Wikipedia Censored To Protect Captive Reporter 414
AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort, largely successful, to keep news of a Times reporter's kidnapping off of Wikipedia. The Christian Science Monitor, the reporter David Rohde's previous employer, takes a harder look at the issues of censorship and news blackout, linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia's actions. Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound, along with his translator, on Saturday. "For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban. But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia. ... A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia's page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times."
the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
By keeping the secret, they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape.
You may call it censorship, I call it protecting the life of a journalist.
Or, since I DNRTFA, I could be completely off base. But I did read about this kidnapping previously, and I think I'm on track here. Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be standards. Either kidnapping stories are reported widely, or they are not. I see no reason for journalists to have lives of more inherent value than anyone else. This would be like doctors giving preferential treatment to other doctors (eg. less waiting time in countries with socialized medicine) or teachers distributing textbooks only to the children of other teachers. This is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is profoundly wrong.
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd gladly blab about a kidnapping if it wasn't one of their own. It does, after all, sell newspapers.
newspapers capable and willing to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter's value and make negotiations more difficult? When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people? Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk? Safety trumps freedom of speech? Since when? Only when one reporter is doing something for another, apparently.
What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt: they are capable of censoring the news, and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there. Furthermore, they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.
We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.
An interesting Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, now we walk a fine line. Who do we trust to censor something in order to preserve human life and yet won't misuse their power to instill their own will?
Disgusted (Score:2, Insightful)
Un-friggin-real.
Of course, now that the media outlets have revealed their little secret, you can bet the terrorists will take counter-measures. This trick only works once.
I have no problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe strongly in free speech, especially on Wikipedia (I am a semi-active editor there). But this wasn't really Wikipedia's domain. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper [wikipedia.org]). It's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone's life until reliable news sources have already done so. In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
You dont censor the truth in this manner. I am VERY disappointed in wikipedia's stance on this. They should be COMPLETELY impartial. Either you represent facts or you have interests, choose wisely wikipedia. I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped. You know what his captors want? Publicity for their campaign
And how is that different from any other person that gets kidnapped and that the newspapers report on?
I'll tell you: it's only different because it's a reporter has been kidnapped. When it's a doctor, politician, priest, baby, nun, lawyer, businessman, girl, or oil worker, they smear it all over the front pages and milk it for all it's worth.
I find this double standard pretty disgusting.
This was not censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so you guys have the facts on this one, the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'
2. a.2.a transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
This doesn't fall under that category, or any similar category. The Times wasn't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit, or because of judgement as to it's morality or offensiveness. They did it to protect the reporter.
As a citizen, or NYT subscriber, or Wikipedia contributor, you have no right as to the status of the reporters' personal situation. Just because something has occurred and someone knows doesn't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published. This is not a moral, heretical, or an issue of the reporters' conduct.
I'll say it slowly:
absolutely.
not.
censorship.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.
How is keeping a journalist alive "political ends"?
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you get out of an imaginary dream world and realize that your choices affect the lives of others and that sometimes the idealistic option is not the right one. If not getting someone killed is a "political end," then I'm 100% in favor of their actions.
Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. It's not at all obvious that there's a conflict in restraining information for a temporary period. Have you noticed that they tend to clamp down pretty freely on articles that are hot news topics, such as celebrity deaths?
To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
Citation please?
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
He was a 'political' prisoner of the Taliban, lies were actively purported to achieve an end. Active omission of facts is a lie and is unacceptable from a source of information that views itself as factual. Wikipedia should have absolutely no interest in a story beyond the facts presented.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a VERY slippery slope you are on and I for one do NOT find that wikipedia should be in the suppression of information business, even temporarily. It goes very much against the grain of what many view wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is very much a social network and would do well not to undermine people's confidence in it, since WE provide the content.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.
That may very well be the case -- but your rationale is not specific to kidnapped journalists. The real question here, which should be addressed to both Wikipedia and the New York Times is: why censor news regarding this particular kidnapping, when your general policy is the exact opposite, of detailed reporting on every kidnapping case you hear about?
I find the news of Mr. Wales officially participating in the cover-up quite disturbing. Wikimedia foundation simply does not have the resources to police Wikipedia in this way for all alleged victims of crime. Thus, why were Wikipedia resources spent on this particular case?
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep that in mind when spire3661 decides to become a reporter and gets kidnapped by the Taliban.
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
News will blackout information for all sorts of reasons. You never hear the names of rape victims or child criminals/victims either.
But it's "never hear the names of rape victims", not "do hear the names of rape victims, unless they're related to someone who works at a newspaper - then we hold their name secret". I don't think people would be having as much of a problem with this if it was the principle of "never report the name of a kidnapping victim". The "double standard" referred to in the subject line is the impression that a newspaper will happily report on a soldier, doctor, or politician which gets kidnapped, but screams bloody murder if someone else reports that a journalist is in the same situation.
I also don't think people have a problem with any individual news site deciding that some shlub reporter from the Times getting kidnapped shouldn't be reported on, it's when they start to force third parties like Wikipedia to kowtow to their wishes that people start to get upset.
Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor (Score:3, Insightful)
You're getting off-topic.
What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?
And if you truly believe that "Information wants to be Free", are you willing to die for that belief? Are you willing to sacrifice a person's life? Does that person have a say in the matter?
Re:Double Standard (Score:4, Insightful)
In many cases, journalists are taken specifically for their connection to the media. Whereas other kidnapping may simply be for intimidation or money, a journalist is captured for their perceived value in communicating with the outside world. Infomation blackout is also more protection for not just that journalist, but other reporters in that region.
While the "media fraternity" is a very real aspect of the business -as every profession gives a certain amount of preference to its own members- I don't think its fair to say that they ignore other valuable stories related to hostage taking or kidnapping. However, the struggle to suppress information plays out in a more public forum (the terrorist trying to spread his message and the media and law enforcement trying to get their reporter back) than if the terrorists/kidnappers were talking to a private individual or family. Which is exactly what this story is about.
Does Wikipedia have a certain policy regarding "news" vs. matters of record that are not "news"? I haven't read Wikipedia's article policy completely but it seems like now would be a good time to try and create a buffer between news reporting and the collection of historical fact (as close as one can be). Wikipedia's goal is to be comprehensive, not exactly the most immediate source of information. Plus it would cut down on people trying to be the "Firstie" to report major news in a secondary outlet like an encyclopedia.
Re:Double Standard (Score:1, Insightful)
A single standard for how and whether to report kidnappings? Seriously? Shouldn't those involved in a kidnapping have discretion in this area? Not every kidnapping is the same. You'd probably want wide reporting of a local kidnapping to help in locating the victim, but in a political or terrorist kidnapping it could be harmful.
There's a case that could be argued that it should be mandatory for news media to follow the decisions of the people or govt. authorities directly involved, but not for a single standard on whether to report them. It's an understandable knee-jerk reaction but a bad idea nonetheless.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That's easy to say when it isn't the life of your father or brother or son at stake. I absolutely agree that Wikipedia should be interested only in facts but like any principle, there are situations worthy of an exception. In this case, I don't think the timely publishing of the event was all that valuable, especially in comparison to the potential downside of publishing it.
Perhaps you no longer trust Wikipedia. Personally I'm not particularly bothered by this as the truth has come out.
Re:This was not censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
A rose by any other name.....
No matter what you call it, Wikipedia lied about facts and went about removing anything that went against that. Facts are facts, the reporter was obviously notable enough before the kidnapping to have a wikipedia page, the fact that he was kidnapped is relevant and should be beyond wikipedia's purview to alter.
Two things really stick out out me in this story.
#1, news sources would almost never do this for a non-journalist
#2 Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of suppressing indisputable facts for anyone.
