Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[Apoc 2400]

Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression

The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.

Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.

It is still a draft, comments are welcome.
/Apoc2400

----

Newspapers sometimes avoid publishing information that could have
severe consequences to individuals if the public interest is small.
While Wikipedia is not a news source it is often updated with the
latest developments, leading to similar concerns.

Therefore, Wikipedia should not include information, even if it can be
reliably sourced, if:

 * Spreading it is likely to have very severe direct negative
consequences for one or more individuals.
 * It has not been widely published in reliable sources.
 * The public interest is small.
 * It is withheld only for a limited time.

Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report
should be taken into consideration.

Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly
explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would negate the
purpose (see Streissand effect). In those cases it would be prudent to
explain the reasoning later.

The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old
article revisions or discussion about the topic is often not
necessary.

Examples

 * When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in
Afghanistan in 2008, most news media did not report on it, because it
would put his life in greater risk. Only a few, rather obscure news
sources reported on the kidnapping. After nytimes contacted Jimmy
Wales, he and other Wikipedia andministrators kept any mention of the
kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article on David Rohde. They did the
right thing.

 * If there is an other scandal like the [[Abu Ghraib torture and
prisoner abuse]], then it could be argued that publishing it would
lead to more resentment and terrorist attacks against Americans in
Iraq. However, such news is of public interest, the danger is not to
specific individuals and the consequences are not direct. Therefore it
should not be excluded from Wikipedia if published in reliable
sources.

Related

    * Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
    * Wikipedia is not censored
    * Wikipedia:Office actions
    * Kidnapping of David Rohde
    * Media blackout
    * Gag order

_______________________________________________
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, 30 Jun 2009, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
> you from improving the encyclopedia.

I've complained about this for some time (to no avail).  IAR may be short,
but it's not free of loopholes, and when a loophole in it is used, it's
almost always this particular one.  Usually it comes up in privacy situations
rather than life endangering ones, but it's the same loophole: IAR only lets
you ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia, helping someone's
privacy doesn't improve the encyclopedia, therefore, you're not allowed to
use IAR for that.

Perhaps a change to IAR.  Of course, most people who propose changes to IAR
quickly get shot down because the rule is supposed to be simple.  But here
I'm proposing a change which *widens* the rule, while most proposed changes
not only complicate it, but narrow its scope.  "If a rule prevents you from
improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or otherwise doing what's right, ignore
it."  I understand the desire not to turn IAR into paragraphs, since that
defeats its purpose, but it seems to be needed here.  "Otherwise doing
what's right" is still a vague term, but no more vague than the rest of IAR,
and it would plug the loophole, not just here, but for privacy and BLP
issues in general.

I also think that this situation is a blatant case of *not* applying IAR
(unless you think the rule being ignored is "don't lie about the reliable
sources rule").  Actually applying IAR instead of abusing other rules
would have been much better.


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

[Charles Matthews]

Apoc 2400 wrote:

> Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
>
> The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
> right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
> article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
> Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
> be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.
>
> Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
> you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
> protect Rohde.
>  

I like what IAR used to say:

"Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so
there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one."

I think peoplr who think that codification is the only way to deal with
anomalous situation, precedents, apparent gaps in policy, and so on,
should take this to heart. In particular the restriction of IAR so that
it only sometimes applies amounts to saying that common sense is only of
limited value by area of application (which is wrong), rather than by
mode of application (which is correct).

Charles


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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...>:
> I also think that this situation is a blatant case of *not* applying IAR
> (unless you think the rule being ignored is "don't lie about the reliable
> sources rule").  Actually applying IAR instead of abusing other rules
> would have been much better.

Generally applying IAR requires you to explain what you are doing and
why it is beneficial, which risks causing the very publicity we're
trying to avoid. I'm not a fan of misusing rules in the manner that
was done, but I'm struggling to see a good alternative.

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

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
apoc2400@... writes:


> The reason to suppress the news
> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
> protect Rohde.>>
>

-------------------------------

Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.





**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

IAR is based on the premise that it will be actions with which every
reasonable person here would agree. Otherwise "improve the
encyclopedia" is much too broad a criterion, not to mention "do what
is right".

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



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> apoc2400@... writes:
>
>
>> The reason to suppress the news
>> of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
>> protect Rohde.>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
> way.
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Steve Summit]

WJhonson wrote:
> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
> way.

But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.

_______________________________________________
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 Steve Summit <scs@...>:
> WJhonson wrote:
>> Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable
>> way.
>
> But we suppress news *all the time*.
> If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
> for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
> and rightly so.

That's not suppression, it's removal of content that is out of scope
and unverifiable. The intent is significant. Suppression involves
intending to keep people from knowing certain facts.

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

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scs@... writes:


> But we suppress news *all the time*.
> If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
> for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
> and rightly so.>>
> ----------------------------------

Different issue.  We're talking about the suppression of news which does
not violate any policy.  Your example violates at least two.

Will





**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 <apoc2400@...>:

> Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression


I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
That's actually a rule listed on Meta.

