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

[WJhonson]

Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the  
assumption of good faith" ?
 
The no-mans-land between "don't try to inflict malicious harm" and "report  
evidence-based statements" is a big fat gray one.
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
arromdee@... writes:

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.

**************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 WJhonson@... wrote:
> Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the  
> assumption of good faith" ?

No, because in this context, "do what's right" means "you may ignore rules for
reasons other than the ones just listed".  (It only lists improving and
maintaining the encyclopedia; protecting people is not listed.)

I suppose you could word it to say "assume good faith" instead while achieving
the same effect, but it would be very awkward wording.  Feel free to suggest
better wording.


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

[WJhonson]

"Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
 
How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would  
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the  
subject's life."
Much narrower.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
arromdee@... writes:

No,  because in this context, "do what's right" means "you may ignore rules
 for
reasons other than the ones just listed".  (It only lists  improving and
maintaining the encyclopedia; protecting people is not  listed.)

**************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 WJhonson@... wrote:
> "Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
>  
> How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would  
> lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the  
> subject's life."
> Much narrower.

For IAR, it's also much too long.  You've tripled its length.

IAR currently reads:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

We just need to phrase it so that you can ignore rules for purposes other
than improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  Exact details aren't needed, as
long as that restriction is removed.


_______________________________________________
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 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 WJhonson@... wrote:
>> "Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
>>
>> How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would
>> lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
>> subject's life."
>> Much narrower.
>
> For IAR, it's also much too long.  You've tripled its length.
>
> IAR currently reads:
>
> If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
>
> We just need to phrase it so that you can ignore rules for purposes other
> than improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  Exact details aren't needed, as
> long as that restriction is removed.

I think that the particular phrased wording works just fine as an
overriding preamble to BLP, but as Ken states not well with IAR.
Possibly a new policy, but it would fit into BLP just fine.


--
-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]

Not that it matters, but over at WikiVoices we have only three rules.
They've served us well without modification for over a year.

   1. Cluefulness is mandatory. If someone lacks clue, offer them one of
   your spare clues. If clueless person refuses multiple offers of clue,
   clueless person gets booted.
   2. In voice chat, belching is permissible only if it includes a three
   second duration and a good chest tone.
   3. In voice chat, heavy breathing is allowable only if accompanied by
   video. Otherwise mute the mike.

-Durova


On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@...>wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 WJhonson@... wrote:
> >> "Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
> >>
> >> How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would
> >> lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to
> the
> >> subject's life."
> >> Much narrower.
> >
> > For IAR, it's also much too long.  You've tripled its length.
> >
> > IAR currently reads:
> >
> > If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore
> it.
> >
> > We just need to phrase it so that you can ignore rules for purposes other
> > than improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  Exact details aren't needed, as
> > long as that restriction is removed.
>
> I think that the particular phrased wording works just fine as an
> overriding preamble to BLP, but as Ken states not well with IAR.
> Possibly a new policy, but it would fit into BLP just fine.
>
>
> --
> -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

[Delirium]

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.
>  
In practice this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis precisely because
previous attempts to come up with any sort of actual policy have failed.
The last major push was around an attempt to keep detailed information
on the construction of nuclear bombs out of Wikipedia (which failed).

-Mark


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

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/3 Delirium <delirium@...>:
> 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.

> In practice this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis precisely because
> previous attempts to come up with any sort of actual policy have failed.
> The last major push was around an attempt to keep detailed information
> on the construction of nuclear bombs out of Wikipedia (which failed).


Tangentially, see Cory Doctorow's latest Locus column:

http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2009/07/cory-doctorow-cheap-facts-and-plausible.html

That's about invention, but it's relevant to the question of trying to
keep information out of Wikipedia, i.e. if it's all over the place
then it's difficult for us to pretend it doesn't exist.


- d.

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

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Delirium<delirium@...> wrote:
> 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.
>>
> In practice this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis precisely because
> previous attempts to come up with any sort of actual policy have failed.
> The last major push was around an attempt to keep detailed information
> on the construction of nuclear bombs out of Wikipedia (which failed).

I'm rather curious about this claim, given that I work actively on the
topic of the construction of nuclear bombs, and the articles on-wiki
about it.

