Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet. In this situation, perhaps it was thought it would work better if it looked like just another wiki squabble over sources. We have plenty of those but office actions are rare. Hey, those idiots at Wikipedia can't even decide on whether or not this kidnapping's notable. He's just a shmoe, let him go. ___ 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
2009/6/30 wjhon...@aol.com: Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation given for why? You keep saying it was reported by Al Jazeera. It wasn't. - d. ___ 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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S. administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an organization that does not follow the same professional standards that Western 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” ... The 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
I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after branding a news agency unreliable. Michel 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed). -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
2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are), there were still other sources: Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage of Afghanistan and 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._Rohdediff=nextoldid=277012138 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdediff=nextoldid=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: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage. -Durova On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally 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
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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage. -Durova Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving 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
On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: What are policies for? We tend not to ask this often enough. I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could call normal circumstances. 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
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 Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage. -Durova Yes, I read it. I don't think 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
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 wikipe...@zog.orgwrote: I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after branding a news agency unreliable. Michel 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I 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
Gwern Branwen wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage. -Durova Yes, I read it. I don't think 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
On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. I'm not entirely sure what geni's position is. My impression is that s/he is not necessarily opposed to the outcome, just the 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
2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com: Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a 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
2009/6/30 Risker risker...@gmail.com: 2009/6/30 geni geni...@gmail.com 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com: Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first 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
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
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
I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Durova wrote: Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon the slippery slope of censorship. On Tue, Jun 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
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
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
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
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] News agencies are not RSs
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
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 wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather 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
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, wjhon...@aol.com 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] News agencies are not RSs
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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Ian Woollard wrote: I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is 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] News agencies are not RSs
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 sainto...@telus.net 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
I am not advocating, but trying to explain. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: Most (or almost all) 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
stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, wrote: The NY Times presumably 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
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] News agencies are not RSs
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
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com: The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is; the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors will back-off. That wasn't the 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
[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping. ... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times. In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia’s cooperation was not a given. “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 Wikipedia page history shows that the next day, Nov. 13, someone without a user name edited the entry on Mr. Rohde for the first time to include the kidnapping. Mr. Moss deleted the addition, and the same unidentified user promptly restored it, adding a note protesting the removal. The unnamed editor cited an Afghan news agency report. In the first few days, at least two small news agencies and a handful of blogs reported the kidnapping. ... When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.” -- 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” ... The question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com: This case is more about basic common sense. I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. If editors were not concerned with the reliability of the news agency they should just cite BLP on the basis that it's pretty much impossible to show that any given edit doesn't violate it and the side effects of rule lawyering with it are likely to be more limited. Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. -- 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
2009/6/29 geni geni...@gmail.com: Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
Sam Blacketer wrote: This case is more about basic common sense... Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain fact out of the media for N months. And can this still be done when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors, who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying to suppress some information that wants to be free. ___ 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 wrote: 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” ... The question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? If it isn't perhaps it should be removed from the four other articles that use it as a source. 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] News agencies are not RSs
Sam Blacketer wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” ... The question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into obscure is frankly beyond me. 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 geni geni...@gmail.com: Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical. There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so. - d. Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a reasonably good source, just not in the Western news loop the New York Times is depending on. I'm proud to have Wikipedia in that loop, when appropriate. That doesn't mean that when The New York Times goes to the White House and gets orders to cover up some pernicious US plot that we should obey, assuming we have any way of knowing. We did not seem to be able to sort out the truth about Iraq. Hard to do so when you can almost always rely on the New York Times. 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in. The government of Iran has made it fairly clear that further protests carry the risks of further deaths. It's also fairly clear that the protests in part at least are aimed at gaining western media coverage. If they fail at that they are likely to stop more quickly. Should we remove our content on the Iranian elections? After all lives are at stake. -- 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
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place? Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (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
2009/6/29 wjhon...@aol.com Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place? Will It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging into his background, which could make him appear to be more of an infidel and thus less worthy of basic human dignity, potentially subjected to greater physical and mental privations. (Kidnappees who are considered to be aligned with other nemeses are treated more harshly.) It would increase the danger to those who were kidnapped with him, if they were perceived to have been working for an infidel, and he and his fellow kidnappees would be more likely to be executed as examples to others. 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
