<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_29_2120257</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Censored To Protect Captive Reporter</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246273020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort, largely successful, to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html"> keep news of a Times reporter's kidnapping off of Wikipedia</a>. The Christian Science Monitor, the reporter David Rohde's previous employer, takes a harder look at the <a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/29/was-wikipedia-correct-to-censor-news-of-david-rohdes-capture/">issues of censorship and news blackout</a>, linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia's actions. Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound, along with his translator, on Saturday. <i>"For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban. But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia. ... A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia's page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing &mdash; a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort , largely successful , to keep news of a Times reporter 's kidnapping off of Wikipedia .
The Christian Science Monitor , the reporter David Rohde 's previous employer , takes a harder look at the issues of censorship and news blackout , linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia 's actions .
Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound , along with his translator , on Saturday .
" For seven months , The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters , David Rohde , had been kidnapped by the Taliban .
But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia .
... A dozen times , user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia 's page on Mr. Rohde , only to have it erased .
Several times the page was frozen , preventing further editing    a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort , led by Jimmy Wales , co-founder of Wikipedia , along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort, largely successful, to  keep news of a Times reporter's kidnapping off of Wikipedia.
The Christian Science Monitor, the reporter David Rohde's previous employer, takes a harder look at the issues of censorship and news blackout, linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia's actions.
Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound, along with his translator, on Saturday.
"For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban.
But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia.
... A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia's page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased.
Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521881</id>
	<title>.GOV Didn't Do It</title>
	<author>DustoneGT</author>
	<datestamp>1246279620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NBD...people can censor their site however they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NBD...people can censor their site however they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NBD...people can censor their site however they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28529045</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246379460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.</p></div><p>But Wikipedia in its current form will always contain breaking news even if it requires a {{FACT}} tag.</p><p>Wikipedia may claim that wikipedians aren't journalists and that there's no place for firsthand news reports<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but it's not actually true is it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.But Wikipedia in its current form will always contain breaking news even if it requires a { { FACT } } tag.Wikipedia may claim that wikipedians are n't journalists and that there 's no place for firsthand news reports .. but it 's not actually true is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.But Wikipedia in its current form will always contain breaking news even if it requires a {{FACT}} tag.Wikipedia may claim that wikipedians aren't journalists and that there's no place for firsthand news reports .. but it's not actually true is it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333</id>
	<title>why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what was the purpose of censoring the information? was it in order to not give the Taliban any news time or was it an attempt to hide the hideous things the Taliban does in an effort to not bolster cries to rid us of them once and for all?</p><p>It seems to me that this is more political then anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what was the purpose of censoring the information ?
was it in order to not give the Taliban any news time or was it an attempt to hide the hideous things the Taliban does in an effort to not bolster cries to rid us of them once and for all ? It seems to me that this is more political then anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what was the purpose of censoring the information?
was it in order to not give the Taliban any news time or was it an attempt to hide the hideous things the Taliban does in an effort to not bolster cries to rid us of them once and for all?It seems to me that this is more political then anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521413</id>
	<title>An interesting Lesson</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1246277340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems like the same train of thought as "responsible disclosure" for security issues in software. Yes, it was censored information, but they came forward with it eventually and humankind (or a human in this case) was better off.<br> <br>

Hmm, now we walk a fine line. Who do we trust to censor something in order to preserve human life and yet won't misuse their power to instill their own will?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like the same train of thought as " responsible disclosure " for security issues in software .
Yes , it was censored information , but they came forward with it eventually and humankind ( or a human in this case ) was better off .
Hmm , now we walk a fine line .
Who do we trust to censor something in order to preserve human life and yet wo n't misuse their power to instill their own will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like the same train of thought as "responsible disclosure" for security issues in software.
Yes, it was censored information, but they came forward with it eventually and humankind (or a human in this case) was better off.
Hmm, now we walk a fine line.