“Keeping details out of a Wikipedia article on a living person just
because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious
conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the
destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in
the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are
seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common
sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next
they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.”

http://notnews.today.com/?p=546


- d.

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

[Durova]

With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 <apoc2400@...>:
>
> > Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
>
>
> I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
> That's actually a rule listed on Meta.
>
> “Keeping details out of a Wikipedia article on a living person just
> because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious
> conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the
> destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in
> the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are
> seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common
> sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next
> they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.”
>
> http://notnews.today.com/?p=546
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.

How about this as a start:

-- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases in
order to protect people.

-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.


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

[David Goodman]

1/
when people should be "protected", is  not self-explanatory.  Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.

2/
"doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
encyclopedia";
the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree
about such generalities

Some of us may think "doing right" is publishing everything known to
be verified; others, only those that
lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable
social consequences is also not a
uniform concept, or there would be no political differences.

The  present government of China would completely agree with these
principles for the flow of information,
and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice.
Probably the Taliban would also.  So would
anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to
communicate--this is the basic characteristic
of repressive governments. .




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



On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
>> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
> there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
> At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
>
> How about this as a start:
>
> -- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases in
> order to protect people.
>
> -- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
> what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Durova]

Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby.  Welcoming ideas that would give the
soil good traction.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> 1/
> when people should be "protected", is  not self-explanatory.  Some may
> feel that
> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
>
> 2/
> "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
> encyclopedia";
> the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree
> about such generalities
>
> Some of us may think "doing right" is publishing everything known to
> be verified; others, only those that
> lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable
> social consequences is also not a
> uniform concept, or there would be no political differences.
>
> The  present government of China would completely agree with these
> principles for the flow of information,
> and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice.
> Probably the Taliban would also.  So would
> anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to
> communicate--this is the basic characteristic
> of repressive governments. .
>
>
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
> >> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious
> that
> > there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
> > At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
> >
> > How about this as a start:
> >
> > -- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases
> in
> > order to protect people.
> >
> > -- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
> > what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the
> encyclopedia.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
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

[David Goodman]

The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
think there is a true emergency.  Even were we to say, never do it,
yet people would if they think it justified.

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



On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:

> Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby.  Welcoming ideas that would give the
> soil good traction.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:
>
>> 1/
>> when people should be "protected", is  not self-explanatory.  Some may
>> feel that
>> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
>>
>> 2/
>> "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
>> encyclopedia";
>> the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree
>> about such generalities
>>
>> Some of us may think "doing right" is publishing everything known to
>> be verified; others, only those that
>> lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable
>> social consequences is also not a
>> uniform concept, or there would be no political differences.
>>
>> The  present government of China would completely agree with these
>> principles for the flow of information,
>> and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice.
>> Probably the Taliban would also.  So would
>> anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to
>> communicate--this is the basic characteristic
>> of repressive governments. .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
>> >> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious
>> that
>> > there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
>> > At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
>> >
>> > How about this as a start:
>> >
>> > -- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases
>> in
>> > order to protect people.
>> >
>> > -- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
>> > what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the
>> encyclopedia.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

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

[Philippe|Wiki]

Agreed.  We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to  
the exception.  That's the flaw found in too many organizing documents  
(the constitution of the state of Oklahoma in the US comes to mind  
immediately - they wrote it to the exception, ended up with several  
hundred pages, and have to have a constitutional amendment almost  
every year).  Organizing documents (such as rules/codes) should  
generally be written very broadly.  If we write a new rule for every  
situation, soon you have so many rules that no one reads them at all...

Philippe


___________________


[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:39 AM, David Goodman wrote:

> The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
> rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
> think there is a true emergency.  Even were we to say, never do it,
> yet people would if they think it justified.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, David Goodman wrote:
> 1/
> when people should be "protected", is  not self-explanatory.  Some may
> feel that
> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.

But it would at least *say* it.

> 2/
> "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
> encyclopedia";
> the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree
> about such generalities

This would make sense if it was about anything other than IAR.  IAR
may technically be a rule, but it's about not following rules.  It's not
supposed to give exact instructions.  The only reason we even need this
change in the first place is that IAR as it is is _too_ specific.

I think that when we fix IAR, fixing it with a generality is perfectly
appropriate.  Sure, it can be interpreted a lot of ways.  IAR can be
interpreted in a lot of ways anyway.  It's like that.


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

[WJhonson]

First define "right".
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
arromdee@... writes:


--  Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent  doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the  encyclopedia.

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, philippe wrote:
> Agreed.  We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to  
> the exception.

One of the suggestions I made was to fix IAR.

IAR is *entirely about exceptions already*.

And even with respect to changing WP:NOTCENSORED, what's so awful about just
saying that something which in fact isn't absolute, isn't absolute?  When
you claim that rules are absolute, people start to believe your claim.  This
is not good.


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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 WJhonson@... wrote:
> First define "right".

This is about IAR, you know.  IAR is inherently about using personal judgment;
if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should
*not* define "right" or even assume that it has one definition.


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