We need to do something that is both effective and does not attract attention. Like maybe deleting and protecting the article and redirecting it to the New York Times. And caste it as speedy delete for non-notable subject. Fred

Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. Fred

I really don't see this as IAR. It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a discussion on finding consensus, I would expect it to revolve around BLP. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>et>: More serious than life and death? _______________________________________________ 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

2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in what's accepted as verification of such. - d.

Well what were the sources? Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.

Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is that a reliable source? Fred

Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a Taliban regional commander and got the story. I'm sure the CIA took their information seriously. It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, say, the President of Afghanistan. However, we need not be so clever as all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Fred

It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their "plans". The method of making an H bomb is widely known. The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. The how isn't the problem. The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret to me is flat. I do not see the logic behind the belief that it will preserve their lives in any way, for example. So even if the community were to agree to "do no harm" (whatever that means), the further necessary step is to show, in a concrete way, how revealing the name of a victim does "harm". I'm sure you can see that. Just as I'm sure that you can see, that people other than yourself, might find the entire argument meaningless, or without adequate justification. Will Johnson -----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a Taliban regional commander and got the story. I'm sure the CIA took their information seriously. It is a fiction that they are not reliable as it is a fiction that a Taliban commander is a not lot more trustworthy than, say, the President of Afghanistan. However, we need not be so clever as all that. We can play dumb, and should. And users who come upon this information can chose to play along, or not. At some point, a reasonably perceptive person will realize that the information is hot, and inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia? Fred _______________________________________________ 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

-----Original Message----- From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan 2009/9/9 <wjhonson(a)aol.com>om>: to Well this time around 3 civilians died. Not sure if that counts as successful. geni Those who support the idea of keeping this information secret would probably argue that more would have died if it weren't. And those who oppose it would say, "See it didn't work". Something for everybody! Will Johnson

2009/9/10 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>: You have completely missed Geni's point. Fat Man was an A-bomb, not an H-bomb. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

2009/9/10 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>: Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that qualifies as tricky. North Korean attempt failed which suggests that unless you have the plans to hand explosive lenses take work to get right. -- geni

Emily wrote: <<How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?>> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"

Easily confused? I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a whip in a minidress.... Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not? Secondly your message "how does this relate?" sound like you are cracking your whip at the group for being bad and chatting. -----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe &lt;bluecaliocean(a)me.com&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan What? I'm confused. Emily On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote: > Emily wrote: > <<How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe &lt;bluecaliocean(a)me.com&gt; wrote: I think he is saying that you correctly pointed out that people were drifting off-topic, and he sees you as a kitten (presumably "nice") but with a whip, telling people to stop going off-topic. But there might be other references I'm missing there. I'd take it as a compliment and make up a nice nickname for Will for you to give him next time he (or anyone) goes off-topic. Carcharoth

wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote: I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does write the how to make a H-Bomb article. I'm sure they won't sensationalise it at all, once Will has explained it all.

geni wrote: I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it ever does so, because I think he has more chance of getting the message across that this stuff will happen with or without Wikipedia in the world.

Fred Bauder wrote: I think it is far more likely that it's because we just don't _have_ the detailed information that'd be needed to make an atomic bomb work. I'm sure you don't really think that North Korea would go to Wikipedia for that information, though. And anything that detailed would be more suitable for WikiHow or WikiSource anyway. Perhaps a more grounded-in-reality example of an article that has information that causes "harm" is the [[AACS encryption key controversy]], which contains a cryptographic key that the movie industry claimed was a secret vital to their business that shouldn't be revealed. It's not directly a life or limb thing but economic harm is harm nonetheless.

