Hello folks,
Sorry to be talking about rape, again. Somewhat disturbing that your first memories of me will be repeated posts on this topic. I look at all the threads but don't think I need to comment very often.
Several editor are putting an alleged child rape victims name in articles without any support from mainstream media sources. I have argued against this content based on many WP policy/guidelines. But, I can't find any specific policy or discussion about rape victims.
Can anyone remember any place in Wikipedia English where naming rape victims in articles is discussed? I'm trying to find community consensus, one way or the other, on this point.
There is an arbitration case on this topic,WebEx and Min Zhu. I am a party. I added journalism sources to talk page of /Evidence. Most mainstream media sources in the US withhold names without the consent of rape victim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Mi...
I removed the alleged victims name from my evidence and have asked arb comm to remove it from the rest of the parties. Substituting a pseudonym is the usual practice in medical and legal cases that are published. For privacy reasons, having the victims name written over and over again in these cases is problem.
Regards, FloNight aka Sydney
SP wrote:
Can anyone remember any place in Wikipedia English where naming rape victims in articles is discussed? I'm trying to find community consensus, one way or the other, on this point.
This sort of stuff is discussed constantly in a variety of contexts, and I think that in most of them the consensus ends up as "publish the information if it has already been published by a mainstream news source".
In addition to crime victims, other cases where it comes up are: * The names of underaged alleged criminals * Secret or semi-secret information about an organization's internal workings (e.g. Scientology). * Leaked classified information
In all these cases, the consensus, as far as I can tell, is that refraining from publishing something that has already been widely published does not really accomplish much besides make our articles less informative. We shouldn't "out" people or "break" stories ourselves, or republish information that has only been previously published in fringe/sketchy sources, but summarizing what has already been reported in the mainstream media is fair game.
-Mark
That is my position, too. The Elizabeth Smart case is a good example of the news media choosing their words with care, but reporting on her sexual abuse by her alleged kidnapper. FloNight aka Sydney
Delirium wrote:
SP wrote:
Can anyone remember any place in Wikipedia English where naming rape victims in articles is discussed? I'm trying to find community consensus, one way or the other, on this point.
This sort of stuff is discussed constantly in a variety of contexts, and I think that in most of them the consensus ends up as "publish the information if it has already been published by a mainstream news source".
In addition to crime victims, other cases where it comes up are:
- The names of underaged alleged criminals
- Secret or semi-secret information about an organization's internal
workings (e.g. Scientology).
- Leaked classified information
In all these cases, the consensus, as far as I can tell, is that refraining from publishing something that has already been widely published does not really accomplish much besides make our articles less informative. We shouldn't "out" people or "break" stories ourselves, or republish information that has only been previously published in fringe/sketchy sources, but summarizing what has already been reported in the mainstream media is fair game.
-Mark
I'd think rules against original research or concerns about verifiability or the reliability of non-mainstream sources would be enough rationale to keep such information out. I remember that much the same reasoning was used to remove the real names of a couple of porn stars from WP articles about them.