Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Censored To Protect Captive Reporter
AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort, largely successful, to keep news of a Times reporter's kidnapping off of Wikipedia. The Christian Science Monitor, the reporter David Rohde's previous employer, takes a harder look at the issues of censorship and news blackout, linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia's actions. Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound, along with his translator, on Saturday. "For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban. But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia. ... A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia's page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times."
what was the purpose of censoring the information? was it in order to not give the Taliban any news time or was it an attempt to hide the hideous things the Taliban does in an effort to not bolster cries to rid us of them once and for all?
It seems to me that this is more political then anything.
Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped. You know what his captors want? Publicity for their campaign. If they get the world's attention, they kill him -- this gives them maximum returns on their actions.
By keeping the secret, they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape.
You may call it censorship, I call it protecting the life of a journalist.
Or, since I DNRTFA, I could be completely off base. But I did read about this kidnapping previously, and I think I'm on track here. Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I have never understood why news about kidnapped reporters is kept in the strictest confidence, whereas the media pretty much never offer the same to a member of the public who is not a part of the media fraternity.
There should be standards. Either kidnapping stories are reported widely, or they are not. I see no reason for journalists to have lives of more inherent value than anyone else. This would be like doctors giving preferential treatment to other doctors (eg. less waiting time in countries with socialized medicine) or teachers distributing textbooks only to the children of other teachers. This is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is profoundly wrong.
I mean, it's certainly conceivable that mr Rohde and his translator owe their lives to this act of censorship. Think on that a moment.
They'd gladly blab about a kidnapping if it wasn't one of their own. It does, after all, sell newspapers.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter's value and make negotiations more difficult? When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people? Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk? Safety trumps freedom of speech? Since when? Only when one reporter is doing something for another, apparently.
What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt: they are capable of censoring the news, and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there. Furthermore, they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.
We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.
This seems like the same train of thought as "responsible disclosure" for security issues in software. Yes, it was censored information, but they came forward with it eventually and humankind (or a human in this case) was better off.
Hmm, now we walk a fine line. Who do we trust to censor something in order to preserve human life and yet won't misuse their power to instill their own will?
Where did this censorship policy originate? And where was it when people were being kidnapped on a daily basis in Iraq? Daniel Berg? The Christian Science Monitor lady? The media outlets were practically tripping over themselves to report every detail -- and feed airtime to the kidnappers -- yet one of their own gets nabbed and now the policy is "stfu so our guy doesn't get hurt" ?
Un-friggin-real.
Of course, now that the media outlets have revealed their little secret, you can bet the terrorists will take counter-measures. This trick only works once.
I believe strongly in free speech, especially on Wikipedia (I am a semi-active editor there). But this wasn't really Wikipedia's domain. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper). It's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone's life until reliable news sources have already done so. In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.
Just so you guys have the facts on this one, the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'
2. a.2.a transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
This doesn't fall under that category, or any similar category. The Times wasn't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit, or because of judgement as to it's morality or offensiveness. They did it to protect the reporter.
As a citizen, or NYT subscriber, or Wikipedia contributor, you have no right as to the status of the reporters' personal situation. Just because something has occurred and someone knows doesn't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published. This is not a moral, heretical, or an issue of the reporters' conduct.
I'll say it slowly:
absolutely.
not.
censorship.
If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Holy crap the whining from the slashdot horde is deafening.
Look: Wikipedia isn't just a forum where you can sh*t whatever crap you want. It's an encyclopedia with formal rules for inclusion. They may be weird rules, and weak rules but they exist none the less and they are most of what distinguishes Wikipedia from failures like everything2.
In this case Wikipedia's rule on verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) comes into play. There were no other reliable sources reporting on this, so it was kept out just like your uncle jimbobs magic formula for turning cowpies into gold.
So sure, the rule here was enforced harder in this case than some others but those kinds of inconsistencies happen in all complex systems. At least Wikipedia is honest about their inconsistencies.
This is exactly right.
Furthermore, the policy statement, Wikipedia is not censored, should be read carefully.
It doesn't refer to absolute freedom to put anything into Wikipedia. Indeed, it is part of a long and venerable policy page which defines what content should not go into Wikipedia, Wikipedia's "editorial policy" if you like.
"Wikipedia is not censored" covers only the limited issue of "offensive" content, such as profanity or explicit sexual material. It says that "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely. Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.
Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06. There were absolutely no questions that this program was
Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.
Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -> saving civilian lives. Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!
