[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[wjhonson at aol.com]

 Is there some apparent claim that the kidnappers didn't know who they had kidnapped?
That we were telling them who the person was?? I'm fairly sure that kidnappers first priority would be "Let's kidnap someone who means something, not just some joker who nobody cares about."

Or some claim that the kidnappers regularly watch Wikipedia to try to see who "John Smith" really is? Or something?? The entire logic of the news suppression escapes me somehow.? I don't see how suppressing who the person is, in the western media, would have any impact whatsoever on what the kidnappers do or don't.

Will




 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Mon, Jun 29, 2009 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs










While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in
the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is why this particular reporter's
kidnapping was more newsworthy than the majority of kidnappings that occur
in the area.

Risker




2009/6/29 David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>

> would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
> who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
>
> preventing harm is the argument of all censors
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >> > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> >> > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> >> > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find
> some way
> >> > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it.
> And that
> >> > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure
> news
> >> > agencies were reliable.
> >> Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area
> >> (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is
> >> frankly beyond me.
> >
> > Besides, if someone's life would actually be endangered by the
> information,
> > it should be taken out under IAR.  It should *not* be taken out by
> abusing
> > the rules to take it out.  That's why we have IAR in the first place.  If
> > you do it by abusing the rules, you undermine the trust that people have
> > placed in the system.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
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