Re:This was not censorship. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, the Times didn't censor Wikipedia. Wikipedia censored its contributors. I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that Jimmy Wales was not "exercising official supervision over conduct". He's an official (in the context of Wikipedia) and he put a stop to certain conduct. So, by your own definition, censorship.
I happen to think WP and the times did the right thing here; I still think it was censorship. In the same scenario, if the government had been the one doing it, I'd have been a lot more skeptical that it was ok -- but I believe that how wrong censorship is depends on the circumstances, including the reasons to publish, the reasons not to publish, and who is exercising the control.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
You might or might not be right that this was something they ought not have published, but it's not the same situation. Jailbrekr claimed they'd have published the information if this guy didn't work for them.
Re:I have no problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama was listed on Wikipedia as "sworn in" two minutes after he took the oath of office.
In an event that was broadcast live by every possible medium and media outlet...
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech does not include the right to force others to say what you want them to say. Freedom of speech includes the right to not speak.
So maybe the suppression of facts is a "lie", but that's not immoral by itself especially since the purpose was to protect a life. Absolutely no one out there has a vested in interest in getting this information and no one is harmed by not having this information. And of course as we see, the information is now available, it was merely delayed.
Also, last I checked, Wikipedia is not a news outlet anyway. Why should they "report" this information? Neither is it a public bulletin board.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realise that there's plenty of times when there have been perfectly good reasons to lie, either by omission, or by outright misleading statements?
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, perhaps the most blatant example would be the bombing of Coventry. The allies had advance knowledge of the November 14, 1940 bombing raid planned on Coventry, but chose to do nothing about it. They knew that people would die in the raid, (we don't actually know how many, but somewhere between 500-1000 people died), but they chose to let it happen, because any form of evactuation or preparation would have tipped the Germans off that their codes had been broken.
Like it or not, there exist times where it makes tactical and practical sense to suppress information. A more recent example, that is more topical, would be a few years ago when the information that a kidnapped Canadian aid worker was homosexual was suppressed. It was felt that had his captors known he was gay, he would have been executed. Answer? suppress the information. And the act of suppressing the information probably saved his life, as he was released from captivity, unharmed.
I'm pretty sure there was a good reason to suppress this information, too. And you may never know what it was. But to make a blanket statement about Wiki like you do based on information that you don't actually have is asinine, at best. News agencies may exist to publish information, but they also have a moral, ethical, and legal obligation not to publish sometimes.
I see no issue here (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, the information about this reporter was suppressed to protect his life, not to prevent, say, someone else's embarrassment or to cover-up misconduct or otherwise prevent the publication of information the public should know to protect the democratic process.
Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran. One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address."
This is the sort of limited exception to the free publication of relevant information to the public where the news media can and does suppress a story on a temporary basis in order to prevent death or injury to others or where it is important to the issues involved that the story not be exposed for a short time. When people talk about "responsible journalism," it is this sort of behavior they are referring to.
Paul Robinson - <paul@paul-robinson.us [mailto]> - My Blog [paul-robinson.us]
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Captives who are not public figures are very different from captives who are. The reasons for abducting them are different, the gains from how the captivity is ended are very different.
An organisation like the Taliban has little to gain from killing a nobody -- and public attention to the fate of that captive provides a disincentive to spare their life. The threat of reprisal, etc, if there is public attention, is simply too great for them to off some random person. Killing a public persona -- that's a different matter. Then the gains from killing them may outweigh the risk of reprisal, etc.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is great.
With it comes responsibility.
If exercising that responsibility through editorial actions in a case where a real human being's life is in real danger of being ended is unacceptable to your view of what Wikipedia should be, then I am profoundly thankful that you are not running Wikipedia. Information wants to be free, but this man's family and friends want him to come home safely. One of those is more important.
Anarchy is a slippery slope as well, as this case illustrates.
Re:This was not censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apples and oranges. A reporter being held hostage might benefit from having the information suppressed, an oxfam worker might benefit more from having the information broadcast as their position would garner sympathy.
