[WikiEN-l] Support freedum of infromashuon

[Andrew Gray]

On 29/11/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think
> that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is
> released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for
> this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has
> any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I
> imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked
> out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it
> shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk
> for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will
> be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever
> this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible
> outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.

I have been not following the news at all for the last week or so, but...

The major issue with publishing militarially sensitive material in the
UK is D-notices; for the Americans, these are basically standing
requests from HMG that before detailed information is published on
various issues - nuclear weapons, aspects of the security services,
military operational plans - that "advice be sought". A polite warning
of sensitive areas which would probably result in various legal
controversy in order that it not all end in tears, so that someone
can't say "Well, I didn't realise you didn't *want* me to publish the
names of members of SIS..."

Officially, they have no legal standing, and are simply advisory; in
practice it's a "voluntary code" which is followed most of the time,
and it's understood that going against them is clearly seen as
crossing the Rubicon. You might not wind up in court, but you'd
certainly know you were dipping your toes in the shark pool. These
have no legal force outside the UK barring in the sense of "a request
through gritted teeth", and I have a vague recollection that OSA and
DORA are really only applicable once someone's signed them - and I
would hope any of our contributors who have are being sensible and
restricting their writing to articles about kittens, just to be safe.

So "breaking the law" is debatable. But actively making a political
point of the fact we're considering doing it? Oooh, that would be so
not good and god no and ugh. WP:NOT a campaigning body; this would be
a vastly more contentious issue on-list were it solely in the US, I
suspect.

Fastfission is, as always, being sensible. I concur that, if this is
significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about
it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make
that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it
hosted around the world to refer to.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk