm while complying with our other values, we don't avoid harm entirely. We will discuss criminal convictions in BLPs (subject to due weight requirements), for example, despite them being harmful. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
"Do no harm" isn't a consensus however. That language is so incredibly vague it could be taken to mean almost anything. Fred we've been over this many times on this list :) You really want to do it again? We have articles on murder victims which appear on the top of Google, keeping that fresh in the minds and at the fingertips of anyone with an interest prurient or not. You don't think that "harms" the remaining living family? "Do no harm" is an unworkable phrase. Calling Lee Majors last movie "trite" even with a source is harmful to his career I'm sure. -Original Message- From: Fred Bauder To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan > We are supposed to be community-driven. > Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? > Link please. > > Will Johnson > Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with that? Fred ___ WikiEN-l 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 David Gerard : >> BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living >> people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be >> removed (unless it is given undue weight). > > > That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in > what's accepted as verification of such. If you genuinely think the sources are unreliable, then fine, but I don't believe that is the case. You are wikilawyering, pure and simple. If you want to ignore the rules, that's fine, we explicitly allow that, but be honest about it. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> We are supposed to be community-driven. > Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? > Link please. > > Will Johnson > Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with that? Fred ___ WikiEN-l 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/9/9 : >> I really don't see this as IAR. >> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some >> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim >> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems >> flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a discussion on >> finding consensus, I would expect it to revolve around BLP. > BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living > people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be > removed (unless it is given undue weight). That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in what's accepted as verification of such. - 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 : > I really don't see this as IAR. > It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some > reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim > secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems > flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a discussion on > finding consensus, I would expect it to revolve around BLP. BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be removed (unless it is given undue weight). ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
I really don't see this as IAR. It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a discussion on finding consensus, I would expect it to revolve around BLP. -Original Message- From: Thomas Dalton To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little > smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. More serious than life and death? ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews. BTW does Wikinews have any traction yet? I mean does it hit the first googly page ? -Original Message- From: David Gerard To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little > smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about potentially extremely harmful information. We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a venue for investigative journalism. - 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 ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
We are supposed to be community-driven. Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? Link please. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Carcharoth To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >>> Would you have us do different? >> >> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent >> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I >> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to >> the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the >> current practice, I would argue it is more so. > > We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract > attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting > it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable > subject. Well, posting a plan like that to a publicly archived mailing list is a good start at not attracting attention. Carcharoth ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect > wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping > other more established news organizations, but in fact > be there before all the other major news orgs with the > full nitty gritty. I don't. Plenty of stories where wikipedians are in a better position to track the specialist publications where things break first. > However the source of why critics of these two stories > about suppression have focused on wikipedia, likely > stems from the fact our articles edit histories are out > there for most people to see, if they have a bit of savvy. They haven't focused on wikipedia. At most we get a passing mention. Probably more to do with conflict with our generally fairly anti censorship position. -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 David Gerard : > 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > >> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little >> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. > > > I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case > was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about > potentially extremely harmful information. BLP says no such thing. > We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews > for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there > are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. False. Wikipedia contains a lot of stuff that isn't "all over the media". WP:V doesn't require anything close to that and for good reason. > People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a > venue for investigative journalism. No. The investigative stuff had already been done. Thats why there were three sources on the info (probably more around since no one had got as far as digging up the afghan sources). -- 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Keith Old wrote: > Folks, > >From the Huffington Post: > > "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for > several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around > the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping, > and later drew criticism for this from some quarters. It has just happened > again -- with my magazine, *Editor & Publisher*, among those not writing > about it -- in the case of another well-known *New York Times*reporter in > Afghanistan, but for a much shorter period of time. > > Stephen Farrell, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and > freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos. Munadi and a > commando were killed. Farrell is fine. > > I saw some indications that Farrell had been snatched in my regular Web > searches for media scoops over the weekend. As in the case of Rohde, a > handful of not prominent blogs, along with very scattered media abroad (in > their original language) reported that something was up, but confirmation > was slight, given the silence of the *Times* and U.S. military. > > This went on for two days, as I kept searching -- and finding that, once > again, the media apparently were not rushing anything into print or online. > > Also, as in the case of Rohde, I noticed that Farrell's Wikipedia entry had > been scrubbed -- some user kept trying to post the kidnapping and the "news" > kept getting deleted, before the entry was put under "protected" status and > the cat and mouse game stopped. You can see it in the "history" there along > with complaints of this "censorship crap" occurring again. " > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/again-media-and-wikipedia_b_280233.html > BTW, I think TFA is remarkably even handed about how it describes what happened. This doesn't surprise me personally since I have read Greg Mitchell's book The Campaign of the Century, which I recommend strongly for anyone who is interested in how it came to be that politics and the media became to be so closely entwined, or anyone wanting to just get an amazingly wide canvas snapshot of both the world at large and California of 1934 vintage in particular. The book recounts Upton Sinclair's attempt to run for governor of CA. Arguably that year was epochal in the development of media-politics, as the studios really took a unified stance to oppose that run. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Greg Mitchell didn't have to battle with his own BLP issues when writing that book. While I can't prove that Greg Mitchell knew of Robert A. Heinlein's heavy involvement in the EPIC movement at that time, it would be quite astonishing if he was not aware of it, considering he notes much thinner connections to lesser Science Fiction authors and EPIC and Sinclair. Heinlein was still alive at that time and very adamant that his involvement with EPIC was not made explicitly public, at least in his own writings. I can well imagine that Heinlein or his wife Ginny might have asked Mitchell to with-hold mentioning Heinlein in his book on "BLP grounds". Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