Who do we trust to censor something in order to preserve human life and yet won't misuse their power to instill their own will?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28527577</id>
	<title>What they *should* have done</title>
	<author>salimma</author>
	<datestamp>1246373400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting the article:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i><br>&#226;oeWe had no idea who it was,&#226; said Mr. Wales, who said there was no indication the person had ill intent. &#226;oeThere was no way to reach out quietly and say &#226;Dude, stop and think about this.&#226;(TM) &#226;</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>What they should have done is to disallow anonymous editing for that page, and then if the would-be editor actually has a username, and log in to make an edit, they can use his e-mail address to contact him privately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting the article :   oeWe had no idea who it was ,   said Mr. Wales , who said there was no indication the person had ill intent .
  oeThere was no way to reach out quietly and say   Dude , stop and think about this.   ( TM )   What they should have done is to disallow anonymous editing for that page , and then if the would-be editor actually has a username , and log in to make an edit , they can use his e-mail address to contact him privately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting the article: âoeWe had no idea who it was,â said Mr. Wales, who said there was no indication the person had ill intent.
âoeThere was no way to reach out quietly and say âDude, stop and think about this.â(TM) â What they should have done is to disallow anonymous editing for that page, and then if the would-be editor actually has a username, and log in to make an edit, they can use his e-mail address to contact him privately.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28527991</id>
	<title>you have a useless observation</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>question: is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted? answer: no, they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipedia</p><p>question: so why wikipedia? answer: because its as transparent as can be</p><p>its only useful to point out wikipedia's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings. otherwise, you're complaints have no meaning</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>question : is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted ?
answer : no , they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipediaquestion : so why wikipedia ?
answer : because its as transparent as can beits only useful to point out wikipedia 's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings .
otherwise , you 're complaints have no meaning</tokentext>
<sentencetext>question: is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted?
answer: no, they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipediaquestion: so why wikipedia?
answer: because its as transparent as can beits only useful to point out wikipedia's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings.
otherwise, you're complaints have no meaning</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28525283</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246394640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is self-serving bullshit.  I've spent enough time around communist bureaucrats (yes, those) to know a bullshit self-serving argument when I hear one.  Oh, to be sure, it is technically correct enough.  I have seen peasants sent packing with far less.  But it does not change the fact that Wikipedia did something really wrong.  <p>You see, it's all about the objective.  The commies want to keep their friends out of trouble.  So does Wikipedia and the NYT and all the other scoundrels.  I'm sure from another vantage point, these are two totally different ideas, but from my "enlightened" perspective, it's the same bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is self-serving bullshit .
I 've spent enough time around communist bureaucrats ( yes , those ) to know a bullshit self-serving argument when I hear one .
Oh , to be sure , it is technically correct enough .
I have seen peasants sent packing with far less .
But it does not change the fact that Wikipedia did something really wrong .
You see , it 's all about the objective .
The commies want to keep their friends out of trouble .
So does Wikipedia and the NYT and all the other scoundrels .
I 'm sure from another vantage point , these are two totally different ideas , but from my " enlightened " perspective , it 's the same bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is self-serving bullshit.
I've spent enough time around communist bureaucrats (yes, those) to know a bullshit self-serving argument when I hear one.
Oh, to be sure, it is technically correct enough.
I have seen peasants sent packing with far less.
But it does not change the fact that Wikipedia did something really wrong.
You see, it's all about the objective.
The commies want to keep their friends out of trouble.
So does Wikipedia and the NYT and all the other scoundrels.
I'm sure from another vantage point, these are two totally different ideas, but from my "enlightened" perspective, it's the same bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521305</id>
	<title>WOW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COCKS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COCKS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COCKS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522249</id>
	<title>Re:why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just lately, purging interesting and relevant information as "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" has been a wikipedia disease for <b>years.</b> It's not at all consistently applied either, you'll find editors that VfD everything and yet furiously defend their 10,000 word exhaustive analysis of some obscure anime that 6 people in the world care about.</p><p>WP is not fair, democratic or open and it never has been. Cabals of mentally ill obsessives with nothing better to do wield most of the power, and decisions on controversial issues are routinely made behind closed doors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just lately , purging interesting and relevant information as " non-notable " or " non-encyclopedic " has been a wikipedia disease for years .
It 's not at all consistently applied either , you 'll find editors that VfD everything and yet furiously defend their 10,000 word exhaustive analysis of some obscure anime that 6 people in the world care about.WP is not fair , democratic or open and it never has been .
