News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:
>
> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:
>>
>> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:

>> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:
>>>
>>> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?

preventing harm is the argument of all censors

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



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> 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@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

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 <dgoodmanny@...>

> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> 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@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sam Blacketer]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@...>:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had kidnapped?
That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just some joker who nobody cares about."

Or some claim that the kidnappers regularly watch Wikipedia to try to see who "John Smith" really is? Or something?? The entire logic of the news suppression escapes me somehow.? I don't see how suppressing who the person is, in the western media, would have any impact whatsoever on what the kidnappers do or don't.

Will




 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Risker <risker.wp@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42 pm
Subject: 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 <dgoodmanny@...>

> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> 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@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 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.blacketer@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
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.wp@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, <wjhonson@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Nathan <nawrich@...>:

> 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.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 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 <nawrich@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
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, <wjhonson@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 2009/6/29 Nathan <nawrich@...>:
>> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

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 <fredbaud@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

> 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.
>

Eugh!  *Life.

-Stevertigo
Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki were in some ways like email, though.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, <WJhonson@...> 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.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Michael Peel-2]

On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM, <WJhonson@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 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.herbert@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
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, <WJhonson@...> 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.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l