PS Good overview here, by the guy who led the Justice Department's prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
- AJ
Not trying to troll but this behavior begs the question; Why is it OK to self censor and ask others to censor to protect a reporter, but it's not OK to do the same when coalition soldiers are involved? -cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Offtopic, but is the level of profanity on /. on the rise? Reliance on euphamisms (RTFA / WTF / fsck) seems to be down while straight-forward use of bad language seems to be up. WTF is up with that? Am I going to start noticing kids messing up my lawn soon?
NBD...people can censor their site however they want.
That can't wait to expose anything the U.S. military is doing, thereby putting the soldiers lives in jeopardy?
I have this weird picture stuck in my head - a bearded mullah, sitting at his computer somewhere in Pakistan, complaining "WHY aren't these Wikipedia edits STICKING?!"
#DeleteChrome
[citation needed]
All this does is open themselves up for a major butt hurt when they report on the next kidnap victim and said victim is killed.
What? David Rohde was captured? Shit i better go post this on wikipedia.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
In this case, the information about this reporter was suppressed to protect his life, not to prevent, say, someone else's embarrassment or to cover-up misconduct or otherwise prevent the publication of information the public should know to protect the democratic process.
Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran. One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address."
This is the sort of limited exception to the free publication of relevant information to the public where the news media can and does suppress a story on a temporary basis in order to prevent death or injury to others or where it is important to the issues involved that the story not be exposed for a short time. When people talk about "responsible journalism," it is this sort of behavior they are referring to.
Paul Robinson - <paul@paul-robinson.us> - My Blog
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
So they spent a lot of effort to "hide" his kidnapping, but a cursory browse through the wikipedia page history shows all these changes. I understand that most people don't ever look at the history, but for anyone that was actually interested in David the information wasn't hidden at all.
What is most disturbing is the paternalistic actions going on here. If Wikipedia can be edited and censored to save one life, how much editing can we expect if SOMEONE, anonymously, in the background believes that editing and suppression of information will save 10, 1000, or 100,000 lives?
For example, if Wikipedia and Twitter had suppressed the information from Iran, think of all the people's lives that could have been saved! The protests would not have been kept going by outside "interference." Neda would be alive.
Alas, sometimes evil people are willing to die for the cause of freedom and that is a good thing because that is how evil is fought.
Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness, but as those of us who have followed along know, it is about control by one group with one agenda while publicly stating the opposite. And one group with one position is fine IF that is acknowledged.
I hope the next time the NY Times reports on an overseas kidnapping of an engineer, doctor, technician, soldier or other professional and that person(s) are killed, that the NY Times is held responsible.
By this action, they are stating they know their reporting can kill or save an overseas kidnapped victim and are selectively doing so. I hope there is a prosecutor reading this news that is comprehending the double standard here and is looking to make a name for him or herself.
Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely. Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.
In case you're unaware, The Times, among other outlets, back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, did not mention - until after they got out of Iran - that Americans were hiding in the Canadian embassy in Teheran.
Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06. There were absolutely no questions that this program was
Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.
Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -> saving civilian lives. Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!
So the Times should not report to the American public when the U.S. Government operates secret facilities which are used to capture some people? If we go that route, and decide that "this hidden government program is a good idea and we shouldn't report on it," while "this hidden government program isn't a good idea and we should report on it," then we get into cases where you have suppression of torture or other misconduct - like Abu Ghraib or the CIA "extraordinary rendition" black sites - because some reporter agrees with the behavior being done by the government. We live in a constitutional republic which, for all intents and purposes is a democracy, and as such, we the people are the sovereign power to which the government must answer to; and we as a people cannot know if our government is acting in a way we agree it should be if reporters do less than their job, and deciding which secret government programs to cheerlead is not a reporter's job.
Besides, if the Times can discover it, probably anyone could, and then you would have the bad guys knowing about it while the public is kept in the dark. Besides, any terrorist worth his salt is not using traceable financing methods anyway, all the Times probably did is expose the "low hanging fruit" of the obvious and easily detectable transfer methods. If I was going to be doing finance transfers for some terrorist group, I'd be using shell companies that had no connection to the operation and switch them on a regular basis. How is someone going to know that a $100,000 wire transfer from Steel Corporation of London LTD to Islamabad Ore SDN BHD is a terrorist transfer or a funds transfer for several tons of iron ore?