What's in Wikipedia is significantly less detailed than is found in
other references, both online and in books and other references,
regarding actual design details and the theory and engineering
thereof.

Under what is now codified as WPNOTHOWTO we provide enough descriptive
syntax to let people know what technologies and methods are used
generally, and provide links off to the appropriate books/websites for
more details if one wants to go figure out the math and engineering
details.

Even those more detailed open sources don't provide actual easy design
instructions (other than for Little Boy, the first gun-type nuclear
bomb); critical details on exact lens shapes (and for more modern
weapons, lens geometry and operating concepts) have not been published
at this time by the non-governmental research community.


There is a tendency among many people to believe that any detailed
discussion about nuclear weapon operating principles is a security
risk of some sort.  Some of the people who believe that include many
nonproliferation experts.  But this is an attempt at security by
obscurity - the information has been unclassified and available to
researchers and the public for decades.  The only people fooled by
thinking "This is very hard and we have to keep it all as hush-hush as
possible" are the general public, and many public policy discussions
are badly flawed as a result.

There is no issue here.  If you're afraid of this you don't know
enough about the state of the non-governmental non-classified body of
knowledge on the subject.  I would be happy to explain more in detail
offline, as this is pretty tangental to the list here and the topic at
hand, but it's really not something Wikipedia needs to worry about.


--
-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

[Joseph Reagle]

Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was used to hide edits? When the story broke, I could see all the edit history, but I presume the function can be deployed against select revisions and then removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?

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

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/7/16 Joseph Reagle <reagle@...>:
>
> Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was used to hide edits?
> When the story broke, I could see all the edit history, but I presume the function can be deployed
> against select revisions and then removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?

I believe neither had been used; it was plain and simple reverting
with the material left in the edit history.

(For once, we managed to have one of these Wikipedia-removes-stuff
debates without someone helpfully deleting edits here and there to
confuse matters)

The NYT article did use the word "deleted", but this appears to have
been in a more general sense ("removed from the article") rather than
our internal specific sense ("revision was removed from view").

--
- 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

[FT2]

A quick answer.

I have no idea which dispute or real-world issue this was about, nor when.
I'm assuming following a quick search the page concerned is "David S.
Rohde".

When oversight or revision delete are used, it's almost without exception
for serious reasons, for example where there is a concern over potential
defamation or breach of privacy policy in the post. Not mere offensive
comments, and not mere undesirability. A significant number of users
cross-check each other on it, and there is an audit committee on english
wikipedia to investigate any concerns as well. Privacy issues are taken
extremely seriously.

When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
the public logs. The trust required is why oversighter selection is a big
deal. The underlying reason for the policy is that sometimes just having
confirmation that a person or topic was targeted can be enough to do serious
harm, when genuine cases such as stalking and serious harassment etc are
intended by someone, if you think about it. (And if some were answered and
others weren't then things might be read into a non-answer.)

So the standard answer to all inquiries of this kind by any oversighter is
"we don't discuss such matters, but we will look and check nothing untoward
has happened, if you would like"

However in this case I have discussed the inquiry and can confirm, that no
material was or has ever been oversighted or suppressed (using
revisiondelete) from the article I think you're referring to, "[[David S.
Rohde]]".

Hopefully that's enough to put your mind at rest. Don't count on such
confirmation another time -- it's exceedingly rare to get it :)

FT2


On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle@...> wrote:

>
> Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was
> used to hide edits? When the story broke, I could see all the edit history,
> but I presume the function can be deployed against select revisions and then
> removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[FT2]

Update: I've now checked the case, and yes I had heard of this matter. But
being on a break for the last few weeks to deal with real-world matters, I
hadn't made the connection just from the words "Rohde/NYT". I checked which
article with Rohde in the title, also covered the NYT as well. Luckily there
was only one.