Cabals of mentally ill obsessives with nothing better to do wield most of the power , and decisions on controversial issues are routinely made behind closed doors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just lately, purging interesting and relevant information as "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" has been a wikipedia disease for years.
It's not at all consistently applied either, you'll find editors that VfD everything and yet furiously defend their 10,000 word exhaustive analysis of some obscure anime that 6 people in the world care about.WP is not fair, democratic or open and it never has been.
Cabals of mentally ill obsessives with nothing better to do wield most of the power, and decisions on controversial issues are routinely made behind closed doors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521945</id>
	<title>First thing I thought of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have this weird picture stuck in my head - a bearded mullah, sitting at his computer somewhere in Pakistan, complaining "WHY aren't these Wikipedia edits STICKING?!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have this weird picture stuck in my head - a bearded mullah , sitting at his computer somewhere in Pakistan , complaining " WHY are n't these Wikipedia edits STICKING ? !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have this weird picture stuck in my head - a bearded mullah, sitting at his computer somewhere in Pakistan, complaining "WHY aren't these Wikipedia edits STICKING?!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28529973</id>
	<title>The bottom line is principles vs. practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone commenting here on Slashdot (myself included) are only interested in the principles of the matter, not the reporter himself.</p><p>He's already been abstracted out of this entire discussion, despite being the actual person involved in all the hubbub. So let's pat ourselves on the back for our words on private website censorship, journalistic hypocrisy, the slippery slopes of information control, etc etc. But I'd love to see all the self-congratulation here if the edits had stuck and Rohde was dead, all for the want of timeliness and freedom.</p><p>Not every individual case conforms nicely to your information must be free worldview. This case is clearly in the GREY area; all the black-or-white claptrap on here is just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone commenting here on Slashdot ( myself included ) are only interested in the principles of the matter , not the reporter himself.He 's already been abstracted out of this entire discussion , despite being the actual person involved in all the hubbub .
So let 's pat ourselves on the back for our words on private website censorship , journalistic hypocrisy , the slippery slopes of information control , etc etc .
But I 'd love to see all the self-congratulation here if the edits had stuck and Rohde was dead , all for the want of timeliness and freedom.Not every individual case conforms nicely to your information must be free worldview .
This case is clearly in the GREY area ; all the black-or-white claptrap on here is just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone commenting here on Slashdot (myself included) are only interested in the principles of the matter, not the reporter himself.He's already been abstracted out of this entire discussion, despite being the actual person involved in all the hubbub.
So let's pat ourselves on the back for our words on private website censorship, journalistic hypocrisy, the slippery slopes of information control, etc etc.
But I'd love to see all the self-congratulation here if the edits had stuck and Rohde was dead, all for the want of timeliness and freedom.Not every individual case conforms nicely to your information must be free worldview.
This case is clearly in the GREY area; all the black-or-white claptrap on here is just that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411</id>
	<title>newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246277340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter's value and make negotiations more difficult?  When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people?  Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk?  Safety trumps freedom of speech?  Since when?  Only when one reporter is doing something for another, apparently.</p><p>What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt: they are capable of censoring the news, and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there.  Furthermore, they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.</p><p>We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter 's value and make negotiations more difficult ?
When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people ?
Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk ?
Safety trumps freedom of speech ?
Since when ?
Only when one reporter is doing something for another , apparently.What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt : they are capable of censoring the news , and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there .
Furthermore , they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship , whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter's value and make negotiations more difficult?
When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people?
Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk?
Safety trumps freedom of speech?
Since when?
Only when one reporter is doing something for another, apparently.What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt: they are capable of censoring the news, and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there.
