Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:52:14 EDT
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
You failed to read the article earlier. Al Jazeera also did not report the
until he was safe. You are frequently making assumptions as to
motives and supposed double standards without giving any particular
reasoning as to why the assumptions are valid. It has severely undermined
any argument you are attempting to make.
It also doesn't really matter if WP and the news outlets have been
consistent or not, as it was the right decision to make in this case. I
can't say I've always been consistent, but it doesn't necessarily make me a
hypocrite when I do manage to make right choices.
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:07:59 EDT
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies
are not RSs)
In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any
I disagree. WP would certainly be harmed if it was the only major media
organization to disseminate information the rest kept quiet, and worse if he
had died, whether or not if it could be traced to WP's actions. We would
have been the assholes more interested in our own overinflated egos than a
man's life, and it would probably be the worst scandal yet, undermining the
site's credibility (further).
Sometimes improving WP means looking a little farther than the few
inches/centimeters to our computer screens. It means recognizing that life,
particularly human life, is more important than a stupid collection of ones
and zeros on servers somewhere. WP hasn't always made good choices, but I'm
glad it happened this time.