2009/9/10 Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>: North Korean was a plutonium based implosion design and since we don't have much info on explosive lenses not really relevant. Now our information can't really be said to be up to date since the weapon type we have the most info about hasn't existed since 1991 (as far as is known). But: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment Or for a rather messy method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron (actually you could in theory at least use that method to build a plutonium based gun type weapon but there would seem to be little point and no one has actually done it). The benefit of the above it is makes it possible to form a reasonable assessment of politicians claims about say Iran's nuclear abilities. -- geni

Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: Ha. [citation needed] Doesn't seem to stop or slow down Arbcom. -Stevertigo

Previous post correction diff: -commented about "Iranian" news +commented about an "Iranian" news -about all of familiar sources +about all of our familiar sources -tabloids and the slowly +tabloids and then slowly -Stevertigo

David Gerard wrote: I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping other more established news organizations, but in fact be there before all the other major news orgs with the full nitty gritty. However the source of why critics of these two stories about suppression have focused on wikipedia, likely stems from the fact our articles edit histories are out there for most people to see, if they have a bit of savvy. The story would almost certainly be different if most major newsorganisations out there had a public paper-trail of what decisions about which stories were made in the newsrooms at which time, and who was on which side about which story... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

2009/9/9 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: BLP says no such thing. False. Wikipedia contains a lot of stuff that isn't "all over the media". WP:V doesn't require anything close to that and for good reason. No. The investigative stuff had already been done. Thats why there were three sources on the info (probably more around since no one had got as far as digging up the afghan sources). -- geni

wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote: Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in exactly the same way.

Fred Bauder wrote: That doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking about journalists of whatever particular type you consider "responsible" or not, I was specifically asking if the Foundation would censor WikiNews in the same way as has been done to Wikipedia. My point is that if the answer here is yes, the suggestion that "Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews" isn't going to be useful in this case.

2009/9/10 Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt;ca>: Did the Foundation have anything to do with this? I don't know about the latest instance, but the last one was, as far as I know, just Jimmy Wales and a handful of admins, not Foundation involvement. (Remember, Jimmy is just a board member, he has no individual power in the Foundation.)

I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping the hand that reaches". Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding. Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what that implies. Perhaps the NYT can stop being double-faced and come clean on their exact argument for blackouts. Was this even a blackout? Or was it merely the case that there were not enough sources reporting it yet? -----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances. Fred _______________________________________________ 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

We are supposed to be community-driven. Where is the community consensus on media blackouts? Link please. Will Johnson -----Original Message----- From: Carcharoth &lt;carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder&lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: to redirecting non-notable Well, posting a plan like that to a publicly archived mailing list is a good start at not attracting attention. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ 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

"Do no harm" isn't a consensus however. That language is so incredibly vague it could be taken to mean almost anything. Fred we've been over this many times on this list :) You really want to do it again? We have articles on murder victims which appear on the top of Google, keeping that fresh in the minds and at the fingertips of anyone with an interest prurient or not. You don't think that "harms" the remaining living family? "Do no harm" is an unworkable phrase. Calling Lee Majors last movie "trite" even with a source is harmful to his career I'm sure. -----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no harm; any problem with that? Fred _______________________________________________ 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

Fred Bauder wrote: At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO. The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people" argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars.

George Herbert wrote: It may not actually be as clear cut as you assume. Psychological tests may for instance be crucial in deciding issues in criminal cases, and as such may have a very remote chance of affecting life and death issues. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

I didn't follow that, but I suspect they've been out there for a long time. And using the same blots for decades is absurd anyway. I think there are universal principles that we follow. Failures in one instance or another is to be expected. A pope having a wife and family does not negate the principles of Christianity. Fred

Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm needs to be accurate and common sense applied. To a certain extent this conversation has been about, "Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results, tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?, Public relations? Piss on that!" Fred

Surreptitiousness wrote: I imagine he was hoping for a link to an RFC or a talk page where the subject had been discussed and a consensus had formed as a result. This sort of thing happens all the time, I don't see what's amusing or bizarre about the concept. Simply linking to the "situation and its resolution" doesn't show consensus in this case because the "resolution" was imposed without discussion by a small number of people.

2009/9/9 Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>: If you lie people aren't going to believe you and will fight you. That is exactly what has happened in the two cases I know of. Edit wars and deletion reviews attract attention. A quiet, but explicit, implementation of IAR is not going to attract any more attention.