Furthermore, they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Cannot be Trusted</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1246282320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia cannot, ever be trusted. It's not the information that's the problem. In fact, it's not even the malicious editors. It's the process. The process of editing information on Wikipedia is set up to allow manipulation, censorship and propaganda by anyone willing to spend the effort.</p><p>The summary says it all:</p><blockquote><div><p>The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is the process of information control. If you want something on or off Wikipedia, the goal is to ingratiate yourself with, or outright become, one of the people with authority over the articles. Lock, delete, edit, undo and generally abuse every one of the hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles that have been created in order to mould pages to <b>your</b> worldview and no other. The obstacles to dealing with misinformation are far, far more numerous than putting up, and guarding, that misinformation in the first place.</p><p>My own experiences are many, but most recently, I have tried to undo an edit that turned a "religion" field in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox\_Scientist" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">scientist infobox</a> [wikipedia.org] into a "religious stance" field. The ensuing plastering of "atheist", "christian" and "deist" tags on scientist infoboxes left and right left little doubt that the pages were being commandeered into a larger "culture war" debate.</p><p>My efforts to undo this and return the tag to its original status were for nought. The template was locked down tight. When I argued for a reversion, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template\_talk:Infobox\_Scientist#Religion\_Field\_2" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">I was stonewalled</a> [wikipedia.org]. They argued for "consensus", that revision could only take place once agreement was reached, that their existed "guidelines" on the page directing that the tag could be used in this way. All this despite the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template\_talk:Infobox\_Scientist#Religion\_field" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">no agreement had ever been reached on the change in the first place</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>The purpose of all the rules and regulations and procedures was clear. Someone wanted that tag to stay the way it was, and was prepared to go to great lengths to make sure of that outcome. Wikipedia admins have elevated stonewalling to an artform.</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/03/31/0918216.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">People own Wikipedia pages</a> [slashdot.org]. <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Entire topics have been purged</a> [slashdot.org]. Consider the fate of <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129033&amp;threshold=1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=26868817#26872513" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Pidgey</a> [slashdot.org], purged from existance simply because certain people took exception to his presence and began a campaign to excise him. You may consider these issues trivial, but make no mistake; they show an systemic and fatal failure in the ability of Wikipedia to police itself.</p><p>Methods exist, and are defended, which allow persons of ill intent to control the flow and presentation of any page so long as they are willing to expend the effort. This state of affairs did not come about by chance. It is a status quo admired and supported from the very top, with Wales himself turning to it again and again. The rot has set in at the top in Wikipedia and the whole structure is now tainted.</p><p>Wikipedia cannot be trusted. For anything. Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page. Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia can not , ever be trusted .
It 's not the information that 's the problem .
In fact , it 's not even the malicious editors .
It 's the process .
The process of editing information on Wikipedia is set up to allow manipulation , censorship and propaganda by anyone willing to spend the effort.The summary says it all : The sanitizing was a team effort , led by Jimmy Wales , co-founder of Wikipedia , along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times.This is the process of information control .
If you want something on or off Wikipedia , the goal is to ingratiate yourself with , or outright become , one of the people with authority over the articles .
Lock , delete , edit , undo and generally abuse every one of the hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles that have been created in order to mould pages to your worldview and no other .
The obstacles to dealing with misinformation are far , far more numerous than putting up , and guarding , that misinformation in the first place.My own experiences are many , but most recently , I have tried to undo an edit that turned a " religion " field in a scientist infobox [ wikipedia.org ] into a " religious stance " field .
The ensuing plastering of " atheist " , " christian " and " deist " tags on scientist infoboxes left and right left little doubt that the pages were being commandeered into a larger " culture war " debate.My efforts to undo this and return the tag to its original status were for nought .
The template was locked down tight .
When I argued for a reversion , I was stonewalled [ wikipedia.org ] .
They argued for " consensus " , that revision could only take place once agreement was reached , that their existed " guidelines " on the page directing that the tag could be used in this way .
All this despite the fact that no agreement had ever been reached on the change in the first place [ wikipedia.org ] .The purpose of all the rules and regulations and procedures was clear .
Someone wanted that tag to stay the way it was , and was prepared to go to great lengths to make sure of that outcome .
Wikipedia admins have elevated stonewalling to an artform.People own Wikipedia pages [ slashdot.org ] .
Entire topics have been purged [ slashdot.org ] .
Consider the fate of Pidgey [ slashdot.org ] , purged from existance simply because certain people took exception to his presence and began a campaign to excise him .
You may consider these issues trivial , but make no mistake ; they show an systemic and fatal failure in the ability of Wikipedia to police itself.Methods exist , and are defended , which allow persons of ill intent to control the flow and presentation of any page so long as they are willing to expend the effort .