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
Your friends might know these indisputable facts but is it their duty to put it up on wikipedia?
I find it comical that people assume everyone else's business is theirs.. Decry the right to privacy for your personal information, and point fingers at those trying to protect the privacy rights of others.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past tense it would be interesting to hear that it had happened but I see no real reason to be incensed that you didn't hear about it while it was happening.
I assume that the Times requested this and from time to time it is the humanitarian thing to do. You have no "right" to know, I hate it when the public's "right" to know is touted because it is a fiction at best.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. Fortunately, many people (including Mr. Wales)do not agree with you.
When you balance the risk of a single human life in this particular case against one website's terms of use policy, the decision isn't very hard.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
The job of the press is to report. They've made this claim so often in the past when it has been the government holding on to information that it's carved into the press plates 1/4 inch deep. They haven't cared what the information was or how damaging it could be, their job is to inform and damn it, they are going to do it. The government has no right to decide the information is sensitive and shouldn't be printed.
And now the New York Times makes that decision. Where's my spelling checker, I need to see how to spell "hypocrite".
You know, for all the hype over Wikipedia, something appearing there certainly isn't advertising it or broadcasting it. The poster who made grandiose claims about how this should be secret admitted that he'd read it somewhere else, so I guess it should only be a secret from everyone but him. Yep, the word contains a 'y'.
Re:Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employe (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely. Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.
In case you're unaware, The Times, among other outlets, back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, did not mention - until after they got out of Iran - that Americans were hiding in the Canadian embassy in Teheran.
Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06. There were absolutely no questions that this program was
Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.
Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -> saving civilian lives. Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!
So the Times should not report to the American public when the U.S. Government operates secret facilities which are used to capture some people? If we go that route, and decide that "this hidden government program is a good idea and we shouldn't report on it," while "this hidden government program isn't a good idea and we should report on it," then we get into cases where you have suppression of torture or other misconduct - like Abu Ghraib or the CIA "extraordinary rendition" black sites - because some reporter agrees with the behavior being done by the government. We live in a constitutional republic which, for all intents and purposes is a democracy, and as such, we the people are the sovereign power to which the government must answer to; and we as a people cannot know if our government is acting in a way we agree it should be if reporters do less than their job, and deciding which secret government programs to cheerlead is not a reporter's job.
Besides, if the Times can discover it, probably anyone could, and then you would have the bad guys knowing about it while the public is kept in the dark. Besides, any terrorist worth his salt is not using traceable financing methods anyway, all the Times probably did is expose the "low hanging fruit" of the obvious and easily detectable transfer methods. If I was going to be doing finance transfers for some terrorist group, I'd be using shell companies that had no connection to the operation and switch them on a regular basis. How is someone going to know that a $100,000 wire transfer from Steel Corporation of London LTD to Islamabad Ore SDN BHD is a terrorist transfer or a funds transfer for several tons of iron ore?
Re:I see no issue here (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, there are Wikipedia procedures that could have been used to suppress the information without abusing Wikipedia rules in the process, notably the office action. Second, there have been times in the past when the Times has released information that could endanger lives, but the lives weren't of reporters. It's more as if there was a member of Anne Frank's family who wouldn't report her to the Nazis, but would report anyone else they're not related to.
Wikipedia Cannot be Trusted (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia cannot, ever be trusted. It's not the information that's the problem. In fact, it's not even the malicious editors. It's the process. The process of editing information on Wikipedia is set up to allow manipulation, censorship and propaganda by anyone willing to spend the effort.
The summary says it all:
This is the process of information control. If you want something on or off Wikipedia, the goal is to ingratiate yourself with, or outright become, one of the people with authority over the articles. Lock, delete, edit, undo and generally abuse every one of the hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles that have been created in order to mould pages to your worldview and no other. The obstacles to dealing with misinformation are far, far more numerous than putting up, and guarding, that misinformation in the first place.