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
When creating or editing an article, it should be duly noted that Wikipedia is never to be a primary source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS
Wikipedia cannot, ever be trusted. It's not the information that's the problem. In fact, it's not even the malicious editors. It's the process. The process of editing information on Wikipedia is set up to allow manipulation, censorship and propaganda by anyone willing to spend the effort.
The summary says it all:
This is the process of information control. If you want something on or off Wikipedia, the goal is to ingratiate yourself with, or outright become, one of the people with authority over the articles. Lock, delete, edit, undo and generally abuse every one of the hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles that have been created in order to mould pages to your worldview and no other. The obstacles to dealing with misinformation are far, far more numerous than putting up, and guarding, that misinformation in the first place.
My own experiences are many, but most recently, I have tried to undo an edit that turned a "religion" field in a scientist infobox into a "religious stance" field. The ensuing plastering of "atheist", "christian" and "deist" tags on scientist infoboxes left and right left little doubt that the pages were being commandeered into a larger "culture war" debate.
My efforts to undo this and return the tag to its original status were for nought. The template was locked down tight. When I argued for a reversion, I was stonewalled. They argued for "consensus", that revision could only take place once agreement was reached, that their existed "guidelines" on the page directing that the tag could be used in this way. All this despite the fact that no agreement had ever been reached on the change in the first place.
The purpose of all the rules and regulations and procedures was clear. Someone wanted that tag to stay the way it was, and was prepared to go to great lengths to make sure of that outcome. Wikipedia admins have elevated stonewalling to an artform.
People own Wikipedia pages. Entire topics have been purged. Consider the fate of Pidgey, purged from existance simply because certain people took exception to his presence and began a campaign to excise him. You may consider these issues trivial, but make no mistake; they show an systemic and fatal failure in the ability of Wikipedia to police itself.
Methods exist, and are defended, which allow persons of ill intent to control the flow and presentation of any page so long as they are willing to expend the effort. This state of affairs did not come about by chance. It is a status quo admired and supported from the very top, with Wales himself turning to it again and again. The rot has set in at the top in Wikipedia and the whole structure is now tainted.
Wikipedia cannot be trusted. For anything. Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page. Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it.
May the Maths Be with you!
MMA fights like UFC are PPV while others like Strikeforce are cable and Japanese ones like DREAM (PRIDE) and Sengoku are carried with delay by HDNET.
That is a very small segment of the population as opposed to the American Coronation yet like so many events, you get the results updated almost instantly.
I watched a recent MMA contest online and right after the fight ended, while waiting for the judges decision the feed died. After trying different things, we ended up going to WIkipedia and found the result of the event was updated.
Ive seen TV shows where characters get killed off have their wiki pages modified before the credits run.
Please dont give me we dont do breakin news crap.
Censorship is good when it serves a good cause.
Problem is not everyone is always on the same side of a good cause.
The problem here is the same stupidity which lead to 9/11.
PROTIP: ***NEVER*** negotiate with terrorists.
A terrorist snatches one of ours, they are dead to us. We publish their obituaries in the paper tomorrow, and then send in the Marines to recover the body. It the terrorists are SMART, they'll hand the guy over as fast as they can, and take their chances in a Federal District Court; if they're DUMB, they're dead.
Instantly, hostages have ***ZERO*** value, and all this stupid discussion goes away.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
They don't hesitate to spill everyone else's beans because "people have the right to know", but when one of their own is in danger, they resort to censorship. (And I do not mean "discretion" or "self-censorship", but rather the censorship of others.)
They have not hesitated to endanger people's lives by saying they're US military, etc. They have not hesitated to give the throat-slitters a platform to encourage them to slaughter innocents. Perhaps if we could send a few NYT editors to get kidnapped, they might not be so eager to demand that we have a right to know things that get people killed.
So the NYT is all about keeping things on the down-low to save one of their own, but to protect national security and the safety of our troops...not so much.
it isn't constitutional or legal for the executive branch of government to have unchecked surveillance powers of financial activity.
I thought this was about kidnappings, not secret government programs
Because else it would have gone their way. Period.
Freedom is slavery,
war is peace,
Wikipedia is truth.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Wikipedia says it happened. You really should choose a better source than a forum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz There is some pictures too on the page.
You have no "right" to know, I hate it when the public's "right" to know is touted because it is a fiction at best.
The United States, at least, is a republic. The voters select the people who make and enforce its laws, foreign policy, and wars, and replace them when, in the voters' opinion, they have performed poorly. To do so intelligently they, and those who are about to become voters, need accurate information about world events affecting and affected by the US, its actions, and their interests.
