Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
nytimes.com
Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#2Recently it seems like the NYTimes jumps on every opportunity to write articles about the downsides of its new-media competitors. First LinkedIn crowdsourcing, now problems with Wikipedia decentralization. Just getting a bit old.
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#3Recently it seems like the NYTimes jumps on every opportunity to write articles about the downsides of its new-media competitors. First LinkedIn crowdsourcing, now problems with Wikipedia decentralization. Just getting a bit old.
I didn't catch a negative tone. It seemed appreciative of the fact that "Mr. Wales, himself, unfroze the page" when the situation ended.
Personal situations like these where freedom of speech doesn't serve public interest are hard to come by.
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#4When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.”
Wow, so do we have a name for this phenomenon yet? I think I'll write up an RFC for "Monroe's Law"[1] tomorrow.
[1]: http://xkcd.com/386/
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#5When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.” Wow, so do we have a name for this phenomenon yet? I think I'll write up an RFC for "Monroe's Law"[1] tomorrow. [1]: http://xkcd.com/386/
You don't understand that user's frustration? You edit the article, source the information, and all you get is baffling bureaucracy. Then it turns out that the people who'd been quibbling with you all that time knew you were right and were maintaining a front to keep the information hidden.
It's the sort of thing dystopian novels are made of...
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#6When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.” Wow, so do we have a name for this phenomenon yet? I think I'll write up an RFC for "Monroe's Law"[1] tomorrow. [1]: http://xkcd.com/386/
You don't understand that user's frustration? You edit the article, source the information, and all you get is baffling bureaucracy. Then it turns out that the people who'd been quibbling with you all that time knew you were right and were maintaining a front to keep the information hidden. It's the sort of thing dystopian novels are made of...
What's the user's interest in posting the information? How does that compare with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#7When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.” Wow, so do we have a name for this phenomenon yet? I think I'll write up an RFC for "Monroe's Law"[1] tomorrow. [1]: http://xkcd.com/386/
You don't understand that user's frustration? You edit the article, source the information, and all you get is baffling bureaucracy. Then it turns out that the people who'd been quibbling with you all that time knew you were right and were maintaining a front to keep the information hidden. It's the sort of thing dystopian novels are made of...
Yeah, but if the user wasn't anonymous, he could have been contacted by the wikipedia admins and suggested that perhaps the information wasn't worthy of the public domain yet. Any reasonable person would understand the risk to the man's life and held back from posting it.
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#8Recently it seems like the NYTimes jumps on every opportunity to write articles about the downsides of its new-media competitors. First LinkedIn crowdsourcing, now problems with Wikipedia decentralization. Just getting a bit old.
I've noticed a few of those articles myself.
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand that user's frustration? You edit the article, source the information, and all you get is baffling bureaucracy. Then it turns out that the people who'd been quibbling with you all that time knew you were right and were maintaining a front to keep the information hidden. It's the sort of thing dystopian novels are made of...
What's the user's interest in posting the information? How does that compare with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?
> How does that compare with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?
Does it matter that the person is a reporter?
> What's the user's interest in posting the information?
US journalists are on record saying that they wouldn't help US troops avoid an ambush. CNN admitted censor its Hussein-era coverage to maintain a presence. I can go on and on about how journalists pick stories in ways that don't paint them in a very good light.
I've nothing against questioning the interest that someone has in saying something true, as long as we're going to question everyone in that situation. Deal?
Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia
#10Isn't this ironic? Hasn't the Times printed stories despite being told that doing so endangers "national security" (i.e. could result in the deaths of citizens)?