Quick explanation :)

FT2


On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:06 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@...> wrote:

> A quick answer.
>
> I have no idea which dispute or real-world issue this was about, nor when.
> I'm assuming following a quick search the page concerned is "David S.
> Rohde".
>
> When oversight or revision delete are used, it's almost without exception
> for serious reasons, for example where there is a concern over potential
> defamation or breach of privacy policy in the post. Not mere offensive
> comments, and not mere undesirability. A significant number of users
> cross-check each other on it, and there is an audit committee on english
> wikipedia to investigate any concerns as well. Privacy issues are taken
> extremely seriously.
>
> When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
> almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
> the public logs. The trust required is why oversighter selection is a big
> deal. The underlying reason for the policy is that sometimes just having
> confirmation that a person or topic was targeted can be enough to do serious
> harm, when genuine cases such as stalking and serious harassment etc are
> intended by someone, if you think about it. (And if some were answered and
> others weren't then things might be read into a non-answer.)
>
> So the standard answer to all inquiries of this kind by any oversighter is
> "we don't discuss such matters, but we will look and check nothing untoward
> has happened, if you would like"
>
> However in this case I have discussed the inquiry and can confirm, that no
> material was or has ever been oversighted or suppressed (using
> revisiondelete) from the article I think you're referring to, "[[David S.
> Rohde]]".
>
> Hopefully that's enough to put your mind at rest. Don't count on such
> confirmation another time -- it's exceedingly rare to get it :)
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was
>> used to hide edits? When the story broke, I could see all the edit history,
>> but I presume the function can be deployed against select revisions and then
>> removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 16 July 2009, FT2 wrote:
> ::Archived at: http://marc.info/?i=e71d9fab0907161320j56d701abi481968d1875db570@...
>
> Update: I've now checked the case, and yes I had heard of this matter. But
> being on a break for the last few weeks to deal with real-world matters, I
> hadn't made the connection just from the words "Rohde/NYT". I checked which
> article with Rohde in the title, also covered the NYT as well. Luckily there
> was only one.

Huh, that surprises me, because right in the history log we see that Rohde was kidnapped:

[[
(cur) (prev) 277165071277165071 11:43, 14 March 2009 Vrv2764 (talk | contribs) (4,707 bytes) (Added report of possible kidnaqpping in Afghanistan) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 277062968277062968 22:23, 13 March 2009 Cbrown1023 (talk | contribs) (4,575 bytes) (Undid revision 277012138 by 70.79.212.223 (talk); see WP:Reliable sources and WP:BLP) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 277012138277012138 17:47, 13 March 2009 70.79.212.223 (talk) (5,626 bytes) (Added info on 2008 kidnapping with references) (undo)
]]

I even said this to the NYT reporter when I spoke to him and he implied that this information had been suppressed... So that's two possible wrinkles from the original story:

1. The page was protected, but nothing more.
2. The kidnappers had asked that the information be suppressed as part of their demands, rather than this being the initiative of NYT.

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

[FT2]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle@...> wrote:

> Huh, that surprises me, because right in the history log we see that Rohde
> was kidnapped:
>


An oversighter checking if oversight was used, doesn't go near the page
history logs. There's specific oversight and suppression logs for ease of
checking, and those are the places one would visit to learn whether
oversighting was used.

FT2
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Luna-4]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Reagle <reagle@...> wrote:

> I even said this to the NYT reporter when I spoke to him and he implied
> that this information had been suppressed...


Obviously I can't speak to specifics, but especially when talking with
people outside the usual Wikipedia sphere, it's all too easy to get vague
about terms. Take deletion as an example: if something's "deleted", was the
text deleted from the current revision, was the revision itself deleted (or
perhaps oversighted), or was the article as a whole deleted by an admin? Any
of those are potentially valid uses of the word, so it's hard to be specific
unless someone is aware of and considering those various meanings.

That's just a guess, though.

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

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/18 Luna <lunasantin@...>:

> Obviously I can't speak to specifics, but especially when talking with
> people outside the usual Wikipedia sphere, it's all too easy to get vague
> about terms. Take deletion as an example: if something's "deleted", was the
> text deleted from the current revision, was the revision itself deleted (or
> perhaps oversighted), or was the article as a whole deleted by an admin? Any
> of those are potentially valid uses of the word, so it's hard to be specific
> unless someone is aware of and considering those various meanings.


Our internal jargon is *not English*, it just uses English words. This
is important to keep in mind when analysing what a newspaper article
about Wikipedia means. Even in the NYT, which is very clueful about
Wikipedia as media go, I am pleased when they get anything right
rather than upset when they get anything wrong.


- d.

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