Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#21

Post by dkokelley »

greendestiny wrote: post #19
ubernostrum wrote: post #5

Earlier 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...

People write novels about being kidnapped and threatened, not about having your edits revised and whining.

Parent said 'dystopian novels', where information is censored or altered. Such is the case with 1984 at least.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#22

Post by dkokelley »

tlrobinson wrote: post #20

Seems like any reasonably intelligent kidnapper would take a peek at the edit history of the article and see all the edits and reverts, which would be even more suspicious.

I think it takes a pretty dedicated and thorough kidnapper to look at edit history to figure out who they've got. If it's someone significant, there is almost no way that all of the information on the internet will be cleaned before a kidnapper knows who they're holding.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#23

Post by barrkel »

anamax wrote: post #9
tokenadult wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a journalist is in-place, then exposing an ambush would both endanger them and ensure that all journalists in similar situations would not be trusted by those they are embedded with.

Exposing something from the comfort of your living room is different.

The choice between limited reporting in an environment of external censorship, and a choosing not to report at all in protest, is distinct and has different tradeoffs; but generally speaking, engagement has historically been the approach that gives better results in the long term.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#24

Post by martey »

jrmurad wrote: post #10

Isn'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)?

Are you talking about their publication of the NSA's wiretapping program? Or about European cooperation to track terrorist funds that was in violation of EU privacy law? Or maybe their publication of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s?

Just because a presidential administration or governmental agency says publication of information will "endanger national security," it does not necessarily mean it will cause Americans to die - it might just embarrass the organization.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#25

Post by gojomo »

hyperbovine wrote: post #18
lacker wrote: post #2

Recently 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.

On the contrary, this article barely seemed newsworthy, and certainly not befitting of coverage in (still) the most influential newspaper in the world. To me the whole thing seemed like a way of thanking Jimbo Wales and the editors of Wikipedia. Although given the hell that is now going to rain down upon them from the tinfoil-hat crowd, I kind of wonder if this was the best way to go about it :)

Not newsworthy?!?!

It's a great article, revealing heretofore unreported aspects of Wikipedia governance. (Wikipedia is the top hit for so many topics that its importance is up there with Google, the NY Times, and network TV news.) And, the events are in relation to a vivid, emotional, recent story with relevance to journalism, terrorism, and foreign policy in the middle east.

This could have gone much earlier in the paper than p. B4, and deserves some independent reporting by another outlet not directly involved.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#26

Post by imajes »

kragen wrote: post #14

So maybe this secrecy was justifiable. But maybe it wasn't. Here's a list of parties who would have benefited from the information: - Other reporters and nonprofit workers considering going to Afghanistan. How many of your colleagues have been kidnapped doing something you're considering doing is pretty useful information. Even if you still decide to do it, you might demand extra compensation for the risk. The editor…

Most journalists in Afghanistan/Iraq and well, the HQ of most major western news will have known that Rohde was kidnapped. As pointed out by the article, it's easier to call the editors of the major papers and ask them to hold any stories. In turn, they'll pass the message thru to the ranks of journos who are out in the field and might happen to write that story.

It's also interesting how this story was kept quiet for over seven months- however Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan didn't last four months before he had to be pulled.

So it's a different case on the ground than it is here in the safety of our homes and offices- and I am certain that people share lots on the ground - that's how they keep safe.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#27

Post by zby »

crux wrote: post #12

Wikipedia is officially large enough that all of the abstract futurist notions of the internet community about freedom of information are coming in contact with some really real-world roadblocks. It's one thing to imagine wikipedia (or whoever else) valiantly fighting against some repressive third-world government, and thus striking a blow for freedom, democracy and the like. But it's situations like these where the…

Exactly. By the way this example shows how people with good intentions on both sides of the conflict can fall into the frustrating state of edit wars. Add there the http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/ mechanis of corrupting those in power and it gets pretty messy (as the wikipedia review site can attest).

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#28

Post by greendestiny »

dkokelley wrote: post #21
greendestiny wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People write novels about being kidnapped and threatened, not about having your edits revised and whining.

Parent said 'dystopian novels', where information is censored or altered. Such is the case with 1984 at least.

Yes, I just found it slightly ridiculous. I think comparisons to 1984 are grossly overused, but especially when the point of books like 1984 is the exploration of complete oppression of society through government control - not that obtuse bureaucracy is kind of frustrating.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#29

Post by statictype »

tokenadult wrote: post #6
ubernostrum wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

It's certainly possible that the user may have had very good intentions by wanting to spread the word and increase publicity about a reporter being kidnapped by terrorists.

Keeping it quiet was, really, in the best interests of the Times, not the reporter.

The anonymous contributer could have just as easily thought he was being suppressed by one of the kidnapping party.

Re: Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

#30

Post by wheels »

martey wrote: post #24
jrmurad wrote: post #10

Isn'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)?

Are you talking about their publication of the NSA's wiretapping program? Or about European cooperation to track terrorist funds that was in violation of EU privacy law? Or maybe their publication of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s? Just because a presidential administration or governmental agency says publication of information will "endanger national security," it does not necessarily mean it will ca…

I suspect it's not about the government or the press -- it's about the specifics. If NYT had written the Wikipedia folks and said, "Don't add this information, it compromises our security." they'd have been laughed at. If they say, "There's this specific guy, and this specific information, and we think there's a good chance if you say this it'll do this bad thing to him." it's another story. I think the government would probably be able to make a similar appeal. "Bob might get killed." is a lot more actionable than "National security might be compromised."
Post reply on HN