Comments on: Is it right to censor Wikipedia to save a life?

By: Snurfen

Snurfen — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:56:14 +0000

For goodness sake, principles of free press over someone’s life? Get a grip.
Anything that does not put another person in jeopardy is worth doing to save a life.
Imagine Rhode was a close family member – most of us would jump through hoops of fire to secure his safe release.

By: JH

JH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:11:22 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with this ‘censorship,’ much of the stuff on the Internet shouldn’t be up there. During the World Wars, news magnates were gentlemanly enough to make an agreement with the government not to publish sensitive information, but nowadays that just won’t work. Anyway, it merely highlights the unreliability of Wikipedia – it would have been funny if someone had copied the incorrect article for their homework!

By: Censura na Wikipedia

Censura na Wikipedia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:00:16 +0000

[...] Via Etiquetas: web 2.0 censura wikipedia 7f Enviar a um amigo | Comentar Nome * E-mail * [...]

By: bioreit

bioreit — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:29:16 +0000

@ FarmerTom

You’re correct in saying Todd’s an idiot. However, the media is not as noble as you say it is – your ‘they might commit suicide, but really, that’s their problem’ point is a good one, but unfortunately, the media is demonstrably hypocritical on this subject. When David Kelly committed suicide, many of our newspapers were calling for Tony Blair and many others to be arrested for murder/manslaughter. The media does not and has not only released stories that lead to harming others because they were ‘in the national interest’ – they have done so for profit and increased readership figures.

The papers also immediately quashed the Metropolitan Police’s perfectly valid reasoning that the wider media was inherently racist – beyond a single interview on Channel 4 News, I saw nothing else on it, even though the Met had reams and reams of evidence showing that the media ignored pleas for help in locating missing children if they were non-white.

But Wikipedia is right to join the clique of the media in delaying stpories such as these and editing information – bits and bytes, dollars and pennies; none are equal to a person’s life.

By: FarmerTom

FarmerTom — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:42:23 +0000

Todd– you are a fool, and worse, you can’t spell.
There is a difference between exposing misconduct by the government and reporting on a story in such a way that increases the chance that the subject of the story will be killed or harmed. And the latter sort of incident is quite rare.
There is a notion that new, journalism, reporters should all be free of bias. Yet editors, reporters and publishers know that this is an impossible goal, and simply do the best they can. They know they are partisan– in war time, it is us, including the media, versus them. And so some reporting is delayed, sometimes the media becomes an arm of government spreading disinformation– not to delude the public, but those on the enemy team reading the new here.
That same action, which we applaud when it is done to save the lives of our soldiers, like the action described above to save what amounts to a prisoner of war, is not permitted outside those narrow exceptions. In fact, many times, editors and reporters are asked to quash a story on the grounds that it will hurt someone’s reputation, drive someone to suicide or disgrace, and so on. And good editors and reporters suck it up and say they hope the asker does nothing rash, but the story is news and has to run. And sometimes reputations are ruined and sometimes people commit suicide. Oh well. News, mostly, is news. But no mistake, deluding or misleading an enemy of the nation in the interest of saving fellow citizens, whether private or government, is both the responsible and noble path to take.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:35:03 +0000

I too agree with what the NYT and Wikipedia did here. Too often freedom to do something, e.g. freedom of information is misunderstood as an absolute right, no matter the cost. But every freedom a person enjoys needs to be counterbalanced against another persons freedom. So in these cases you weigh the freedom of information and the rights of people to know what’s going on against the possible harm of human life. And as always there are shades of grey. In this particular case, merely delaying information that would have been of no use to anyone, was in no way more important than a person’s life. There are other cases where someone may just be inconvenienced by the release of information, in those cases the right to inform may weigh stronger. Anyway, in this case, this was the right decision and congratulations to David Rhodes for getting out of there alive.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:23:46 +0000

What good would have come of releasing that info? Whether the life was one of their own or not is besides the point. The NY Times may indeed be hypocrites, but it doesn’t change the fact that the omission saved a life. While I’m at it, since when did wikipedia become a reliable place to go for news? I find its value in areas besides current events.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:37:46 +0000

I forgot to add it’s OK for the NYT to publish details of cell phone surveillance techniques and interrogation techniques which would potentially save thousands of lives. When the NYT was so free and easy about publishing the story about how we were able to monitor cell phone chatter, the terrorists changed their method of communication. What would have happened in the Battle of Midway if the NYT published a story that Navy had broken the Japanese code? This critical battle would have been lost.

They’re hypocrits only interested in their own self interest.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:23:41 +0000

It shows you how the NYT can DISTORT the actual news. Proof in the pudding. Makes you wonder how many other stories have been distorted or supressed…. Hmmmm…
Yes they are a bunch of left winged hypocrits.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:19:57 +0000

Let me see if I get this right. It is ok to manipulate public information, lie, censor and obstruct free flow of information to perhaps protect an individual but it is not ok to administer harsh interrogation measures to the Guantanamo prisoners to save thousands of lives. Double standards…