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes: It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed). -- So we're now going to set a higher moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so. Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information outlet suppressed information of this import because it might endanger someone's life. I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So we're now going to set a higher moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so. No. In fact, the New York Times contacted a wide range of mainstream media organizations (NPR, other national papers, etc.) to coordinate the media blackout. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059 -Sage ___ 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
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes: It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed). -- So we're now going to set a higher moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so. Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information outlet suppressed information of this import because it might endanger someone's life. I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. Will Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. 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] News agencies are not RSs
2009/6/29 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place? It would raise 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) We are not the western media and that page gets under 500 views a month. -- 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. Fred An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total war situation. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. Fred An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total war situation. -- geni It's not a big war, but we certainly are at war with the kidnappers. Fred ___ 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Easily done; news of the D-Day invasion was suppressed. Fred An example that is in now way relevant because we are not in a total war situation. -- geni It's not a big war, but we certainly are at war with the kidnappers. Fred So? Total war and what is going on in Afghanistan are not comparable to any useful extent and thus attempts to use examples from total war situations are not helpful. -- 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
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into obscure is frankly beyond me. Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? preventing harm is the argument of all censors David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into obscure is frankly beyond me. Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area. Risker 2009/6/29 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? preventing harm is the argument of all censors David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into obscure is frankly beyond me. Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. Do you know it was an embargo and not simply that they didn't have the information? ___ 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
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is. -Original Message- From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ 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
Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because* they were famous for some reason. Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea? -Original Message- From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is. Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea? 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 ___ 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
2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information to the people - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion. Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. 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] News agencies are not RSs
I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of context. I have a source in a certain other government agency, who knows about a certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed. Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't). Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so there's no conflict of interest. The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher principle of killing the bad guy and all, and that's really what's interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares? But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's messing with me. I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose. -Stevertigo On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion. Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. ___ 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as long. Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? No it hasn't. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as long. Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? No it hasn't. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. In this case, it didn't matter that his profile was raised instantly to whatever level after his release - the important period was when he was held captive. It was more delay than suppression. I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still played out in the same fashion. Mike ___ 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 you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative effect. But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think suppressing from the general public, information already known to the captors, could possibly do. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. -Original Message- From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can go around the world in the opposite direction as well. ?And for twice as long. Smart thinking. ?Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? No it hasn't. It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually. -- -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 ___ 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information to the people - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion. Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for. ___ 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 wrote: would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations? preventing harm is the argument of all censors That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a censor is not a valid deduction from that, but a trite fallacy. The truth of the matter is that the policy on BLP involves us in casuistry, in the technical sense. Your first comment illustrates that point. 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
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 2009/6/29 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information to the people - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion. Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead. Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for. They are, in extreme instances, and the inability of the editors as a whole to either maintain confidentiality or even make a decision, (to say nothing of the transparency of the software) makes such decisions necessary. What has to get done, get's done. I have some doubt that you would actually disagree with any decision that has been made in this way. 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] News agencies are not RSs
- Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still played out in the same fashion. I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing. I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. As to whether it was a reliable source, I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. Andrew ___ 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
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for. Office actions are taken over content all the time. A. ___ 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
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information to the people - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit. In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail. Nathan We simply can't let that happen. Their reputation must somehow be factored into decision making. 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative effect. But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think suppressing from the general public, information already known to the captors, could possibly do. You may not understand it, but given that you appear to be the minority perhaps you should consider that you may not be correct. There is no debate about conveying facts to the captors that they don't already know. The simple point is that making it public and giving the kidnapping a much higher profile would have fundamentally changed the dynamics of the situation, and not in a good way. 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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative effect. I don't believe that our (Jimmy et al's private) actions here caused anything. The combined effect of all of the media together embargoing this is unclear. What the NYT felt and convinced others was that the situation, which was arguably very bad in real life, would not get worse if it was held confidential for a time. Causality is hard to prove or argue, but it was held confidential for a time, and did not get worse. But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of protecting something or other.? What's not in evidence is exactly what they think suppressing from the general public, information already known to the captors, could possibly do. The entire value here is in minimizing the apparent political and media impact of the kidnapping, in terms of its value to the kidnappers. If they are focused on monetary gain, then minimizing the apparent significance of the reporter by lowering their profile, and humanizing them by carefully and in a limited fashion emphasizing their humanitarian contributions, can reduce the expected ransom value and enthusiasm with which the captors will bargain (and risk that they'd kill him out of spite, if negotiations go badly). If they are focused on making a media statement, either with PR exploitation of the kidnapee or by murdering them in a very public manner, the victim having a lower profile makes the value of such a statement lower, and if they weren't rapidly killed to make a public statement the odds that they will survive longer or eventually escape or be rescued increase. On the practical