The terrorists have won

[Gwern Branwen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05pubed.html
'The Public Editor: Journalistic Ideals, Human Values'

"Although word spread quickly last November among Western reporters in
Afghanistan that Rohde, Ludin and their driver, Asadullah Mangal, had
been snatched, The Times persuaded news organizations around the world
to keep a lid on the story with a simple appeal: The kidnappers had
demanded silence. “Possibly by defying them, we would be signing
David’s death warrant,” said Bill Keller, the paper’s executive
editor."

Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.

But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
to... censor ourselves?

- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREKAAYFAkpSrQ0ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKeewCfTiK8vGLXOqKAUyciFaNDAPYS
XMgAoJtDVa+YfQjJyguLON6V3siW6x3x
=wyB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Gwern Branwen<gwern0@...> wrote:
> Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
> our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
> have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
>
> But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
> to... censor ourselves?

Again, the issue is presuming that it matters at all what clever
censorship tactics
anyone in the media does, and that these make all the difference.
Clever ain't wise.
The beautifully obtuse thing about this is that journalism, mass
media, and the Fourth
Estate are all concepts founded on illumination, enlightenment, and
information.
'Sunlight is the best disinfectant,' as someone said. Turning the
lights out for certain
cases somehow means something equivalent to turning them on?

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
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, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Gwern Branwen<gwern0@...> wrote:
>> Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
>> our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
>> have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.

There was a more subtlely blunt point here - one that I glanced over:
That the real reason for the blackout had nothing to do with any sophisticated
tactics for lowering Rohde's profile, but rather it was to comply with
kidnapper
demands. Is that correct?

Nice.

-Stevertigo

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

[Gwern Branwen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM, stevertigo wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREKAAYFAkpStAwACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oLEZwCfWrhSHh5KB5v0fwxa5YwFxI84
qSgAoJXPKqzjhDoL5SyfDYz/f4MjQOAz
=5x/F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>
> There was a more subtlely blunt point here - one that I glanced over:
> That the real reason for the blackout had nothing to do with any sophisticated
> tactics for lowering Rohde's profile, but rather it was to comply with
> kidnapper
> demands. Is that correct?
>
> Nice.

Quite; hence the subject. (I'm sure we all remember the phrase 'if you
do X, [[the terrorists have won]].' Well, we did X.)

More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
censorship is intellectually bankrupt. Before they knew that silence
was part of the terrorists' demands, people were falling all over
themselves to justify it as some sort of heroic action ('silence
will... err, somehow help out negotiations or soothe those savage
beasts!'); but now that the facts of the matter turn out to be
opposite, they will no doubt seize on the new justification to
maintain their position ('if we don't follow their demands, they may
kill the hostage!').

They are like the stereotypical Panglossian/religious person, upon
hearing a child was barely saved from being run over - 'Ah, surely
that is a miracle! God is great!' - but when they hear the child was
in actuality run over and the rumor incorrect - 'Ah, surely that is
part of God's awesome plan! God is great!'

--
gwern

_______________________________________________
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, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwen<gwern0@...> wrote:
> More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
> censorship is intellectually bankrupt.

Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather
than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue
of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.

I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily
figure out that was a pun.

-Stevertigo

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

[geni]

2009/7/7 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
> Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
> corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
> themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather
> than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue
> of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.

There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia
censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of
the request Jimbo received?


--
geni

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

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwen<gwern0@...> wrote:
>  
>> More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
>> censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
>>    
> Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
> corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
> themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather
> than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue
> of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
>
> I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily
> figure out that was a pun.
>
>  

Not all puns are oxymorons.

Ec


_______________________________________________
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, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>> I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily
>> figure out that was a pun.

> Not all puns are oxymorons.

Hence the dilemma of corporate media. Fortunately for us, we decided
long ago to transcend corporate and closed-source concepts entirely.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
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, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
> > More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
> > censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
>
> Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
> corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
> themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather
> than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue
> of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.

That gets back to something I notied a while earlier:

Letting the newspaper decide that the harm done by suppressing information is
less than the benefit of helping the prisoner survive, when the prisoner is
a newspaper reporter, *is a conflict of interest*.  We can't rely on the New
York Times to make an unbiased, fairly presented, argument for weighing the
two options when they're trying to protect one of their own reporters.

It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
*shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
have a conflict of interest.


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

[stevertigo-2]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:
> It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
> to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
> *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
> did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
> have a conflict of interest.

Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling -
no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in
that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.

The problems then lie in the intersection between journalism and the
real-world, and not just within professional journalism itself --
which to a certain degree Wikipedia is included. How else does the
real world impose upon journalism? To what extent is Wikipedia founded
in journalistic concepts, and is thus beholden to its principles? I've
mentioned before how NPOV is really just principled journalistic
objectivity in a repackaged for a more dynamic environment.

-Steve

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

[stevertigo-2]

Previous post correction diff:

-saving the human life
+saving human life
-objectivity in a repackaged for a
+objectivity repackaged for a
+or+objectivity in a repackaged form..

-S

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

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
>> > More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
>> > censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
>>
>> Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
>> corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
>> themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather
>> than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue
>> of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
>
> That gets back to something I notied a while earlier:
>
> Letting the newspaper decide that the harm done by suppressing information is
> less than the benefit of helping the prisoner survive, when the prisoner is
> a newspaper reporter, *is a conflict of interest*.  We can't rely on the New
> York Times to make an unbiased, fairly presented, argument for weighing the
> two options when they're trying to protect one of their own reporters.
>
> It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
> to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
> *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
> did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
> have a conflict of interest.

Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki
mental model and process.

We do badly enough on breaking news without introducing "our coverage
may put a life at risk" as an additional complication.

