[Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
fredbaud at fairpoint.net
Sun Dec 12 18:33:53 UTC 2010
> You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I
> was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York
> has written about it.
> What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic
> in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then
> should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality
> sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that
> *does* mention the minor's name and address.
Good example, publishing of a minor's personal information by The New
York Times, and republication on a hundred blogs and websites, would not
change our policy and actions. Lapses of judgment by other responsible
parties does not excuse us.
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive
images, is inappropriate; it is, however, useless to suppress them. A
decision to not suppress something is not approval for display in our
published articles. That is a matter of editorial judgment which can be
hammered out in discussions. My personal opinion with respect to
classified documents is the same as it is with respect to offensive
images of Mohammad; why stick someone in the eye? However, opinions
differ and potential legal liability in either instance is small; we just
look irresponsible while mirroring information readily available
It is similar to videos of sexual intercourse; there are places our
readers can go.
More information about the wikimedia-l