side, our (again, Jimmy et al's - I had no idea this was going on) actions were consistent with what other media were doing, embargoing the story as it were, and if it was ethical for the BBC and Washington Post and Time and CNN to embargo it then I don't believe it was unethical for us to. On a more theoretical note... Wikipedia's value is maximized if we're seen by our readers and our writers as a combination of useful (can find what I'm looking for), reliable (what I find is truthful), relatively complete, and ethical source of information. We chose not to publish many categories of information, because there is a lack of reliable sources for it, it would be illegal to publish it, or it would be unethical for us to publish it. There is plenty of information I know which is not in Wikipedia - some because I can't provide verifiable reliable sources, some because it would be unethical to publish it, some because it's classified information and while I learned it outside of official channels and am not subject to security clearance related publication limits, it would be better for at least the US and probably the world if it's not discussed widely. The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers. In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own internal review. I would rather ten internal shitstorms than one Kidnapped reporter murdered - Wikipedia to blame editorial in the New York Times if we chose to do otherwise. The overall balance says we have done right here. Thank you, Jimmy. I believe that you and (functionaries, or whoever) called this one right. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote: I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. As to whether it was a reliable source, I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Instead, ordinary Wikipedians were being put in the position of being told by people with authority that the rules demanded something that they manifestly did not. Yes, it was a reliable source, and they said it wasn't, and it's an excuse. Think about what you are really saying when you're saying it's an excuse. We *trust* the people in charge of Wikipedia to enforce rules fairly. This trust was broken. (And it was by no means the first time, it's just that the cause was a little better this time.) ___ 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
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. I already posted this, but... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 ___ 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
2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for. Office actions are taken over content all the time. By the office, yes. ArbCom and functionaries are not part of the office and, while I think technically Jimbo's name is on the list of people that can take office actions, I don't think he's done on in a while (nor has the office, for that matter, as far as I am aware). ___ 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
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote: I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. As to whether it was a reliable source, I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. It would have been much better if it was officially an office action. Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet. ___ 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
Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody actually holding him prisoner, was there? I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of behaviour that goes back centuries. Most of these kidnappings are economically driven, and target anyone they think might have the money; the overwhelming majority of kidnap victims are non-notable, so they would never have an article about them into which their kidnapping could be added. But people with a larger reputation have a different economic value, and they can be sold to those who wish to make their kidnapping a political/religious issue. And once the people are being held for idealistic reasons, the rules - and the risks - change. Risker 2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. I already posted this, but... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1 ___ 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers. In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own internal review. That's not the case. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/8wnzh/jimmy_wales_cooperated_with_the_new_york_times_to/ (150+ comments on reddit) http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/29/was-wikipedia-correct-to-censor-news-of-david-rohdes-capture/ (Christian Science Monitor blog suggests that what is ethical for a traditional news organization may not be for Wikipedia) http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/the-nytimes-wikipedia-whitewash/ (Michelle Malkin links this to the whole 'liberal media' meme: Would Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have done this for Fox News or the Washington Times? ) -Sage ___ 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
Four thoughts: 1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,* Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary, Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as unreliable sources. Or temporarily unreliable sources, if that's the preffered term. A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab world-based news agency, then its [temporarily] not a reliable source.' 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. 2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration? 3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The young white [fe] male dimension might have relevance. Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not based in vague concepts like professionalism or reliable sources, but out of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the English-speaking world. Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might even shoot at Al Jazeera.* Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each. 2) Found this on the Rohde talk page: Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor] articles about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... 89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and death. Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism' (perfect crime etc.). -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
I'd just like to clarify one point. The NYT article does make it seem as if the entire reason that the actions were done were because Jimmy asked or requested it. This is not the case and I know this first-hand, of course being one of those administrators involved. I did what I did because I felt it was appropriate. I did not do it for any other reason. Of course I cannot speak for others but I would only assume that they have similar thoughts. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@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] News agencies are not RSs
Three more points: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. 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. 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? -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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Three more points: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. 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. 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. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled from Google. The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor intelligence other than regarding shipowners. 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. Government intelligence agency and military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. 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. They're trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate, zealous, and impartial. That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times. 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. -- -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] News agencies are not RSs
In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his life. In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy. Here's the situation he faced. Before the trial begins, the judge tells me to pick a name out of his hat. What does he win? I asked, indicating the big, black-turbaned Talib with the shit-eating grin. He gets to shoot you, just as soon as we finish this formality of a trial. Okay, let's get started! Ya gotta love these guys and their wacky black humour! Did I mention that my translator, a doctor from the Malaysian refugee camp where I'd started the day, was convinced I was guilty and never missed an opportunity to tell me or the judge so? Afterward they actually aimed a rifle at him and pulled the trigger, in an effort to get him to talk. They didn't tell him the clip was empty. Just about at the point where he thought he was persuading the authorities that he really wasn't a spy, the news of his situation spread through the Canadian and international press. Journal de Montréal published a fact that put his life right back in danger: he was Jewish. The Taliban had Internet connections; they picked up on that. It wasn't possible for him to publish those circumstances in a reliable source until after his release. http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/120601/news8.html -Lise On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Three more points: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. 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. 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. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled from Google. The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor intelligence other than regarding shipowners. 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. Government intelligence agency and military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. 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. They're trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate, zealous, and impartial. That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times. 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
