Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place?
Will
************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place?
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
2009/6/29 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place?
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
We are not the western media and that page gets under 500 views a month.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security & taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
After all, massive publicity hardly worked out badly for [[Jill Carroll]].
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).
I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security & taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know it. I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be far more effective at saving more lives.
Ec
Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list? This is not an abstract referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim. To the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards the safety and fate of others like him.
Wikipedians have tangible editorial and policy responsibilities regarding the latter. The former is tangential politics. It is best to keep these matters separate.
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).
I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security & taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know it. I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be far more effective at saving more lives.
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
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list? This is not an abstract referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim. To the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards the safety and fate of others like him.
1) There were ways to suppress the information without breaking Wikipedia rules, such as OFFICE. It could be argued that this still endangers lives, but to a *much* smaller degree. 2) In most cases (and in pretty much all cases which don't involve a well-connected person) we wouldn't suppress the information to protect lives--we'd publish it. The exact same arguments that are used here would be considered speculative and lacking in proof if anyone else tried them. 3) Giving in to kidnappers like this could help one person, but endanger the safety of more people in the future. It's like how paying ransom can save a person, but also makes it more likely kidnappers would kidnap more people. What do we do if terrorists learn from this and start making other demands on us?
2009/6/29 WJhonson@aol.com
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in the first place?
Will
It would raise the price of his release. It would encourage deeper digging
into his background, which could make him appear to be more of an "infidel" and thus less worthy of basic human dignity, potentially subjected to greater physical and mental privations. (Kidnappees who are considered to be aligned with other nemeses are treated more harshly.) It would increase the danger to those who were kidnapped with him, if they were perceived to have been working for an infidel, and he and his fellow kidnappees would be more likely to be executed as "examples" to others.
Risker