[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?

[ubernostrum]

"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:

http://www.metafilter.com/82866/Is-this-proof-enough#2627732

"If I were kidnapped by the Taliban tomorrow all the pleading in the world from my family wouldn't get the newspapers to help hide it."

[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...).

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

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

[froo]

"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.

[gort]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde&...

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...

[statictype]

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.

[imajes]

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.

[frossie]

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.

[greendestiny]

People write novels about being kidnapped and threatened, not about having your edits revised and whining.

[dkokelley]

Parent said 'dystopian novels', where information is censored or altered. Such is the case with 1984 at least.

[greendestiny]

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.

[diN0bot]

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).

[dkokelley]

The concern is that this could be a step towards complete oppression of society.