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 of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." [emphasis added]
"The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
Thanks for pointing directly to Wikipedia's stated editorial policies. That makes clear how Wikipedia had already announced it would resolve such trade-offs.
Wikipedia is not a single entity that can simply announce how "it" will resolve such a thing. The idea that a perfect consensus can be reached on any given issue among the myriad of interested parties (including among the administrators and other higher-ups themselves) is simply naive.
In particular the BLP policy has likely been the center of the most controversy and debate of any policy (using this in the official meta-Wikipedia term for policy). Most of this debate surrounds over how far the interests of the subject should be respected over the truth, particularly when the truth is reported in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. As Jimbo Wales himself states in that article, HAD this incident been reported in such a source, it would have been much more difficult to deal with.
Frankly, when BLP was drafted and discussed, no one foresaw an event like this occurring. This was the first time a subject was actually in real-time danger and any edit could literally damage his well-being. The events that BLP had in mind were things like libel (google for daniel brandt), unsubstantiated celebrity gossip, invasion of privacy (Allison Stokke, the star wars kid), misinformation (sinbad's death).
What's interesting is that Wikipedia has a culture of decision/discussion transparency that is at odds with protecting privacy in this situation. This could not have been discussed on the typical Wikipedia boards without totally giving up privacy. It's amazing they were able to keep this under wraps as they did.
When 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.
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...
"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:
> 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?
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.
> 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.
Curiously, they gave neither reason.
> Exposing something from the comfort of your living room is different.
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....
"What's the user's interest in posting the information?"
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.
Well. The user's reaction when the news finally went mainstream - "Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right" - suggests to me he was just someone who got frustrated that his (correct) edits were being removed.
If his intention was to help the man's captors spread the word, that edit wouldn't serve any purpose since he had already escaped. Though I suppose you could argue he wanted to stay "in character" for his own protection...
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.
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.
I agree that the fact that the user kept himself or herself anonymous is highly relevant to this story.
I understand that wikipedia wants to lower the barrier to entry by allowing anonymous edits, and I have sometimes made anonymous edits out of convenience, but personally if it was me and I had had two edits reversed I would have just logged on, left an eponymous message on the talk page saying "I am confused, I keep wanting to add this information, which does not violate the guidelines, and I keep getting locked out. Help?".
Then at least the people trying to protect the victim would have had a chance to put their case forward.
There is also evidence that kidnappers DO look online for information, I seem to remember a story about a journalist pointing to his Wikipedia entry to convince his kidnappers that he was Canadian, not American? British? (can't remember what the offending nationality was) and that proved to be a factor in his release.
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.
gov controlled dystopians and obtuse bureaucracies are often intertwined. for example, mindless obedience to tube in, tube out is a problem protagonists encounter time and again (Brazil, 1984, Anthem).
If the New York Times had a policy of never publicizing kidnappings, I could respect their policy.
However, it appears that they are entirely hypocritial on this topic: I've read TONS of articles in the NYT about people being kidnapped.
I guess that the alleged danger to the captive is only a motivating force when the captive is one of their own. When it's a mere aid worker, or military contractor, or something, then the calculus changes.
Different circumstances are sometimes, well, different. Sometimes a captive's life is more in danger if the captors consider him or her valuable (like a NYT reporter). Sometimes publicizing the situation helps bring attention in a positive and helpful way (shaming the captors, forcing the government to do something, etc).
And sometimes - often, in fact - you just don't know, and you make the best judgment call you can.
I'm not claiming that the Times always acts correctly in these situations, and it's certainly worthwhile to question what the motivating factors are in whether, when and how to hold a story.
But it's also not really correct to say that all kidnapping situations are exactly the same and must be [not] publicized. They're simply not.
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 really interesting stuff happens.
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).
Am I the only one who finds it a bit disturbing that editors can just call a few buddies and a piece of information doesn't get published? All the conspiracy theories seem a bit more likely now...
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 editors of the New York Times may have saved themselves substantial hazard pay by keeping this secret.
- The kidnappers, obviously, who apparently represent the former government of Afghanistan. This might seem unremarkable (who would side with the kidnappers, after all?) except that it is very unusual for Wikipedia to take sides in a contentious international issue like this, even in cases where there are clear issues of right and wrong (Scientology, Guantánamo, the US's support for terrorist guerrillas in Nicaragua in the 1970s, etc.) There's a strong tradition of letting the reader decide.
- Old friends of David Rohde wondering why they hadn't heard from him in months.
- Anyone who, in the future, seeks information that fairly presents all sides of an issue without the fear that some sides have been entirely suppressed. (This is the first such case, to my knowledge.) I imagine this case will be brought up every time some kid from a radical madrasa tries to convince his buddies that actually the US did take action to save Muslims from persecution in Bosnia, using Wikipedia and the sources it cites to make his case.
I agree that there is a plausible case to make that secrecy was the lesser of the evils, but I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. If nothing else, it's possible that this secrecy has already resulted in the deaths of other journalists.
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.
> Around that time, Catherine J. Mathis, the chief spokeswoman for the New York Times Company, called Mr. Wales and asked for his help. Knowing that his own actions on Wikipedia draw attention, Mr. Wales turned to an administrator
Sounds like Jimbo broke both the "sock puppet rule" AND the "three revert rule".
No, perhaps unfortunately, suggesting edits to someone else is not a violation of the sock-puppet rule. I don't know what causes you to believe Jimmy made three reverts on the same page within 24 hours; there certainly isn't any evidence for that in the article itself, and actually there's a considerable amount of suggestion that not only didn't he do any reverts to the article himself, he didn't do any edits to the article.
When you are accusing someone of hypocrisy and serious misconduct, it is a good idea to have both a clear idea of the definitions of the kinds of misconduct you are accusing them of, and some iota of evidence that the person in question committed them. It is not generally considered good practice to throw around serious accusations in the complete absence of any incriminating evidence. And that is what you are doing.
I wonder if they considered showing this person (or at least people on that ISP or region) custom content?
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.
I think a better solution would be to allow elevating a page to non-anonymous users only. That way when situations like this arise, they can make a page "user only" and create a line of communication with the person on the other end.
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.
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."
Perhaps. I'm not a fan of any recent administration or the Times but that argument strikes me even more ironic considering that the Times' ethics (as presented on and off the editorial page) has always been in favor of violating the rights/security of individuals in favor of "groups."
I have to believe that if someone was posting this to Wikipedia, the information was already publicly available. If you want something to be a secret, don't tell people about it. (See also, the Streissand Effect.)
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.
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 :)
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.
"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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons