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

Double Standard

[Knave75]

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.

Re:Double Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

News will blackout information for all sorts of reasons. You never hear the names of rape victims or child criminals/victims either.

But it's "never hear the names of rape victims", not "do hear the names of rape victims, unless they're related to someone who works at a newspaper - then we hold their name secret". I don't think people would be having as much of a problem with this if it was the principle of "never report the name of a kidnapping victim". The "double standard" referred to in the subject line is the impression that a newspaper will happily report on a soldier, doctor, or politician which gets kidnapped, but screams bloody murder if someone else reports that a journalist is in the same situation.

I also don't think people have a problem with any individual news site deciding that some shlub reporter from the Times getting kidnapped shouldn't be reported on, it's when they start to force third parties like Wikipedia to kowtow to their wishes that people start to get upset.

Hypocrites

[Jailbrekr]

They'd gladly blab about a kidnapping if it wasn't one of their own. It does, after all, sell newspapers.

Re:Hypocrites

[Hawthorne01]

Okay, you got it

The New York Times gladly hid behind the 1st Amendment and blabbed about a 100% legal, effective and yet secret means to track terrorist money around the globe, yet clammed up when it was their hide on the line.

Hypocrites.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[jipn4]

Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped. You know what his captors want? Publicity for their campaign

And how is that different from any other person that gets kidnapped and that the newspapers report on?

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.

I find this double standard pretty disgusting.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Spike15]

I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.

How is keeping a journalist alive "political ends"?

To keep him alive.

[hey!]

If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.

Re:To keep him alive.

[l2718]

If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.

That may very well be the case -- but your rationale is not specific to kidnapped journalists. The real question here, which should be addressed to both Wikipedia and the New York Times is: why censor news regarding this particular kidnapping, when your general policy is the exact opposite, of detailed reporting on every kidnapping case you hear about?

I find the news of Mr. Wales officially participating in the cover-up quite disturbing. Wikimedia foundation simply does not have the resources to police Wikipedia in this way for all alleged victims of crime. Thus, why were Wikipedia resources spent on this particular case?

Re:To keep him alive.

[KillerBob]

The real question here, which should be addressed to both Wikipedia and the New York Times is: why censor news regarding this particular kidnapping, when your general policy is the exact opposite, of detailed reporting on every kidnapping case you hear about?

Well, while I'm not sure it's applicable to this incident, I do remember a few years back when news and details about a Canadian aid worker who was kidnapped was kept quiet. In that particular case, it was because he had a husband back home waiting for him... They decided that it was better to suppress the information than risk the taliban beheading him for no reason other than he was gay.

It could also have been because they didn't want him to become a celebrity. They may have felt that he was kidnapped in the hopes of making headlines, and getting publicity for their cause. Deny them that publicity, and eventually they might give up and let him go.

*shrugs* we don't know at the moment, and we may never know, but there's two very good reasons to suppress the information.

Re:To keep him alive.

[sbeckstead]

I would ask why we care that Wikipedia didn't print the current location and status of a reporter when it is neither germain to the rest of the information about him nor of particular immediate interest.
In the past tense it would be interesting to hear that it had happened but I see no real reason to be incensed that you didn't hear about it while it was happening.
I assume that the Times requested this and from time to time it is the humanitarian thing to do. 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.

Re:To keep him alive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the answer is "because they didn't want to give the Taliban what it was trying to get." God you idiots can be so pedantic. There is nothing to see here; move along.

Re:To keep him alive.

[mysidia]

If none of the media were reporting the story, then how could such information in an article ever pass [[WP:V]] ?

Wikipedia is not rumorpedia or spread-stuff-from-the-blogosphere-pedia

It's an encyclopedia, and well-documented reliable secondary sources are required for information to be posted.

Original research is unacceptable on WP, as a matter of course.

And so is anything that doesn't have a source with a good reputation for fact checking to back it up.

When it comes to articles about living people, the policies are very strict; uncited information that might have some negative aspect (e.g. about alleged kidnappers or kidnapping), must be removed unless cited.

Re:To keep him alive.

[mysidia]

Honestly, the right response is to that assertion is to find a second reliable source, if the report is that controversial, and valuable, there should be multiple solid sources to back it up, under normal circumstances.

The posting of one news agency could be in error.

Re:To keep him alive.

[Myrcutio]

Wiki isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia. 100 years from now, wiki will have an article about the event, but right now it's just an article 7 months delayed, and possibly a mans life saved. I'd say thats worthwhile and keeping in the spirit of wiki.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously a pro-life bias.

Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employees

[Alaska Jack]

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

• Constitutional
• legal
• briefed to the appropriate members of congress, and
• working!

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

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[aztracker1]

I personally don't mind a little restraint from news outlets. However, as in this case, the driving force seems to be self-motivated instead of a consistent policy. This same organization has a history of doing just the opposite when it isn't a reporter. And will likely continue to do so. It's this level of hypocrisy I have contempt for. I don't respect people or organizations that don't follow their own supposed moral code, period.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[Chuck Chunder]

Amnesty saves captives' lives by the very principle of spreading information of their capture, and has been doing so for a very long time.

Why don't you think of some examples then spend half a second thinking about how those examples might be different from this situation? Amnesty typically shines a light on governments. Governments, by their very nature, are subject to political pressure as they often depend to some degree on the goodwill of other nations. Freelancing militants? Not so much.

Re:the blackout was a good idea

[corsec67]

They are a private organization so any removal of information is "editing" not "censorship".

NO!

CENSORSHIP can be done by ANYBODY.

It is just usually more legal if done by a private organization.