[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 40

[Jason Safoutin]

On 12/13/2010 7:00 AM, foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> 	foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
>     2. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Tracy Poff)
>     3. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Levy)
>     4. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Gerard)
>     5. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
>     6. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (The Cunctator)
>     7. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:25:37 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Fred Bauder"<fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
> 	material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> 	<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<59185.66.243.193.108.1292185537.squirrel at webmail.fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for
>>> en:wp.
>>>
>>> The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
>>> suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
>>> Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is
>>> context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating
>>> for their importance.
>> I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US
>> government, but they have not been published by the US government. It
>> depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that
>> the government PD is about material both created and published by the
>> government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be
>> a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally
>> published.
>>
>> --
>> Andr?? Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone,
> but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste
> limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the
> material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready
> access to primary data?
>
> In contrast to WikiLeaks, neither our principals nor our corporation is
> anonymous. The barn door is open; the secrets are running wild in the
> world; should we catch them and put them in our pasture? Solidarity? Duty
> to the truth? Do the right thing? Viva la Revolution!?
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
>
>
>
Republishing classified material that is already leaked is NOT a crime. 
That would mean the NYT, LA Times etc would all be criminals for 
publishing classified material, in which they do reports on. Wikileaks 
did NOT leak the cables. The soldier who obtained them leaked the 
material via Wikileaks who then published them.

Jason Safoutin (en.wikinews)