Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#....
The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e. this news/blog site
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-...
that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes, it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate articles on sexuality and pornography.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20 We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l