That sounds like "need to know" to me. Do they have a "right" to obtain information? How can you argue that they do not?
However, any given organization does not have a general "obligation to inform" on such subjects - beyond specific legally required obligations, typically related to itself. Just as a given individual's need for food does not create a requirement that a given grocery store provide it free, a voters' need for information does not require any information outlet to supply it. The owners and operators of each get to take their pick on what, if anything, they chose to report.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So David Rohde is alive. But is the New York Times?
I understand the idea that suppressing a little information (which isn't really of pertinent interest to the public) in exchange for saving a man's life is a small price to pay in the great Freedom equation.
What's lacking here, however, is an actual rational explanation as to how withholding the information did anything to save the man's life. It is making an unproven assertion that masking his employer's name, which had the word "Christian" in it, saved his life. It is making an unproven assertion that bringing publicity to the case would have resulted in his death. So the issue here is, is it right to suppress the freedom of information when there is no rational cause to do so, and only gut feelings that it may help someone?
You know, like taking every "think of the children" argument ever espoused and applying it to reporters instead. As in, I have a pretty good feeling that if people are allowed to view images of a naked 17-year-old, that they will start raping kindergarteners. Lives are at stake, etc. So no, despite the seriousness of this case, it is not an excuse for what the Times and Wales did.
I think this is the first time I've seen a Truther Outbreak on Slashdot. Interesting topic for it to spawn from, but these things can't be predicted. The internet is too popular!
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Good tip! Thanks, legitimate poster!
- AJ
Send nukes.
So can I stop any story from being printed by just kidnapping someone?
So,
I don't really get what the original is about. You claim a Wikipedia article got censored? You have trouble (morally, even?) that some news about a kidnapping got "suppressed"?
Do you in fact have any clue what censorship really is? What the word is meaning and how censoring is applied in practice?
Probably you should read an wikipedia article about it (pun intended).
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't know if you can be certain that the blackout would saved his life. A lack of media attention could have equally resulted in him being effectively valueless to his captors. His death would have also provided the desired level of media coverage and would have ensured some coverage.
we'll call it facebook
No it was an anti death penalty politics....I'm sure the taleban would have sentenced him to death in public if he was a cause celebre Pro-life and anti death penalty == matter v/s anti matter in some world ! Kaboom and its clean !
I don't get it. I Taliban kidnapped a reported, and executed him immediately, would the journalists run the story? Probably yes. Would the outcome be the same, i.e. would people be outraged? Probably yes.
So why do they claim that not publishing story about his kidnapping keeps him safer? If Taliban wants publicity with public execution, there is really no need to negotiate. Thus, I don't see the point of suppressing the information from the general public.
They put life ahead of anything else. Even it's just for one life. It's an honorable and admirable action for them to take.
A thoughtful post indeed.
It seems that Wales is more-or-less accepted as the "Benevolent Dictator For Life" of Wikipedia. Much along the lines of other open-source projects that have BDFLs, such as Linus Torvalds for the Linux Kernel, or Guido van Rossum for Python.
I guess one thing that checks these leaders' power is that the licensing of their projects allows any group of sufficiently disgruntled developers/participants to fork it and start a new project. I think this provides a useful tension between strong leadership and lsitening to the concerns of others. Do you think this mechanism is enough to keep Jimmy Wales from over-extending his leadership position in Wikimedia projects? I'm not sure myself...
My bicyles
He is a reporter and he went into a conflict zone knowing the risks involved (or so i hope).
and as a reporter in a conflict zone he probably wanted to spread information around, even if it meant for him to risk his life. Is wikipedia really acting in his interest by betraying the very idea of uncensored information flow, a thing he knowingly risked he's life for, assuming that it even going to help hem in any way? debatable...
is an abstract ideal worth a mans life? Only the man himself should decide that! Is wikipedia assuming this authority on his behalf by making an exception? I do think so.
with that being said, the way mass media handles/creates terrorism situation is obscene to put it mildly. the actual "harm" would be done by the fox news and such, because wikipedia istn even supposed to be a news agency?
What was harmed here ? His kidnappers were not able to extract as much publicity (or perhaps cash) from their actions.
If we assume that the kidnappers are a ''bad organisation'' that may do ''bad things'' (ie kill the journalist) then we can agree that temporarily suppressing this information is a good thing; a life is potentially saved (+1), the kidnappers don't achieve an aim (+1), a story suppressed (-1): overall +1.
