I've seen editors -- editors which I respect -- argue for example that if the terrorists beheading Iraqi hostages released Commons-licensed videos of their beheadings, these would be suitable additions to Commons and the biographies of the people concerned, per NOTCENSORED.
You might not see an NPOV violation in such an editorial decision, but I do (bearing in mind that UNDUE is part of NPOV, and dueness is established by weight in reliable sources).
Why we should be doing things that no other reliably published source out there does is beyond me.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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, 19:06 Don't see an issue for this list:
1. The topic is apparently reliably sourced in that numerous credible sources have discussed it and no credible source appears to claim it is a hoax. 2. Legitimate is different from reliable
- we may well cite from sources
that should not have come to public discussion but in fact did end up "noticed" in the public eye. Manyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidgygate articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal existhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers drawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents part or whole on material that originated via leak. 3. In cases like this where the topic is clearly major and has already gained significant attention, the primary sources and such secondary sources as develop over time will probably justify an article in the end even if borderline now. We can defer it but there seems little point. Given the gravity of the matter it's almost certain that more secondary coverage will be added over time. If not that will become apparent over time too. We routinely keep borderline articles on major matters where further secondary coverage seems almost certain - AFD's on breaking news of major disasters for example. 4. The exact policy on sourcing is *"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements [...] Do not base articles entirely on primary sources"*. At the moment, the article seems to draw on secondary sources for interpretive matters related to the primary source. 5. On the "list of sites", full copies (or regional extracts with links) were published in multiplehttp://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=wikileaks+(%22Ysleta+Zaragoza%22+OR+amistad+OR+rhodium)&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8mainstream media. The decision whether these should or shouldn't be listed in any article is probably a community decision. 6. Harm is often subordined to non-censorship. In the NYT kidnap case Jimmy's comment was that if sources had existed then removal of the information would have been difficult. In this case clear published sources exist, they have attracted mainstream front page comment, and harm seems to be disputed in community discussions.
One correction of a point higher up: NPOV (on enwiki anyway) does *not*apply to matching editorial decisions made by other sites. It applies to how we represent the topic in an article. If many sites do not publish something but some or a few do, we decide first whether it meets our inclusion criteria, then how to represent it if an article is viable. NPOV is not an inclusion policy.
(*Reductio ad absurdum *version: - many articles are kept with just a handful (<5) sources; this implies "mainstream" did not notice them, therefore "NPOV" would say we don't notice them either? No.)
FT2.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
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