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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)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.
Many<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidgygate>
articles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal>
exist<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses…
that <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers>
draw<http://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
multiple<http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=wikileaks+(%22Ysleta+…
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(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_not…
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
of the recent
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l