<html><body><div>[First off, an apology - school testing and other school related matters have kept me away from Wikinews for a while now. I should be much more active in the Wikinewsie area after June 6th (when school lets out). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There really should be an embargoed space for accredited journalists to "get the facts straight" before it gets published. The point of a wiki is collaboration, but it is also a prime objective of a wiki to dessimate <EM>correct</EM> information to the public. The longer that false info is on the web, the more people see it - and that has been proven time after time on Wikipedia. If we have an embargoed wiki, it will give us a bigger lead time to develop stories rather than posting semi-correct information into the public view. Personally, I don't consider it censorship because we <EM>will</EM> (hopefully in a timely manner) release the story into the public view. The only thing that I can see that would be considered censorship is not releasing the revisions into the public view, although that's done automatically by MediaWiki using Special:Export and Special:Import.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sorry if I've missed something; I've been focusing more on school than WN.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dodge S.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>----</div>
<div>Dodge Story</div>
<div>Journalist, Wikinews</div>
<div><A href="http://www.wikinews.org" mce_href="http://www.wikinews.org"><a href="http://www.wikinews.org">http://www.wikinews.org</a></A></div>
<div> </div>
<div>DISCLAIMER:</div>
<P>I do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation in any way shape or form. I have been accredited by the Wikinews community.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Censorshop<BR>From: Phoenix Rose <inspiral@riseup.net><BR>Date: Mon, May 19, 2008 7:54 pm<BR>To: Wikinews mailing list <<a href="mailto:wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia">wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia</a>.org><BR><BR><BR>On 20/05/2008, at 6:08 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:<BR>> Ilya Haykinson wrote:<BR>>> The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of<BR>>> high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes<BR>>> more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the<BR>>> normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform<BR>>> many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do<BR>>> their research and get their balanced articles going, without the <BR>>> fear<BR>>> that they'll be scooped by someone else.<BR>>><BR>>> -ilya<BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol <<A onclick="return true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=jacques.divol%40laposte.net'); return false;" href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose" mce_href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose">jacques.divol<B></B>@laposte.net</A>> <BR>>> wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the<BR>>>> results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and <BR>>>> politics,<BR>>>> friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good<BR>>>> english i am sorry)<BR><BR>The specific example of embargo for a vote also makes sense: it is to <BR>ensure that coverage of the voting shouldn't influence the way people <BR>vote. If one province or state votes in one way and the coverage shows <BR>this, people in other provinces that haven't finished voting may <BR>decide not to bother voting, because they are disillusioned that their <BR>candidate has already lost, or because they feel their candidate has <BR>already won and that their vote doesn't matter. I think it's important <BR>not to cover the vote until the ballot is closed, so that the media <BR>doesn't influence the political outcome and leaves the people as free <BR>as possible to vote the way they intend.<BR><BR>Hope that makes sense, Jacques. Here's my attempt to explain in <BR>French, just in case:<BR><BR>L'exemple spécifique de l'embargo pour un vote semble également <BR>raisonnable : ça assure que ce reportage n'influence pas le manière <BR>des votes. Si un province ou état vote dans l'un façon ou l'autre , et <BR>le reportage démontre ceci, les gens dans d'autres provinces qui n'ont <BR>pas encore voté peuves décider de ne pas prendre la peine de voter, <BR>parce qu'on les désillusionne que leur candidat a déjà perdu, ou parce <BR>qu'ils se sentent que leur candidat a déjà gagné et que leur voix ne <BR>comptent pas. Je pense que c'est important pour ne pas indiquer le <BR>vote jusqu'au vote est fermé, ainsi que la media n'influence pas les <BR>résultats politiques et laisse les gens aussi librement comme possible <BR>de voter dans la manière qu'ils prévoient.<BR><BR>phoenix<BR>--<BR>"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping with <BR>a mosquito" -- Dalai Lama<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Wikinews-l mailing list<BR><A onclick="return true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Wikinews-l%40lists.wikimedia.org'); return false;" href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose" mce_href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose">Wikinews-l<B></B>@lists.wikimedia.org</A><BR><A href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l" target=_blank mce_href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l"><a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l</a></A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>