There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we
are avoiding releasing by replying with, "Shhh. This is being kept quiet."
As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a
response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original
purpose. If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work
as well as just saying the source is unreliable.
Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most
effective route. I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the
response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective?
Sxeptomaniac
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700
From: Durova
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
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(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On 30/06/2009, Durova
<nadezhda.durova(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/