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

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

So when do we send a bill to AP?

Does this make any sense?

Apoc 2400

30 Jun 2009 30 Jun '09

5:34 p.m.

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

Show replies by date

Ken Arromdee

30 Jun 30 Jun

5:43 p.m.

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

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.

Thomas Dalton

6:01 p.m.

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

2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>et>:

...

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.

Charles Matthews

6 p.m.

Apoc 2400 wrote:

...

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

David Gerard

1 Jul 1 Jul

12:26 a.m.

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

2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 <apoc2400(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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.

Durova

3:10 a.m.

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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 <apoc2400(a)gmail.com>om>:

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

-- http://durova.blogspot.com/

Ken Arromdee

4:13 p.m.

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

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:

...

With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that

David Goodman

4:24 p.m.

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

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(a)rahul.net> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Durova

4:34 p.m.

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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote: > With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious

that

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- http://durova.blogspot.com/

David Goodman

4:39 p.m.

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

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(a)gmail.com> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote: > With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious

that

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.

-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

philippe

5:43 p.m.

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

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:

...

Ken Arromdee

6:12 p.m.

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

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.

Ken Arromdee

6:08 p.m.

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

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.

Delirium

3 Jul 3 Jul

8:32 p.m.

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

Durova wrote:

...

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

David Gerard

6 Jul 6 Jul

11:56 a.m.

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

2009/7/3 Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>rg>:

...

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.

...

Tangentially, see Cory Doctorow's latest Locus column: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2009/07/cory-doctorow-cheap-facts-and-… 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.

George Herbert

7:39 p.m.

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

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Delirium<delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Durova wrote:

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(a)gmail.com

Joseph Reagle

16 Jul 16 Jul

6:41 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

Andrew Gray

7:50 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

2009/7/16 Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu>du>:

...

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(a)dunelm.org.uk

FT2

8:06 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

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(a)mit.edu> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

FT2

8:20 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Joseph Reagle

17 Jul 17 Jul

1:08 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

On Thursday 16 July 2009, FT2 wrote:

...

::Archived at: http://marc.info/?i=e71d9fab0907161320j56d701abi481968d1875db570@mail.gmail… 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.

FT2

1:40 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu> 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

Luna

18 Jul 18 Jul

12:12 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu> 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

David Gerard

1:52 p.m.

New subject: News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?

2009/7/18 Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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.

5420

days inactive

5438

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

23 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Andrew Gray
Apoc 2400
Charles Matthews
David Gerard
David Goodman
Delirium
Durova
FT2
George Herbert
Joseph Reagle
Ken Arromdee
Luna
philippe
Thomas Dalton