

Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia - firebug
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?src=twr

======
sethg
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]

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

~~~
tokenadult
"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.

~~~
basugasubaku
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.

------
mikedouglas
_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.

[1]: <http://xkcd.com/386/>

~~~
ubernostrum
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...

~~~
tokenadult
What's the user's interest in posting the information? How does that compare
with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?

~~~
anamax
> 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?

~~~
barrkel
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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.

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....

~~~
anamax
And 4 Red Cross workers kidnapped in Afghanistan
([http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E6DA1F3EF...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E6DA1F3EF93BA1575AC0A9619C8B63)).

> I'm asking how they live up to their claims.

That should have been "how well", "whether" or "if".

------
tjic
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.

Color me disgusted.

~~~
kgrin
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.

------
crux
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.

~~~
zby
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).

------
yread
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...

~~~
JabavuAdams
That's the way the world works.

------
kragen
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.

~~~
imajes
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.

------
10ren
I'm really glad to hear the guys escaped, even though it was obvious from the
premise. However, the final line sounds terribly Orwellian to me:

> “But the idea of a pure openness, a pure democracy, is a naïve one.”

------
tjic
> 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".

~~~
kragen
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.

------
samlittlewood
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.

~~~
invisible
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.

------
jrmurad
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)?

~~~
martey
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.

~~~
wheels
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."

~~~
jrmurad
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."

------
jrockway
"Information wants to be free."

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.)

------
cousin_it
1) If the kidnappers "obviously" would have benefited from the publicity, why
didn't they create publicity deliberately?

2) Great, now we know how to manipulate Wikipedia into censoring articles.

------
tlrobinson
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.

~~~
dkokelley
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.

------
lacker
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.

~~~
hyperbovine
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 :)

~~~
gojomo
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.

