[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Durova]

No one is proposing a sweeping censorship.  It is imperative to prevent
incidents such as these from becoming wedge issues that could lead to
sweeping censorship.  In that respect we are in agreement.

Nonetheless, real danger exists in these situations.  Ultimately, we have to
assume a responsibility that an innocent person may live or die as a result
of what we publish.  That may not happen this time, or the next time, but
consider a span of ten years: we are the world's most popular reference
source.

Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
careful rather than less careful

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above.  In 2001 a Canadian journalist
> > who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news
> coverage.
> >
> > -Durova
> >
>
> Yes, I read it. I don't think it comes *anywhere* near proving your
> sweeping proposition that this sort of censorship is justified. They
> claimed they were going to execute him and were doing mock executions
> before any news broke; after the news broke, they... went on doing
> naughty things. Yeah. Not a very good example.
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/