You may discover when you get to court that Justice Douglas cannot save
you...
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
> Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many
> prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low
> disregard.
>
> On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many
prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low
disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely u
> On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
>> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
>
>
> As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
>
> That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
>
>
> - d.
>
No
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
[...]
> Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive
> images, is inappropriate
[...]
Images of unveiled women are regarded as "offensive" by many. Should
we prohibit linking to or hosting them?
--
David Levy
_
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone,
> but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste
> limited resources on,
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for
>> en:wp.
>>
>> The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
>> suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
>> Possibl
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
>
> The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
> suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
> Possibly when the
> I've seen editors -- editors which I respect -- argue for example that if
> the terrorists beheading Iraqi hostages released Commons-licensed videos
> of
> their beheadings, these would be suitable additions to Commons and the
> biographies of the people concerned, per NOTCENSORED.
>
> You might
12/10, FT2 wrote:
> From: FT2
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 19:06
> Don't see an issue for this list:
>
> 1. The topic is apparently rel
Don't see an issue for this list:
1. The topic is apparently reliably sourced in that numerous credible
sources have discussed it and no credible source appears to claim it is a
hoax.
2. Legitimate is different from reliable - we may well cite from sources
that should not have come
> You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I
> was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York
> Times
> has written about it.
>
> What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic
> in detail but omits, say, the name and
Wikileaks releases.
A.
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> From: Cool Hand Luke
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
> To: "fredbaud" , "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> Date: Sunday, 12 Decem
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran wrote:
> From: David Moran
> Taking the nonexistence of an article
> on a particular subject as positive
> evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is
> an unsupportable
> argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles
> published in the NYT a
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis
is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have
analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy
concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 a
gment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the
> editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies
> to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate
> articles on sexuality and pornography.
>
> Andreas
>
> --- On Sun, 12/12/10,
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20
> We might suppress a leak made
> directly into Wi
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remai
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
disclosed primary docum
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notabl
20 matches
Mail list logo
