[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)

[David Goodman]

The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
think there is a true emergency.  Even were we to say, never do it,
yet people would if they think it justified.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Durova<nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby.  Welcoming ideas that would give the
> soil good traction.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1/
>> when people should be "protected", is  not self-explanatory.  Some may
>> feel that
>> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
>>
>> 2/
>> "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
>> encyclopedia";
>> the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree
>> about such generalities
>>
>> Some of us may think "doing right" is publishing everything known to
>> be verified; others, only those that
>> lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable
>> social consequences is also not a
>> uniform concept, or there would be no political differences.
>>
>> The  present government of China would completely agree with these
>> principles for the flow of information,
>> and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice.
>> Probably the Taliban would also.  So would
>> anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to
>> communicate--this is the basic characteristic
>> of repressive governments. .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
>> >> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious
>> that
>> > there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
>> > At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
>> >
>> > How about this as a start:
>> >
>> > -- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases
>> in
>> > order to protect people.
>> >
>> > -- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
>> > what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the
>> encyclopedia.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>