On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:40, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM,
<WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
So instead what we did, instead of merely
reporting it and moving
on, is to
make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship,
so it can
go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for
twice as
long.
Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it.
Has.. that.. ever... worked... before?
No it hasn't.
It seems to have worked just fine in this case, actually.
In this case, it didn't matter that his profile was raised instantly
to whatever level after his release - the important period was when
he was held captive. It was more delay than suppression.
I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why
it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have
been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved
reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still
played out in the same fashion.
Mike