Message: 6
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:33 +0100
From: Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<e75b49f70906290903m485a5e6bo285d4216cc2dc993(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen
<gwern0(a)gmail.com>om>:
?We were really helped by the fact that it hadn?t
appeared in a place
we would regard as a reliable source,? he said. ?I would have had a
really hard time with it if it had.?"
...
The question is though is is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
reliable source?
What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian
Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity.
This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And
that
would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
agencies were reliable.
--
Sam Blacketer
Thank god common sense won out over the egotism of those who insist they
must know everything as soon as it happens, and also to tell everyone in
every forum possible. It would be utterly absurd to even take the
self-centered whining regarding censorship seriously. Waiting several
months for the conclusion of the incident in no way harmed WP.
It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet,
or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real
probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious
precedence over internal rules on an online website.
Sxeptomaniac