My own experiences are many, but most recently, I have tried to undo an edit that turned a "religion" field in a scientist infobox [wikipedia.org] into a "religious stance" field. The ensuing plastering of "atheist", "christian" and "deist" tags on scientist infoboxes left and right left little doubt that the pages were being commandeered into a larger "culture war" debate.
My efforts to undo this and return the tag to its original status were for nought. The template was locked down tight. When I argued for a reversion, I was stonewalled [wikipedia.org]. They argued for "consensus", that revision could only take place once agreement was reached, that their existed "guidelines" on the page directing that the tag could be used in this way. All this despite the fact that no agreement had ever been reached on the change in the first place [wikipedia.org].
The purpose of all the rules and regulations and procedures was clear. Someone wanted that tag to stay the way it was, and was prepared to go to great lengths to make sure of that outcome. Wikipedia admins have elevated stonewalling to an artform.
People own Wikipedia pages [slashdot.org]. Entire topics have been purged [slashdot.org]. Consider the fate of Pidgey [slashdot.org], purged from existance simply because certain people took exception to his presence and began a campaign to excise him. You may consider these issues trivial, but make no mistake; they show an systemic and fatal failure in the ability of Wikipedia to police itself.
Methods exist, and are defended, which allow persons of ill intent to control the flow and presentation of any page so long as they are willing to expend the effort. This state of affairs did not come about by chance. It is a status quo admired and supported from the very top, with Wales himself turning to it again and again. The rot has set in at the top in Wikipedia and the whole structure is now tainted.
Wikipedia cannot be trusted. For anything. Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page. Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't mind a little restraint from news outlets. However, as in this case, the driving force seems to be self-motivated instead of a consistent policy. This same organization has a history of doing just the opposite when it isn't a reporter. And will likely continue to do so. It's this level of hypocrisy I have contempt for. I don't respect people or organizations that don't follow their own supposed moral code, period.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you think of some examples then spend half a second thinking about how those examples might be different from this situation? Amnesty typically shines a light on governments. Governments, by their very nature, are subject to political pressure as they often depend to some degree on the goodwill of other nations. Freelancing militants? Not so much.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, given that reporters often report information that puts others in danger without a second thought, I see no reason why the same should not apply to them.
No keeping a reporter alive does NOT trump the publics right to know.
Fine. MMA results are update in seconds. (Score:1, Insightful)
MMA fights like UFC are PPV while others like Strikeforce are cable and Japanese ones like DREAM (PRIDE) and Sengoku are carried with delay by HDNET.
That is a very small segment of the population as opposed to the American Coronation yet like so many events, you get the results updated almost instantly.
I watched a recent MMA contest online and right after the fight ended, while waiting for the judges decision the feed died. After trying different things, we ended up going to WIkipedia and found the result of the event was updated.
Ive seen TV shows where characters get killed off have their wiki pages modified before the credits run.
Please dont give me we dont do breakin news crap.
Censorship is good when it serves a good cause.
Problem is not everyone is always on the same side of a good cause.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Captives are kept alive for as long as they have value. A captive that nobody knows has been kidnapped has no value.
I really don't want my 15 minutes of fame if it gets me killed.
Let's stop putting the blame in the wrong place. It's not Wikipedia or the NYT killing the hostage, it is the Taliban kidnappers. Terrorists kill for reasons only they fully understand. Blaming NYT is like blaming the people riding the bus for being killed when a suicide bomber shows up.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the answer is "because they didn't want to give the Taliban what it was trying to get." God you idiots can be so pedantic. There is nothing to see here; move along.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
The New York Times gladly hid behind the 1st Amendment and blabbed about a 100% legal, effective and yet secret means to track terrorist money around the globe, yet clammed up when it was their hide on the line.
- That wiki article suggests it wasn't really secret.
- The two are not the same. Exposing that may have made one investigative technique less effective. Exposing the kidnapping could have gotten the guy killed. As the times was quoted in that article "the reporting bore 'no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals."
