[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of
context.

I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a
certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight
into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed.

Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered
publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New
York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't).

Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous
sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the
Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner
than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so
there's no conflict of interest.

The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher
principle of "killing the bad guy" and all, and that's really what's
interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares?

But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's
messing with me.

I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose.

-Stevertigo





On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
> > we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
> > really impose a decision without discussion.
>

> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
>