'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html
"A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping." ... "The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times. In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia’s cooperation was not a given. “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 Wikipedia page history shows that the next day, Nov. 13, someone without a user name edited the entry on Mr. Rohde for the first time to include the kidnapping. Mr. Moss deleted the addition, and the same unidentified user promptly restored it, adding a note protesting the removal. The unnamed editor cited an Afghan news agency report. In the first few days, at least two small news agencies and a handful of blogs reported the kidnapping. " ... " When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.”"
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
“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?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
“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.
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
This case is more about basic common sense.
I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason.
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.
If editors were not concerned with the reliability of the news agency they should just cite BLP on the basis that it's pretty much impossible to show that any given edit doesn't violate it and the side effects of rule lawyering with it are likely to be more limited. Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
2009/6/29 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so.
- d.
2009/6/29 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.
There is no evidence this has ever stopped anyone on Wikipedia from doing so.
- d.
Yes, but now we should definitely take another look. Most likely it's a reasonably good source, just not in the Western news loop the New York Times is depending on. I'm proud to have Wikipedia in that loop, when appropriate. That doesn't mean that when The New York Times goes to the White House and gets orders to cover up some pernicious US plot that we should obey, assuming we have any way of knowing. We did not seem to be able to sort out the truth about Iraq. Hard to do so when you can almost always rely on the New York Times.
Fred
Sam Blacketer wrote:
This case is more about basic common sense...
Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain fact out of the media for N months. And can this still be done when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors, who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying to suppress some information that "wants to be free".
Sam Blacketer wrote:
This case is more about basic common sense...
Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case) The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain fact out of the media for N months. And can this still be done when one of the other media outlets has 1,000,000 cats as editors, who actively resist herding, and especially when someone's trying to suppress some information that "wants to be free".
When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in. I have no problem whatever with what the Times or Jimbo did.
Fred
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
When someone's life is at stake, Ignore all rules actually kicks in.
The government of Iran has made it fairly clear that further protests carry the risks of further deaths. It's also fairly clear that the protests in part at least are aimed at gaining western media coverage. If they fail at that they are likely to stop more quickly. Should we remove our content on the Iranian elections? After all lives are at stake.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
“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.
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
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.
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me.
Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system.
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
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.
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me.
Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the information, it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by abusing the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area.
Risker
2009/6/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
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.
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me.
Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the
information,
it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by
abusing
the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either.
There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough.
* Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication.
2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either.
Do you know it was an embargo and not simply that they didn't have the information?
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
Nathan
2009/6/29 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion.
2009/6/29 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion.
Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
Fred
I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of context.
I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed.
Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't).
Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so there's no conflict of interest.
The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher principle of "killing the bad guy" and all, and that's really what's interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares?
But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's messing with me.
I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose.
-Stevertigo
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion.
Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's *live with this story, and I guess that's what's messing with me.
Eugh! *Life.
-Stevertigo Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki were in some ways like email, though.
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/29 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion.
Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
2009/6/29 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/29 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people" - that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can really impose a decision without discussion.
Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
They are, in extreme instances, and the inability of the editors as a whole to either maintain confidentiality or even make a decision, (to say nothing of the transparency of the software) makes such decisions necessary. What has to get done, get's done. I have some doubt that you would actually disagree with any decision that has been made in this way.
Fred
---- "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
Office actions are taken over content all the time.
A.
2009/6/29 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
---- "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
Office actions are taken over content all the time.
By the office, yes. ArbCom and functionaries are not part of the office and, while I think technically Jimbo's name is on the list of people that can take office actions, I don't think he's done on in a while (nor has the office, for that matter, as far as I am aware).
Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the people"
that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can see just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent danger) would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire lifespan of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
Nathan
We simply can't let that happen. Their reputation must somehow be factored into decision making.
Fred
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In at least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by WJohnson and geni will prevail.
I'm not entirely sure what geni's position is. My impression is that s/he is not necessarily opposed to the outcome, just the logic of *why* we did it the way we did.
That is a very valid question in my opinion also. We need to know why this decision was made so that we can consistently apply that logic in the future so that there will be transparency and trust in a system even when all the details *can't* be made public.
I would agree with other people in this thread, an OTRS or office action would have been preferable to claiming problems with WP:RS when they didn't exist. I agree OFFICE is a little high profile, but OTRS isn't. We do have a system in place for saying, "there is more detail here, but we can't publish it all now".
Not saying anyone did anything terribly bad by any means, there was a lot of hard work involved in keeping this from being published and posing a danger to the reporter. That doesn't mean we can't learn from it though. :)
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.
-----Original Message----- From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either.
There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough.
* Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?
Nathan
Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because* they were famous for some reason.
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?
-----Original Message----- From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.
Do you understand why having a famous person captive, and being part of the 24 hour news cycle, is different from having a low-profile prisoner whom no one knows is in captivity? If so, then you'll agree that transforming the latter into the former is not necessarily a good idea?
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had kidnapped? That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just some joker who nobody cares about."
Or some claim that the kidnappers regularly watch Wikipedia to try to see who "John Smith" really is? Or something?? The entire logic of the news suppression escapes me somehow.? I don't see how suppressing who the person is, in the western media, would have any impact whatsoever on what the kidnappers do or don't.
Will
-----Original Message----- From: Risker risker.wp@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur in the area.
Risker
2009/6/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
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.
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me.
Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the
information,
it should be taken out under IAR. It should *not* be taken out by
abusing
the rules to take it out. That's why we have IAR in the first place. If you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have placed in the system.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote:
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
I already posted this, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1
Mr. Martinez wasn't kidnapped at the time, was he? I mean, there was nobody actually holding him prisoner, was there?
I don't think many westerners realise how endemic kidnapping for profit is in this region of the world; it's commonplace and a longstanding pattern of behaviour that goes back centuries. Most of these kidnappings are economically driven, and target anyone they think might have the money; the overwhelming majority of kidnap victims are non-notable, so they would never have an article about them into which their kidnapping could be added. But people with a larger reputation have a different economic value, and they can be sold to those who wish to make their kidnapping a political/religious issue. And once the people are being held for idealistic reasons, the rules - and the risks - change.
Risker
2009/6/30 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Risker wrote:
While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.
I already posted this, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html?_r=1
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Four thoughts:
1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,* Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary, Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or "temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term.
A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab world-based news agency, then "its [temporarily] not a reliable source."'
What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity might be validated.
2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration?
3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The "young white [fe] male" dimension might have relevance.
Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not based in vague concepts like professionalism or "reliable sources," but out of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the English-speaking world.
Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might even shoot at Al Jazeera.*
Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each.
2) Found this on the Rohde talk page: "Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor] articles about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... "
89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and death. Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism' ("perfect crime" etc.).
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity might be validated.
Trouble is, not even a scoop or Pulitzer can make a source "reliable", which is a concept more to do with minimum rather than maximum standards. "Verifiability from reliable sources" is a good policy, but the good part is the verifiability. What we have had to say about "reliable sources" has never been that impressive. I hear all the time on the radio that "unconfirmed reports" say something has happened; obviously that means the source concerned is not, stand-alone, 100% reliable as far as the BBC is concerned. And that's how it is: rumour and correct facts get mixed into primary news reporting. The fact that a rumour may check out afterwards is hardly the issue.
Anyway, if there had been several independent sources for the Rohde business, the dam would have broken. As it is, I think the systemic bias around WP in favour of including high amounts of detail about living English-speaking journalists is very noticeable.
Charles
David Goodman wrote:
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a censor is not a valid deduction from that, but a trite fallacy.
The truth of the matter is that the policy on BLP involves us in casuistry, in the technical sense. Your first comment illustrates that point.
Charles
geni wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
“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?
If it isn't perhaps it should be removed from the four other articles that use it as a source.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com:
“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?
Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are), there were still other sources:
"Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of blogs into action."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html
2009/6/30 Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com
Even if we think *they* were not a RS (which of course they are), there were still other sources:
"Word came close to leaking widely last month when Rohde won his second Pulitzer Prize, as part of the Times team effort for coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Italian news agency Adnkronos International did spill the beans, reportedly spurring a number of blogs into action."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673247-2703,00.html
Sorry, Adnkronos International is not a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=next&o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&diff=next&oldid=277012138 Michel
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins?
So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed.
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after branding a news agency "unreliable". Michel
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins?
So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed.
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
-- -Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"OTRS actions" (for lack of a better term) should always stand on their own merits. OTRS volunteers have no special authority to do anything that a regular administrator doesn't have. Thus, we do not make actions "per OTRS". In the final protection I did note the summary with a link to the OTRS ticket in case people decided to ask about it. It was for informational purposes only. But there was no "drama" before. Only a few edits and a few reverts (as well as the previous protections).
--- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
I don't see why they didn't indef-protect the entry with a reference to an OTRS ticket. That eventually happened, but only after much drama, and after branding a news agency "unreliable". Michel
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins?
So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed.
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
-- -Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins?
So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed.
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
-- -Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example. Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt their prisoners in a similar manner.
I usually consider that BLP should be used very restrictively, but if there ever was a case where do no harm applies, it is this, not the convoluted arguments of possible harm to felons where it is usually raised. I would have done just as JW did (except I would have done it just as OTRS) . I can not imagine being willing to take the personal responsibility of publishing this. There is an argument otherwise, but that's abstract, and people judge differently when it is not abstract, but a known individual.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example. Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt their prisoners in a similar manner.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified.
By calling it "censorship" you are of course assuming what you want to prove, that it was unjustified. "Censor" is the name of an official position. If there were a position within the WMF devoted to keeping _news_ out of Wikipedia when there are reliable sources, beyond a quibble, supporting it, just because someone was lobbying to have it suppressed, then you'd have a case. I'm not aware of that type of arrangement.
Charles
No one is proposing a sweeping censorship. It is imperative to prevent incidents such as these from becoming wedge issues that could lead to sweeping censorship. In that respect we are in agreement.
Nonetheless, real danger exists in these situations. Ultimately, we have to assume a responsibility that an innocent person may live or die as a result of what we publish. That may not happen this time, or the next time, but consider a span of ten years: we are the world's most popular reference source.
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather than less careful
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news
coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example. Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt their prisoners in a similar manner.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather than less careful
Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified.
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
-Durova
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon the slippery slope of censorship.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 30/06/2009, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely,
when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather than less careful
Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified.
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
-Durova
-- -Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon the slippery slope of censorship.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather than less careful
Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified.
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the already contentious BLP arena. Endangering lives can apply just as easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies at all in the first place.
If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source. What will be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news consumption? What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely because they support our preconceptions?
If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we are so important that our reporting will make any difference. If we are smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves. Do we apply the policy even-handedly? Doing so would require treating a Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same respect as a Western life.
Ec
I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Durova wrote:
Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step
upon
the slippery slope of censorship.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely,
when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be
more
careful rather than less careful
Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified.
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the already contentious BLP arena. Endangering lives can apply just as easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies at all in the first place.
If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source. What will be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news consumption? What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely because they support our preconceptions?
If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we are so important that our reporting will make any difference. If we are smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves. Do we apply the policy even-handedly? Doing so would require treating a Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same respect as a Western life.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified.
Can't be. We live in a world where there are people who if they know we will censor if we consider lives to be in danger will put lives in danger to get what they want.
I doubt FARC would hesitate to threaten a few of their hostages if it meant we removed some of our more negative information about them.
Heh censorship to avoid civil unrest or other risks to people's lives is one of the oldest excuses in the book.
People can get really nasty about it. I mean obviously if wikipedia and the western media hadn't carried all that information about Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy the monks would not have marched and the Burmese government would have not needed to restore order. With a slight shift it can become an effective form of victim blaming.
Now fortunately the defenses are equally well practiced. It's you thats killing them thus the blood is on your hands not ours. Thing is that defense works far better if you never compromise on it.
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection.
2009/6/30 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection.
--
Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to contribute there.
Risker
2009/6/30 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
2009/6/30 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia.
Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of protection.
--
Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to contribute there.
Remove X bit of information that has not been previously widely published or random kidnapped tourist dies.
But of course we don't have an article on random kidnapped tourist.
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt their prisoners in a similar manner.
...not to mention techniques used by Western military interrogators.
Ec
Ian Woollard wrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins?
What are policies for? We tend not to ask this often enough.
I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could call "normal circumstances". We have IAR because not all circumstances are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.
WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising). Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it says. That's the letter.
Charles
On 30/06/2009, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
What are policies for? We tend not to ask this often enough.
I say that policies are generally there to create reasonable expectations, of editors contributing to Wikipedia, under what you could call "normal circumstances". We have IAR because not all circumstances are normal, and application of policy can lead to the "wrong" answer.
The problem is that there are always cabals as well as single people that simply believe strange things.
So if somebody (anybody, but particularly an admin) does something strange, are they a member of a cabal or is there something happening they can't tell you? If they're a member of a cabal or simply believe something strange then they need to be resisted, but if there is something they can't tell you then that's much more likely to be OK.
The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is; the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors will back-off.
WP:BLP has as nutshell "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research", which I agree with; together with stuff about ethical and legal responsibility (which I find somewhat surprising). Anyway, the "greatest attention" to verifiability means that high standards such as more than one source can be applied, even if news agencies were always reliable sources (which is very debatable, I think). "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", it says. That's the letter.
That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.
Charles
2009/6/30 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is; the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors will back-off.
That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.
Yeah. I think in many ways that we're seeing a case here of a fairly reasonable judgement call being defended by quite slipshod means. (I could see myself having done the same thing). If we had people more confident to *say* "this is a judgement call, there are Serious Things", and a community more willing to trust established users to say that and not be playing tricks...
...well, we'd have a different community. But it'd be one where this sort of situation would be more likely to play out without abuse of "the rules" to get the intended result.
I guess, as you note above, we could probably see more use of OTRS in a future situation; a way to note that the problem's been looked at by someone generally-trusted, that there's something that probably shouldn't be poked too hard, and please could people leave it there or ask discreetly for details.
This is, on the other hand, not something that has historically proved popular to codify. Hmm.
Ian Woollard wrote:
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any other politician.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose?
I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any other politician.
Standard policy on-wiki is that administrators have to be willing to explain and justify their actions. OTRS is a venue for being somewhat opaque; office is a venue for being more opaque.
Issues which rise to this level should presumably be handed to OTRS and/or office - if they're that sensitive, the normal administrator pool is not well enough known and trusted, and fundamentally don't have appropriate private channels to discuss and decide on what to do.
If random administrators start playing cowboy on issues like this, it's not helping anyone.