- Credibility is an issue. Bush, and government as a general rule, hid behind the "It's secret for national security, don't publish it" too many times when it turned out not to be. Common sense though tells you that elevating a taliban kidnapping increases the chances of the kidnapped being killed, especially given the Daniel Pearl case.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would ask why we care that Wikipedia didn't print the current location and status of a reporter when it is neither germain to the rest of the information about him nor of particular immediate interest.
You seem to miss the point: this isn't about my right to "know". This is about the way Wikipedia works. The Wikimedia foundation is normally not in the business of writing an encyclopaedia. They are in the business of managing a large number of free-lance contributors who actually write the articles. When the NYT management decides not to write about something, they send all employees a memo. They don't mind the employees knowing what it's all about -- it should just stay out of the paper. Obviously Wikimedia couldn't send a memo "please don't report on this person's kidnapping". Instead, they actively edited the article to reflect their editorial judgement. This is unusual exactly because they don't normally edit the articles. They arrange for hosting, write the software, determine project-wide editorial policies and resolve disputes. But they don't actually write encyclopaedia entries. Wikipedia would never have gotten off the group if these people were the ones to write the articles, and today the project will grind to a halt if Wikimedia staff has to personally police various articles which concern various ongoing emergencies.
Again: this isn't about our right to know. This is about Wikimedia putting an effort to help this particular person, where it's clear that they cannot help everyone equally situated. It may be wise to adpot a project-wide policy: "no mention of kidnappings while they are ongoing" and leave the actual implementations to the editors and admins. It would be foolish to rely on Foundation staff to try to implement such a policy alone.
Re:Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employe (Score:1, Insightful)
it isn't constitutional or legal for the executive branch of government to have unchecked surveillance powers of financial activity.
I thought this was about kidnappings, not secret government programs
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If none of the media were reporting the story, then how could such information in an article ever pass [[WP:V]] [wikipedia.org] ?
Wikipedia is not rumorpedia or spread-stuff-from-the-blogosphere-pedia
It's an encyclopedia, and well-documented reliable secondary sources are required for information to be posted.
Original research is unacceptable on WP, as a matter of course.
And so is anything that doesn't have a source with a good reputation for fact checking to back it up.
When it comes to articles about living people, the policies are very strict; uncited information that might have some negative aspect (e.g. about alleged kidnappers or kidnapping), must be removed unless cited.
So we have proof, that noboy was an admin. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because else it would have gone their way. Period.
Freedom is slavery,
war is peace,
Wikipedia is truth.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it was brought to their attention and they were asked to help. They were able to help so they did. It disgusts me that some people think that is somehow an injustice.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this case is the beginning of any of a slippery slope, especially since all involved were private groups. Maybe it is a bit questionable that Jimbo was involved, but he's been involved in a lot worse which no one ever talks about. What unnerves me is people who think like you, making these sort of statements without seeing how they have already been abused. If there is a slippery slope, you're sliding down it.
Also, anarchy is NOT a slippery slope. Everything in history points to the idea that from anarchy arises order. The existence of government today points to that fact, unless you're religious. That is why it is far better to err on the side of anarchy than to err on the side of fascism.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, the right response is to that assertion is to find a second reliable source, if the report is that controversial, and valuable, there should be multiple solid sources to back it up, under normal circumstances.
The posting of one news agency could be in error.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
NO!
CENSORSHIP can be done by ANYBODY.
It is just usually more legal if done by a private organization.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. They firmly believe in your right to choose between radical Islam and death.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing to that effect anywhere, and even the taliban is smart enough to know: you don't kidnap a REPORTER if your intent is to keep it silent. They wanted this to be a huge news story.
And conversely, if the Taliban kidnaps a random foreigner, they're a lot less likely to behead him and post it on YouTube if they don't know that he's actually a well known reporter. They're trying for maximum exposure and shock response per unit effort. A media storm centred on the guy would play right into their hands.
So yes, if the news had got out the terrorists would have won. Literally.