David Gerard wrote: > > I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case > was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about > potentially extremely harmful information. > > We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews > for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there > are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. > > People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a > venue for investigative journalism. > > > I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping other more established news organizations, but in fact be there before all the other major news orgs with the full nitty gritty. However the source of why critics of these two stories about suppression have focused on wikipedia, likely stems from the fact our articles edit histories are out there for most people to see, if they have a bit of savvy. The story would almost certainly be different if most major newsorganisations out there had a public paper-trail of what decisions about which stories were made in the newsrooms at which time, and who was on which side about which story... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little > smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about potentially extremely harmful information. We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a venue for investigative journalism. - 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little > smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. More serious than life and death? ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : Would you have us do different? >>> >>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent >>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I >>> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to >>> the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the >>> current practice, I would argue it is more so. >> >> We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract >> attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and >> redirecting >> it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable >> subject. > > Well, posting a plan like that to a publicly archived mailing list is > a good start at not attracting attention. > > Carcharoth Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >>> Would you have us do different? >> >> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent >> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I >> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to >> the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the >> current practice, I would argue it is more so. > > We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract > attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting > it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable > subject. If you lie people aren't going to believe you and will fight you. That is exactly what has happened in the two cases I know of. Edit wars and deletion reviews attract attention. A quiet, but explicit, implementation of IAR is not going to attract any more attention. ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >>> Would you have us do different? >> >> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent >> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I >> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to >> the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the >> current practice, I would argue it is more so. > > We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract > attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting > it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable > subject. Well, posting a plan like that to a publicly archived mailing list is a good start at not attracting attention. Carcharoth ___ 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : >> Would you have us do different? > > I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent > editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I > would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to > the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the > current practice, I would argue it is more so. We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable subject. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder : > Would you have us do different? I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to the OTRS ticket. Such a protection isn't any less subtle that the current practice, I would argue it is more 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Would you have us do different? Fred > Folks, > From the Huffington Post: > > "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for > several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media > around > the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the > kidnapping, > and later drew criticism for this from some quarters. It has just > happened > again -- with my magazine, *Editor & Publisher*, among those not writing > about it -- in the case of another well-known *New York Times*reporter in > Afghanistan, but for a much shorter period of time. > > Stephen Farrell, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and > freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos. Munadi and a > commando were killed. Farrell is fine. > > I saw some indications that Farrell had been snatched in my regular Web > searches for media scoops over the weekend. As in the case of Rohde, a > handful of not prominent blogs, along with very scattered media abroad > (in > their original language) reported that something was up, but confirmation > was slight, given the silence of the *Times* and U.S. military. > > This went on for two days, as I kept searching -- and finding that, once > again, the media apparently were not rushing anything into print or > online. > > Also, as in the case of Rohde, I noticed that Farrell's Wikipedia entry > had > been scrubbed -- some user kept trying to post the kidnapping and the > "news" > kept getting deleted, before the entry was put under "protected" status > and > the cat and mouse game stopped. You can see it in the "history" there > along > with complaints of this "censorship crap" occurring again. " > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/again-media-and-wikipedia_b_280233.html > > Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the > kidnapping seems justified. His article is here. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist) > > > Regards > > > *Keith* > ___ > 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] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
The protection referenced an OTRS ticket (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2009090610014951) in the edit summary. I'd be interested to know more information on that ticket, specifically if it was a request for protection from a news organization. I suppose when this happened before, and I argued in favor of it, I didn't imagine it would become a regular occurrence. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 Keith Old : > Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the > kidnapping seems justified. His article is here. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist) > That would rather depend on what was at the http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20090905164708693C937284 link at the time it was added no? -- 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
[WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan
Folks, >From the Huffington Post: "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping, and later drew criticism for this from some quarters. It has just happened again -- with my magazine, *Editor & Publisher*, among those not writing about it -- in the case of another well-known *New York Times*reporter in Afghanistan, but for a much shorter period of time. Stephen Farrell, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos. Munadi and a commando were killed. Farrell is fine. I saw some indications that Farrell had been snatched in my regular Web searches for media scoops over the weekend. As in the case of Rohde, a handful of not prominent blogs, along with very scattered media abroad (in their original language) reported that something was up, but confirmation was slight, given the silence of the *Times* and U.S. military. This went on for two days, as I kept searching -- and finding that, once again, the media apparently were not rushing anything into print or online. Also, as in the case of Rohde, I noticed that Farrell's Wikipedia entry had been scrubbed -- some user kept trying to post the kidnapping and the "news" kept getting deleted, before the entry was put under "protected" status and the cat and mouse game stopped. You can see it in the "history" there along with complaints of this "censorship crap" occurring again. " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/again-media-and-wikipedia_b_280233.html Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the kidnapping seems justified. His article is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist) Regards *Keith* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
