[WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

David Gerard wrote:
>
> I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
> was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
> potentially extremely harmful information.
>
> We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews
> for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there
> are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over
> the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the
> article.
>
> People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a
> venue for investigative journalism.
>
>
>   

I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect
wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping
other more established news organizations, but in fact
be there before all the other major news orgs with the
full nitty gritty.

However the source of why critics of these two stories
about suppression have focused on wikipedia, likely
stems from the fact our articles edit histories are out
there for most people to see, if they have a bit of savvy.

The story would almost certainly be different if most
major newsorganisations out there had a public
paper-trail of what decisions about which stories were
made in the newsrooms at which time, and who was
on which side about which story...



Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen