News agencies are not RSs

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, George Herbert wrote:

> > 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
> > problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that
> > after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were
> > substantially contributive to any success in this case.
>
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.

This reasoning sounds good, but is not consistent with what we hear whenever
we want to remove information from Wikipedia to help protect a person, but the
person isn't as well connected to the media as a newspaper reporter.  When
we want to protect a non-reporter, we are told that since Wikipedia is just
republishing information that is already out there and causing damage
anyway, the person will probably have been hurt just as much without the
Wikipedia article.  And of course, Wikipedia is not censored, and that
the five pillars of Wikipedia require the free flow of information and can
never be compromised.

Certainly, someone who tried to suppress information in the same way, but was
not Jimmy Wales or otherwise important on Wikipedia, even if they did it to
save a life, would be accused of edit warring, told that they are abusing
the rules, and taken to Arbcom and banned.  Of course, in the process they
would be told that their idea that they are saving a life is speculative and
can't be proven.  If one such person were to justify their actions by
claiming that terrorists can't use the Internet well, we would reply "nice
idea, but you really have no proof for that.  You're just speculating.  You
don't know that that's true.  Now stop the edit warring and the rules abuse--
we can certainly prove *that*."

You're making a good case that publishing information can harm someone.  But
this same good case has been made countless other times and it's never been
accepted, saving a life or not.


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

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
> newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
> out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
> Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
> journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
> might be validated.
>  
Trouble is, not even a scoop or Pulitzer can make a source "reliable",
which is a concept more to do with minimum rather than maximum
standards.  "Verifiability from reliable sources" is a good policy, but
the good part is the verifiability. What we have had to say about
"reliable sources" has never been that impressive.  I hear all the time
on the radio that "unconfirmed reports" say something has happened;
obviously that means the source concerned is not, stand-alone, 100%
reliable as far as the BBC is concerned.  And that's how it is: rumour
and correct facts get mixed into primary news reporting.  The fact that
a rumour may check out afterwards is hardly the issue.

Anyway, if there had been several independent sources for the Rohde
business, the dam would have broken.  As it is, I think the systemic
bias around WP in favour of including high amounts of detail about
living English-speaking journalists is very noticeable.

Charles


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

[Ian Woollard]

Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
technically rouge admins?

So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
acceptable can be discussed.

I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
rather than some less savoury purpose?

--
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, geni<geniice@...> wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <gwern0@...>:
>> “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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Michel Vuijlsteke-2]

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.woollard@...>

> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>
> So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> acceptable can be discussed.
>
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross<ragesoss+wikipedia@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Michel Vuijlsteke-2]

2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen <gwern0@...>

> Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are),
> there were still other sources:
>
> "Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his
> second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage
> of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos
> International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of
> blogs into action."
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html
>

Sorry, Adnkronos International is not a reliable source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=next&oldid=277012138

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=next&oldid=277012138>
Michel
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>wrote:

> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>
> So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> acceptable can be discussed.
>
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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

[Charles Matthews]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> technically rouge admins?
>  
What are policies for?  We tend not to ask this often enough.

I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable
expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could
call "normal circumstances".  We have IAR because not all circumstances
are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.

WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the
greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding
original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about
ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising).
Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high
standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news
agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I
think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it
says. That's the letter.

Charles


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

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>
> -Durova
>

Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
their prisoners in a similar manner.

--
gwern

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

[Ian Woollard]

On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
> What are policies for?  We tend not to ask this often enough.
>
> I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable
> expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could
> call "normal circumstances".  We have IAR because not all circumstances
> are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.

The problem is that there are always cabals as well as single people
that simply believe strange things.

So if somebody (anybody, but particularly an admin) does something
strange, are they a member of a cabal or is there something happening
they can't tell you? If they're a member of a cabal or simply believe
something strange then they need to be resisted, but if there is
something they can't tell you then that's much more likely to be OK.

The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you
that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is;
the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors
will back-off.

> WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the
> greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding
> original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about
> ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising).
> Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high
> standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news
> agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I
> think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it
> says. That's the letter.

