News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder-2]

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

[Nathan Awrich]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, <wjhonson@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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

>> 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.

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

[Fred Bauder-2]

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

[Andrew Turvey]

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

[Andrew Turvey]

---- "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM, <wjhonson@...> 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.herbert@...

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

[Ken Arromdee]

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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:
> ---- "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...>:
> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

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 <arromdee@...>

> 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@...
> 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

[Sage Ross]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbert<george.herbert@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

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

[Rjd0060 -]

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

[stevertigo-2]

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

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> 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.herbert@...

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

[Durova]

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.herbert@...>wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> 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.herbert@...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Stephen Bain]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> 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.bain@...

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