In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then? That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read the draft, isn't it?
On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then? That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read the draft, isn't it?
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such proposal.
This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the Brady Bunch. http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such proposal.
This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the Brady Bunch. http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?
There is that, and there is also something Scott MacDonald wrote a couple of years ago; he said it in relation to BLPs, but it applies more widely. It's one of the most perceptive things I've read about WP:
'Wikipedia isn't governed by the thoughtful or the informed – it is governed by anyone who turns up. There are a small core of people who like playing wiki as an in-house role-playing game and simply deny real-world consequences that might limit their freedom of action. There are a larger group who are too immature or lazy to think straight. And then there are all those who recognise "something must be done", but perpetually oppose the something that's being proposed in favour of a "better idea". The mechanism is rather like using a chat-show phone-in to manage the intricacies of a federal budget – it does not work for issues that need time, thought, responsibility and attention. I doubt this problem can be fixed – since it needs structural change to decision making – which is impossible for precisely the same reasons.'
Put that together with our demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png
and there is no reason to be surprised by anything. And thus we plod on ...
I sometimes think the most addictive thing about Wikipedia is that there is so much wrong with it. It's like seeing someone pushing a huge load on a three-wheeled cart, which is about to topple over. It's a natural instinct to run over and lend a hand to stabilise the thing. Meanwhile, there is another person who actually *wants* the cart to fall over and starts pushing from the other end ... et voilà, two new editors.
Andreas
People don't read they react.
Here is a real-life example. I asked a German mate of mine why he had opposed the policy, with the following oppose rationale:
"Oppose No need to go beyond existing legal obligations, just follow the laws that apply." (Oppose 114)
When I asked him in which way he thought the policy went beyond obscenity and privacy law, his reply was that he hadn't bothered to read it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Fossa&acti...
"I have no idea what's in the policy, but the most liberal policy feasible is a policy that adheres to the laws that apply. If, say, the servers are located in Guinea, they should adhere to Guniean law, if they are located in Tulsa, US/Oklahoma law applies. No need for redundancies here."
What the policy tried to do was make editors aware of existing laws, incl. privacy, because at the moment, if you nominate a blow-job or similar picture imported a few weeks ago from a "no longer active" Flickr account, it is as likely as not that three people will turn up for the deletion discussion.
One says, "You can't see all of her face." Another says, "It's in use in a project, so we can't delete it". Another says the nominator is a prude, and a fourth says, "It has educational value."
As Scott said, it's a chat-show phone-in.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
From: ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:57 On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific
Standard Time,
jayen466@yahoo.com
writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the
votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply
trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as
people who didn't read
the draft, isn't it?
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such proposal.
This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the Brady Bunch. http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?
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
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
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
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.
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
(Note that although impact in the US of the actual information is minimal, it's proving interesting in countries outside the US as people discover what their elected leaders have actually been up to. So there will in fact be individual documents that will be noteworthy in themselves.)
- d.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US government, but they have not been published by the US government. It depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that the government PD is about material both created and published by the government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally published.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US government, but they have not been published by the US government. It depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that the government PD is about material both created and published by the government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally published.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone, but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready access to primary data?
In contrast to WikiLeaks, neither our principals nor our corporation is anonymous. The barn door is open; the secrets are running wild in the world; should we catch them and put them in our pasture? Solidarity? Duty to the truth? Do the right thing? Viva la Revolution!?
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone, but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready access to primary data?
Actually, from everything I've read lately, in the US it's not generally a crime to republish classified information. See [1] for a little related discussion.
[1] http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
No thank you, but remember being indicted for actions which are determined to not be criminal may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US government, but they have not been published by the US government. It depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that the government PD is about material both created and published by the government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally published.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone, but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready access to primary data?
In contrast to WikiLeaks, neither our principals nor our corporation is anonymous. The barn door is open; the secrets are running wild in the world; should we catch them and put them in our pasture? Solidarity? Duty to the truth? Do the right thing? Viva la Revolution!?
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You may discover when you get to court that Justice Douglas cannot save you...
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US government, but they have not been published by the US government. It depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that the government PD is about material both created and published by the government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally published.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone, but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready access to primary data?
In contrast to WikiLeaks, neither our principals nor our corporation is anonymous. The barn door is open; the secrets are running wild in the world; should we catch them and put them in our pasture? Solidarity? Duty to the truth? Do the right thing? Viva la Revolution!?
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Sent from my mobile device
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
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
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...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that *does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that *does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas
Good example, publishing of a minor's personal information by The New York Times, and republication on a hundred blogs and websites, would not change our policy and actions. Lapses of judgment by other responsible parties does not excuse us.
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive images, is inappropriate; it is, however, useless to suppress them. A decision to not suppress something is not approval for display in our published articles. That is a matter of editorial judgment which can be hammered out in discussions. My personal opinion with respect to classified documents is the same as it is with respect to offensive images of Mohammad; why stick someone in the eye? However, opinions differ and potential legal liability in either instance is small; we just look irresponsible while mirroring information readily available elsewhere.
It is similar to videos of sexual intercourse; there are places our readers can go.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:
[...]
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive images, is inappropriate
[...]
Images of unveiled women are regarded as "offensive" by many. Should we prohibit linking to or hosting them?
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
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...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
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
Perhaps we should write a guideline that editors should please wait with the Wikileaks articles until there is secondary-source coverage, and that they should sum up *that coverage* rather than the original document.
If Wikisource should decide they can host the original documents, it is always possible to provide a link there.
This article started out as a simple copy of the Wikileaks document:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Critical_Foreign...
I'm sure editors will create similar articles on other Wikileaks releases.
A.
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Cool Hand Luke User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com wrote:
From: Cool Hand Luke User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "fredbaud" fredbaud@fairpoint.net, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 17:27 Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
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...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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
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
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
The problem is to make sound judgments with respect to what is to be censored based on some semblance of rationality. A preliminary consideration is whether there is actual information involved.
A beheading is best left to the imagination... But most of the beheading of Daniel Perl was shown on network television, only the actual cutting and bleeding was left out.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org