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?

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.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com

The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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.

From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> 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, 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 of the recent _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)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

Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive images, is inappropriate

From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "fredbaud" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>et>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)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(a)fairpoint.net>wrote;wrote: for example has been published think links on good idea. The analysis in reliable included in Wikipedia Copying a list of would seem out of has widely content of the recent _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: FT2 &lt;ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;jayen466(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: of the recent _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l