31–40 of 51 posts
Forking the entry so that they could carry on editing in ignorance would, I imagine, be a rather large challenge, but just hard wiring a divertion to some sort of explanation might have been feasible.
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 does raise an interesting point, especially given the timeframe in which the user kept trying to post that information, given it was occurring over a period of several months.
I'm purely speculating here, but I would suspect that said "anonymous" user in Florida might be getting a knock on his door from the DHS soon.
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?
A better question is: who decides whether a given person is important enough to qualify for suppression of information? This comment over at Metafilter makes a good point:
http://www.metafilter.com/82866/Is-this-proof-enough#2627732
"If I were kidnapped by the Taliban tomorrow all the pleading in the world from my family wouldn't get the newspapers to help hide it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
2) Great, now we know how to manipulate Wikipedia into censoring articles.
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." [emphasis added]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 tradeof…
Curiously, they gave neither reason.
> Exposing something from the comfort of your living room is different.
The NYT had no problem reporting on the kidnapping of an American in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/world/asia/27afghan.html) or on the abduction of an American U.N. official in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/asia/03pstan.html)
Same circumstance, but different media reaction. Observed differences - these weren't reporters and US newsroom vs US living room.
> but generally speaking, engagement has historically been the approach that gives better results in the long term.
Some evidence would be nice. It would be especially good if said evidence tried to look at the priority of "we're in it for us."
I'm not saying that journalists have to be altruistic or are wrong if they're not. I'm asking how they live up to their claims. If it's fair to criticize others for those failings....
It's a shame that the Times framed this as a Times editor's personal intercession to help a journalist, rather than as an application of Wikipedia's "Biographies of living persons" policy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one o…
Thanks for pointing directly to Wikipedia's stated editorial policies. That makes clear how Wikipedia had already announced it would resolve such trade-offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wo…