We are not currently prepared to be entirely community-wide
consensusly responsible and ethical and consistent about some news
stories which are actively evolving.  We're not supposed to be doing
that anyways.  We're an encyclopedia (WP, at least), not a news
source.  We do other things badly.  Applying our "build an
encyclopedia" logic, ethics, structure, consensus to other types of
information may work particularly badly.


--
-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

[Ian Woollard]

On 07/07/2009, Gwern Branwen <gwern0@...> wrote:
> Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
> our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
> have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.

Probably. Humans don't handle low risk, high fatality situations where
they have no control (terrorism, some trace chemicals in food) very
well on the whole; they like high risk, high fatality situations where
they have the illusion of some control (e.g. smoking, driving) a lot
more. If the press neglected to mention terrorist activities, there
would be a lot fewer, because there would be no point.

> But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
> to... censor ourselves?

Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
doesn't mean you don't want it as well. The enemy probably don't want
a planet killing asteroid to hit the Earth either; you shouldn't take
the contrary position just because of that ;-)

Not everything is a zero sum game. Just because somebody loses,
doesn't mean somebody gains, in lots of situations, everybody loses or
everybody wins.

> - --
> gwern

--
-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

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, geni<geniice@...> wrote:

> There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia
> censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of
> the request Jimbo received?

The main issue now for all involved is saving face. This is an
important concept for those of us who have a public face and don't
want egg on it.

The best part of all this is, aside from Rohde and company managing to
extend their stays on Earth, is that we are all basically off the hook
as far as  "journalistic ethics" go anyway - we're an "encyclopedia."

-Stevertigo

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

[stevertigo-2]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, George Herbert<george.herbert@...> wrote:

> Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki
> mental model and process.

Things that are not "describable and modelable in the in-wiki" but are
so in the private news org model? Hm. Pay, danger, and reputation
first come to mind.

> We are not currently prepared to be entirely community-wide
> consensusly responsible and ethical and consistent about some news
> stories which are actively evolving.  We're not supposed to be doing
> that anyways.  We're an encyclopedia (WP, at least), not a news
> source.  Applying our "build an encyclopedia" logic, ethics, structure,
> consensus to other types of information may work particularly badly.

Well news orgs, aside from a few things, are doing it mostly right.
Wikinews didn't set out to be a news org at first, and it still isn't,
for the simple reason that adding a little Hawaiian word (with very
non-English phonosemantics) to the front of whatever English
word/concept does not mean something real will come out of it.

> We do other things badly.

And we are good at those.

Stevertigo

"You are a light.. the calm in the day"

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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
> > It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
> > to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
> > *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
> > did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
> > have a conflict of interest.
> Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling -
> no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in
> that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.

The claim that we shouldn't have trusted wasn't "this helps save a human
life", but "the tradeoff is good".  The case for *that* was much less
compelling, and much more likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.


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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
> > But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
> > to... censor ourselves?
> Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
> doesn't mean you don't want it as well.

But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.

For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages
other terrorists to take hostages.  How long until some terrorist demands that
we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else
they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be
coerced in that way?


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

[Nathan Awrich]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
> > > But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
> > > to... censor ourselves?
> > Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
> > doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
>
> But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.
>
> For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened
> encourages
> other terrorists to take hostages.  How long until some terrorist demands
> that
> we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else
> they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be
> coerced in that way?
>

I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote
possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist
takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia
article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure
significantly in his/her decision process.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Nathan<nawrich@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
>> > > But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
>> > > to... censor ourselves?
>> > Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
>> > doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
>>
>> But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.
>>
>> For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened
>> encourages
>> other terrorists to take hostages.  How long until some terrorist demands
>> that
>> we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else
>> they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be
>> coerced in that way?
>>
>
> I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote
> possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist
> takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia
> article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure
> significantly in his/her decision process.

I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.

One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist
demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing
demands completely.  One example might be, for instance,
extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be
released.

Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them.  Same with
criminals.  But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey
area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds
of successful survival of the victims.  In that large grey area are
usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are
unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist
or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some
people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done
but feel like giving in (paying ransom).

A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving
in than paying ransom.  We do not impose legal or social penalties
against families or companies that pay ransoms.  Objecting strongly to
news blackouts, without objecting strongly to ransoms, seems somewhat
contradictory.  Even though ransoms encourage more kidnappings,
they're seen as necessary to save human life.  Even though they
directly enrich the criminal or terrorist.


--
-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

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/7/8 George Herbert <george.herbert@...>:

> I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.
>
> One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist
> demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing
> demands completely.  One example might be, for instance,
> extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be
> released.

I feel we could also mention the notorious situation of a terrorist
faction endorsing one political candidate over another, as I believe
happened quite prominently recently!

> Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them.  Same with
> criminals.  But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey
> area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds
> of successful survival of the victims.  In that large grey area are
> usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are
> unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist
> or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some
> people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done
> but feel like giving in (paying ransom).

Mmm.

If someone takes a hostage and demands that you not report they've
taken the hostage, you may well do that because it's not the *point*
of their demands - we figure they're going to ask for a million
dollars and a plane to somewhere unpleasant eventually - and it gets
treated by everyone involved as an integral part of the hostage-taking
to some degree. (In cases like this, the ethical issue then becomes to
what extent people should be trying to ensure that others comply with
that process, and how they should represent it to them...)

If they take a hostage and demands you not report something entirely
unrelated to the hostage-taking, it escalates into a demand in its own
right, something to be treated as such, and responded to
appropriately. But it's really not the same as something which is part
and parcel of the "process".

There's an important distinction here - I'm afraid I might not be
getting it across very well, but I think it holds. The information
suppressed here pertained only "to itself", and I find it hard to
consider a situation where that wouldn't be the case *and* we wouldn't
treat it as something to be rejected.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

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