

Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales colludes with NY Times to suppress news? - wmf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein

======
tokenadult
As previously discussed in other HN threads on this same issue:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons>

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for
the subject's privacy. 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."

~~~
wmf
In this case I think Wales probably did the right thing, however there are two
lessons in this article:

The claim that the Internet -- and Wikipedia in particular -- inevitably
routes around censorship is wrong.

Wikipedia won't publish damaging information about you _if Wales is on your
side_ , but otherwise beware.

~~~
tokenadult
Since this last came up on HN, I looked up the biography of Jimmy Wales on
Wikipedia.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales>

The day I saw it (and again today), it was locked, but it definitely included
unflattering information. If Jimmy Wales is on the side of Jimmy Wales, he
evidently acknowledges the principle of posting objective information in
Wikipedia.

------
jacquesm
Sorry for the guardian, but no news was suppressed, a persons life was
protected.

Your really have to weigh these things carefully.

That not everybody has 'friends in high places' ensuring such a treatment is
maybe a reason to review the policy of WP, but the word 'censorship' is not
even applicable. News is important, human lives are more important.

~~~
anamax
> News is important, human lives are more important.

SOME human lives are more important. Others must be sacrificed to "if it
bleeds, it leads".

There were other requests to keep quiet about kidnapping in the same
circumstance for exactly the same reason while this was going on. They didn't
get the same consideration.

Then again, they weren't reporters.

------
AndrewWarner
I asked Jimmy about it. Here's his response: <http://mixergy.com/wales-
wikipedia-rohde/>

------
onreact-com
The real issue here is not Wikipedia. It's the fact that for 6 months a single
call was enough to shut up the whole global press. Just imagine how often the
others call: governments, corporations, Scientology...

~~~
tptacek
When your single call is "if you run this story, one of our reporters will
die", the reporter on the other end of the phone is going to take that call
very seriously.

That doesn't mean a single call that said "don't run that story about the real
reason Sarah Palin resigned" is going to work the same way.

~~~
bliving
How about "don't run that story about Monica Lewinsky"? That call was taken
seriously by Newsweek.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal>

~~~
tptacek
And by apparently nobody else; read the cited Drudge piece.