Re:Wikipedia Cannot be Trusted (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope you don't think that. It is far too easy to leave out citations which conflict with the administrators' viewpoints, and abuse verifiability to allow in questionable sources.
I can speak to what the GP stated, and say that wikipedia will make every attempt to stonewall your edits if you begin questioning the status quo. The goal is to run off the dissenters, and thus, have fewer prying eyes to even look at those citations. That isn't even beginning to state how often and badly they abuse things not directly in articles, like the GP's infobox.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to agree with AC parent here. Although we don't necessarily know what the Taliban wanted, the act of keeping his profile low certainly didn't result in a bad ending for him. If news broke out that he had been captured, and there were a public outcry, we don't know what would have happened.
In this case, there was benevolent intent behind the censorship. I have no problem with that sort of action as long as the people are really trying to do the right thing. If they were covering it up to cover their own arses, then I'd certainly have a problem. I do find it very funny that the user in Florida who continuously tried to re-post the story thought he was being blocked because he wasn't believed. If he had some sort of user information, they could've told him, "Hey, this is really sensitive, let it go for now" a long time ago...
I guess I'm more for having people identify themselves when submitting "information" so it can be verified. But yes, I also understand the need for some info to be anonymous.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm saying that if you're a human being and someone asks for help, it's not something to be criticized if you help. You're saying journalists are scum and should suffer because they'd do the same - and you talk of prejudice? I didn't say help them because they're journalists - I'm saying help them because they're human beings.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you complaining that in this instance the people working at a repository of information chose NOT to be callous and indifferent? Are you also trying to argue that Wikipedia is a member of the press or government? I suppose if you used a loose enough definition of "the press" you could include Wikipedia in it (keeping in mind that the owners and the contributes are rarely one in the same.) Of course, such a broad definition is rendered so utterly meaningless that trying to ascribe to its members duties, principals, or "a job" is fairly sanctimonious and conceited.
Even if you've found some of their behavior to be irresponsible in the past you can not simultaneously decry that previous behavior and their decision to err on the side of caution when it came to this story. The manner in which you and others are attempting to point out what you perceive to be hypocrisy rings as rather hypocritical itself.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying you are wrong to argue that news outlets can by inconsistent or even outright hypocritical. I'm saying that you, and others here, seeming to be simultaneously decrying both the idea of a journalist's "duty to the truth" and the idea of "responsible reporting." You attempt to attack them for failing to stick to a particular principal while you yourself attempt to maintain ambivalence.
You can not bemoan the hypocrisy of the press, and non-press information repositories like Wikipedia, while you yourself seem unable to take a real side at the issue at hand. How can you fault them for being unable to choose a principal when you don't seem to have any hard and fast ones as far as these issues go?
Re:Hypocrites (Score:1, Insightful)
The situation is totally different. One is refusing to acquiesce to an implicit terrorist demand (for publicity). The other is shining the light on actions by the government which some saw as controversial. They should error on shining the light on the government.
Not that they really divulged anything. I remember when Bush announced the program in a speech. Apparently, having the President announce the program on TV is your definition of secret.
Then again, it fits in with Libby's definition of protecting CIA assets, so I suppose that makes sense.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
You have no reason to believe that this guy is a hypocrite beyond the fact that he's a journalist. Yet you're willing to make him "accountable" for the hypocrisy of other journalists.
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defective Rules of Engagement. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that worked so well for Maggie Thatcher...Oh wait.
Well, maybe for Israel? Oh no, Fatah and the PLO stopped using terrorism after Israel started negotiating.
History is not on the side of your assertion, it appears.
Mart
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a little too wishy washy for me. Censors universally think they're acting for the public good.
I happen to think that in this particular case the censorship was acceptable, but I need a better justification than (a)see it worked out ok, or (b) they were trying to do the right thing.
I'd state the justification more like this: When at least one person's life is likely to be put in danger directly resulting from publication, and when the material censored doesn't have substantial cultural significance, media outlets are not ethically required to report the story, but neither are they ethically obligated to repress the story.