 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia may temporarily suppress news of minor public interest where publication could directly and severely harm individuals, so long as it not already widely published in reliable sources. |
In some rare instances, news sources refrain from publishing information that could have life-or-death consequences for individuals.[1] While Wikipedia is not a news source, it is often updated with the latest developments, and is expected to act responsibly. For that reason, Wikipedia should not publish information, even if it can be reliably sourced, where:
- publication is likely to have life-or-death consequences for one or more individuals;
- the information has not been widely published in reliable sources;
- the public-interest aspect is marginal; and
- the information is withheld for a limited time only.
Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report should be taken into consideration. Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would draw attention (see Streisand effect). Including "per WP:News suppression" in the edit summary is probably a bad idea when trying to keep something secret. In those cases it would be prudent to explain the reasoning later.
Examples[edit]
- When to apply this policy: When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan in 2008, most news organizations did not report it, in case the risk to his life was thereby increased. After The New York Times contacted Jimmy Wales, he and other Wikipedia administrators kept any mention of the kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article, David Rohde, even going so far as to protect the article and block users who restored the deleted information.
- When not to apply it: With incidents such as the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, it could be argued that publication could lead to attacks on Americans in Iraq. Such an example would not fall under this policy, because (a) publication is clearly in the public interest; (b) there would have been no time limit to the suppression; (c) the danger was not to specific individuals and the consequences were not direct; and (d) the information was being widely published by others.
Deletion or oversight[edit]
The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old article revisions or discussion about the topic is unlikely to be necessary.
Transparency[edit]
Should those empowered to suppress information on Wikipedia choose to do so, and should the information subsequently become publicly known, the private discussions which led to the suppression on Wikipedia should be publicly revealed, so that those responsible may be held accountable.
Notes[edit]
- ^ "News black-out". BBC.