Will everyone agree with my assessment ? No: Taliban sympathisers will see that their fight against Western imperialism (or whatever) has been harmed by this. There are probably no absolute write/wrongs in this but adopting the ''all censorship is bad'' mantra is too simplistic.
I started to write this thinking that it was an easy point to make ... but I found it more complicated as I wrote. Programming is easier that philosophy!
Two articles, one in the NYT and the other in the Christian Science Monitor, both taking the slant that, of course, suppressing information is the right thing to do, and gee, look, here's a case where they were right to do so.
This sickening example of self-serving behavior smacks not just of opportunism but of deliberation. --Remember all those episodes of various prime time shows including Alias, and 24 and even ****ing Star Trek (Enterprise) which laid out the compelling argument for the use of torture using the exact same narrative template? No? I'll recap in one paragraph. . .
There's a *ticking bomb of some sort* (oh no!) but We, (the Good Guys) have caught the Bad Man who knows *The Secret Code*. But we would NEVER torture for the information; we're Good People, after all. So instead we set up an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming mind-game sham act to trick the captive into thinking that he's escaped, forgotten he's escaped, and that the person who helped him escape should be told *The Secret Code*! But alas, the captive sees through the whole act at the last moment and laughs his cruel Bad Guy laugh, enraging us. And we, the Good Guys TRIED so hard! --Can anybody blame us for bowing as the ALPHA MALE character of the show who stomps in and sets to work on the captive's finger nails with a pair of pliers, retrieving the information in under five minutes and *Saves The Day*? Heck no! We cheer!
The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor? Come on! One is the CIA's lap dog and the other is the product of a 2000 year-old hate-on for anybody in a turban. This current bit of bullshit is a handy bit of spy craft. Please allow me to present the following narrative. . .
A journalist is kidnapped. Nothing new there; it happens all the time. Except this just happened to be a kidnapping which fits nicely. So just when this opportune kidnapping occurs, enter the CIA or Homeland Security or whoever is in charge of sculpting public perception through the media. Back in the World War, it was an office called, "The Department of Propaganda" which did this kind of thing, boasting clandestine relationships with a whole stack of willing (and perhaps not-so-willing journalists) during the war. --We'd be insane to believe anything has changed except for the worse.
The result? We get this latest bit of horse manure designed to make people think that it's good and noble not JUST to pull out people's finger nails, but that we should applaud the choking off of reliable public sector information using this retarded, "Real Life and totally honest and un-massaged example" to show why Big Brother has its reasons for the news seeming 'wrong' somehow. (Though you'll never know which parts or why.) What's that? It just can't be, you say? --Two men's lives were at stake, after all. They wouldn't risk the lives of two of their own just to perpetrate a mind game on the public. They just wouldn't DO that! --Well, if this emotionalism seems like a rational bit of thinking to you, then I'd suggest a quick review of the last hundred years to see just how much the corporate/government cares about the human lives in its care.
In short, I get a strong sense that This Is Crap.
Anybody who falls for this kind of scam and says, "Oh yes. I see your reasonable argument, and because it happens to make sense, I will allow you to lie to me and I will submit to this willingly." News Flash: Socrates illustrated just how bullshit so-called "Logic" is; a good debater can prove that the sky is plaid. Anybody who falls for this latest scam will probably also tell you that in some instances, it's okay to get out the waterboard. Do not trust such people. --They're too stupid to think clearly and therefore too dangerous to trust. How much would it take to convince them that YOU are a "Bad Guy" and that YOUR fingers should be the ones being snipped off? Not very much, I'd wager. Such people are only one week of manipulated news away from burning you and your family alive on your front lawn.
-FL
If you think like that the article on Darwinism is exactly 1 kidnapping, anywhere in the world, away from featuring a "Completely ridiculous and obviously untrue" heading ... Or anything else that any violent party wants censored, you get the point.
You can't have your cake and eat it in this case. Safety and integrity are mutually exclusive if any involved party is prepared to use violence. In this case wikipedia broke it's (already ... euhm "tarnished") integrity to protect someone's safety. What if the same terrorist gang demands censorship to the Darwin and evolution sections ? Believe me, the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that they haven't had the idea yet.
That's the last financial contribution Wikipaedia's getting out of me.
There is plenty of precedent of admins and TPTB intervening in Wikipedia edits, when the issue is regarding a living person. BLP trumps pretty much everything (see "Presumption in favour of privacy"). I've seen other cases where information has been removed from Wikipedia on the request of the person it's about. That doesn't mean that anything can be removed (e.g., things that are reported widely elsewhere).
