[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com>:
> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> to be codified.

Can't be. We live in a world where there are people who if they know
we will censor if we consider lives to be in danger will put lives in
danger to get what they want.

I doubt FARC would hesitate to threaten a few of their hostages if it
meant we removed some of our more negative information about them.

Heh censorship to avoid civil unrest or other risks to people's lives
is one of the oldest excuses in the book.

People can get really nasty about it. I mean obviously if wikipedia
and the western media hadn't carried all that information about Aung
San Suu Kyi and democracy the monks would not have marched and the
Burmese government would have not needed to restore order. With a
slight shift it can become an effective form of victim blaming.

Now fortunately the defenses are equally well practiced. It's you
thats killing them thus the blood is on your hands not ours. Thing is
that defense works far better if you never compromise on it.

> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> wikipedia.

Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
protection.

-- 
geni