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."

Comments

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously a pro-life bias.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Kell Bengal]

Wait... then, does that mean the Taliban are pro-choice? I'm so confused!

First thing I thought of...

[93 Escort Wagon]

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?!"

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Obfuscant]

Good example...except that it did not happen.

I died in the bombing of Coventry, you insensitive clod!

Re:To keep him alive.

[TapeCutter]

"Sure, it's 77 degrees (F) at 11:41 pm and the sun has set for the day here."

Degrees (F)? - Carefull your bias toward the US audience is showing. ;)