That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less
sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those
grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO
that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually
behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.

> Charles

--
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

[David Goodman]

I usually consider that BLP should be used very restrictively, but if
there ever was a case where do no harm applies, it is this, not the
convoluted arguments of possible harm to felons where it is usually
raised. I would have done just as JW did (except I would have done it
just as OTRS) . I can not imagine being willing to take the personal
responsibility of publishing this. There is an argument otherwise, but
that's abstract, and people judge differently when it is not abstract,
but a known individual.

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



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Gwern Branwen<gwern0@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
>> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
>> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
> claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
> before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
> naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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

[Rjd0060 -]

"OTRS actions" (for lack of a better term) should always stand on their own
merits.  OTRS volunteers have no special authority to do anything that a
regular administrator doesn't have.  Thus, we do not make actions "per
OTRS".  In the final protection I did note the summary with a link to the
OTRS ticket in case people decided to ask about it.  It was for
informational purposes only.  But there was no "drama" before.  Only a few
edits and a few reverts (as well as the previous protections).

---
Rjd0060
rjd0060.wiki@...


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@...>wrote:

> I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an
> OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after
> branding a news agency "unreliable".
> Michel
>
> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>
>
> > Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
> > of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
> > entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
> > Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
> > technically rouge admins?
> >
> > So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of
> > thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't
> > acceptable can be discussed.
> >
> > I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> > going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> > there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> > user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> > rather than some less savoury purpose?
> >
> > --
> > -Ian Woollard
> >
> > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > 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

[Charles Matthews]

Gwern Branwen wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
>  
>> Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
>> who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>>    
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified.

By calling it "censorship" you are of course assuming what you want to
prove, that it was unjustified.  "Censor" is the name of an official
position.  If there were a position within the WMF devoted to keeping
_news_ out of Wikipedia when there are reliable sources, beyond a
quibble, supporting it, just because someone was lobbying to have it
suppressed, then you'd have a case.  I'm not aware of that type of
arrangement.

Charles


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

[Durova]

No one is proposing a sweeping censorship.  It is imperative to prevent
incidents such as these from becoming wedge issues that could lead to
sweeping censorship.  In that respect we are in agreement.

Nonetheless, real danger exists in these situations.  Ultimately, we have to
assume a responsibility that an innocent person may live or die as a result
of what we publish.  That may not happen this time, or the next time, but
consider a span of ten years: we are the world's most popular reference
source.

Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
careful rather than less careful

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
> > who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news
> coverage.
> >
> > -Durova
> >
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
> claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
> before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
> naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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

[Ian Woollard]

On 30/06/2009, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
> careful rather than less careful

Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
to be codified.

Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
wikipedia.

> -Durova

--
-Ian Woollard

"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."

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

[Judson Dunn-2]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathan<nawrich@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
the slippery slope of censorship.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>wrote:

> On 30/06/2009, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> when
> > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
> > careful rather than less careful
>
> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> to be codified.
>
> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> wikipedia.
>
> > -Durova
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> 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

[geni]

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>:
> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> to be codified.

Can't be. We live in a world where there are people who if they know
we will censor if we consider lives to be in danger will put lives in
danger to get what they want.

I doubt FARC would hesitate to threaten a few of their hostages if it
meant we removed some of our more negative information about them.

Heh censorship to avoid civil unrest or other risks to people's lives
is one of the oldest excuses in the book.

People can get really nasty about it. I mean obviously if wikipedia
and the western media hadn't carried all that information about Aung
San Suu Kyi and democracy the monks would not have marched and the
Burmese government would have not needed to restore order. With a
slight shift it can become an effective form of victim blaming.

Now fortunately the defenses are equally well practiced. It's you
thats killing them thus the blood is on your hands not ours. Thing is
that defense works far better if you never compromise on it.

> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> wikipedia.

Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
protection.

--
geni

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

[Risker]

2009/6/30 geni <geniice@...>

> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>:
> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> > wikipedia.
>
> Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
> position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
> protection.
>
> --
>

Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to
contribute there.

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