Wikipedia is not a news site, it's meant to be an online open source encyclopedia.
Perhaps you should start a wiki based news source?
Damning wikipedia over this would be like damning mayfield dairies for also refusing to print this story on their milk cartons.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'll tell you: it's only different because it's a reporter has been kidnapped. When it's a doctor, politician, priest, baby, nun, lawyer, businessman, girl, or oil worker, they smear it all over the front pages and milk it for all it's worth.
If the police or other authorities make a good, non-political case that a life is in danger and the public interest is not served by the release of the news, the reputable newspapers will go along until there is some resolution -- no matter WHO has been kidnapped. It happens all the time; you just don't know about it. God knows how many coalition soldiers are being held by the Taliban, and the news is kept quiet while we try to get them back.
Yet another reason why bloggers aren't journalists: bloggers only care about their own opinion.
I piss off bigots.
No matter what course of action Wikipedia or The Times took, half of the people here would be bitching about it and the other half would be defending it.
/.
Hurray for
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
fucking slashtards and their tag fetishes ... "loook look look i knowz this tag meme"
Who knows where the money might go, or what else they'll start to censor
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
With thunderous applause.
RIP Wikipedia.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
He chose to go there. People deserve the whole picture.
And its not as the newyork times shows any respect to others, do they?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Quoting the article:
What they should have done is to disallow anonymous editing for that page, and then if the would-be editor actually has a username, and log in to make an edit, they can use his e-mail address to contact him privately.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
question: is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted? answer: no, they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipedia
question: so why wikipedia? answer: because its as transparent as can be
its only useful to point out wikipedia's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings. otherwise, you're complaints have no meaning
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just funny to see the history logs:
11 February 2009 97.106.52.36 (talk) (4,616 bytes) (We can do this months. I don't give a shit that this is on your watchlist.
13:56, 11 February 2009 PrisonBreakguy (talk | contribs) (4,616 bytes) (NOT gonna work boy genius. Should have stuck to indefinite.)
16:25, 20 June 2009 97.106.45.230 (talk) (4,779 bytes) (Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right. You were WRONG. :P)
Also funny that PrisonBreakGuy is now blocked!
Hahaha... ppl take their wikipedia edits so damn seriously!
Would Jimmy Wales censor Wikipedia in order for a Guantanamo captive to escape?
I didn't think so. And these guys are essentially kidnapped and held illegally, just like David Rohde was.
So Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but only a handful of Americans (or, rather, a single American) get to make moral choices, and it's clear which way these choices will go.
Everyone commenting here on Slashdot (myself included) are only interested in the principles of the matter, not the reporter himself.
He's already been abstracted out of this entire discussion, despite being the actual person involved in all the hubbub. So let's pat ourselves on the back for our words on private website censorship, journalistic hypocrisy, the slippery slopes of information control, etc etc. But I'd love to see all the self-congratulation here if the edits had stuck and Rohde was dead, all for the want of timeliness and freedom.
Not every individual case conforms nicely to your information must be free worldview. This case is clearly in the GREY area; all the black-or-white claptrap on here is just that.
If human life must always prevail over free speech, then the many who have died to protect it have done so in vain. I'm not usually utilitarian, but I concede that some must be lost for the protection of a principle which serves to shield mankind from tyranny and oppression. I wonder what the opinion is of the man in question; would he willingly give his life for the principle? If not, then I admit I am conflicted, for it is a separate thing entirely to demand another to die for principles not his own.
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
The information was not being suppressed as objectionable. It was being suppressed as potentially dangerous to the well-being of one poor human being. Is our right to know what's happening moment-to-moment more important than his right to have the best chance possible at staying alive?
Keeping a secret because you make the judgment that it will keep someone safe...that's not censorship, that's being a responsible member of the media. There was no outside force compelling these agencies to withhold information, they did it of their own volition. At worst this was self-censorship, at best it was lifesaving.
Mountains from molehills...there are plenty of things to be upset about that are actually important, if we're all through being idiots.
Porquoi?
I suppose I can understand if it's censorship if Wales, et al., were interfering with consensual, non-duressed communication of wikipedians posting about the kidnapping and the wiki audience. But how is it censorship if the details of the kidnapping remain in publicly-accessible revision history?
The only difference of a a VIP over a Non-VIP is the amount of money the UK would have to pay for his ransom. That's why they keep a low profile.