This state of affairs did not come about by chance .
It is a status quo admired and supported from the very top , with Wales himself turning to it again and again .
The rot has set in at the top in Wikipedia and the whole structure is now tainted.Wikipedia can not be trusted .
For anything .
Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information , or what their intent is , on any page .
Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth ; only in their ability to control it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia cannot, ever be trusted.
It's not the information that's the problem.
In fact, it's not even the malicious editors.
It's the process.
The process of editing information on Wikipedia is set up to allow manipulation, censorship and propaganda by anyone willing to spend the effort.The summary says it all:The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times.This is the process of information control.
If you want something on or off Wikipedia, the goal is to ingratiate yourself with, or outright become, one of the people with authority over the articles.
Lock, delete, edit, undo and generally abuse every one of the hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles that have been created in order to mould pages to your worldview and no other.
The obstacles to dealing with misinformation are far, far more numerous than putting up, and guarding, that misinformation in the first place.My own experiences are many, but most recently, I have tried to undo an edit that turned a "religion" field in a scientist infobox [wikipedia.org] into a "religious stance" field.
The ensuing plastering of "atheist", "christian" and "deist" tags on scientist infoboxes left and right left little doubt that the pages were being commandeered into a larger "culture war" debate.My efforts to undo this and return the tag to its original status were for nought.
The template was locked down tight.
When I argued for a reversion, I was stonewalled [wikipedia.org].
They argued for "consensus", that revision could only take place once agreement was reached, that their existed "guidelines" on the page directing that the tag could be used in this way.
All this despite the fact that no agreement had ever been reached on the change in the first place [wikipedia.org].The purpose of all the rules and regulations and procedures was clear.
Someone wanted that tag to stay the way it was, and was prepared to go to great lengths to make sure of that outcome.
Wikipedia admins have elevated stonewalling to an artform.People own Wikipedia pages [slashdot.org].
Entire topics have been purged [slashdot.org].
Consider the fate of Pidgey [slashdot.org], purged from existance simply because certain people took exception to his presence and began a campaign to excise him.
You may consider these issues trivial, but make no mistake; they show an systemic and fatal failure in the ability of Wikipedia to police itself.Methods exist, and are defended, which allow persons of ill intent to control the flow and presentation of any page so long as they are willing to expend the effort.
This state of affairs did not come about by chance.
It is a status quo admired and supported from the very top, with Wales himself turning to it again and again.
The rot has set in at the top in Wikipedia and the whole structure is now tainted.Wikipedia cannot be trusted.
For anything.
Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page.
Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521851</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, not sure where you got your definition, but dictionary.com, says: </p><p><em>"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds"</em> </p><p>Seems like censorship to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , not sure where you got your definition , but dictionary.com , says : " an official who examines books , plays , news reports , motion pictures , radio and television programs , letters , cablegrams , etc. , for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral , political , military , or other grounds " Seems like censorship to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, not sure where you got your definition, but dictionary.com, says: "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds" Seems like censorship to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521327</id>
	<title>lol zomg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>zomg wikipediareview picked this up days ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>zomg wikipediareview picked this up days ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>zomg wikipediareview picked this up days ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522789</id>
	<title>Quiet for me but not for thee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246284660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the NYT is all about keeping things on the down-low to save one of their own, but to protect national security and the safety of our troops...not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the NYT is all about keeping things on the down-low to save one of their own , but to protect national security and the safety of our troops...not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the NYT is all about keeping things on the down-low to save one of their own, but to protect national security and the safety of our troops...not so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522257</id>
	<title>Suppress Iran and perhaps Neda would be alive?!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246281660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is most disturbing is the paternalistic actions going on here.  If Wikipedia can be edited and censored to save one life, how much editing can we expect if SOMEONE, anonymously, in the background believes that editing and suppression of information will save 10, 1000, or 100,000 lives?</p><p>For example, if Wikipedia and Twitter had suppressed the information from Iran, think of all the people's lives that could have been saved!  The protests would not have been kept going by outside "interference."  Neda would be alive.</p><p>Alas, sometimes evil people are willing to die for the cause of freedom and that is a good thing because that is how evil is fought.</p><p>Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness, but as those of us who have followed along know, it is about control by one group with one agenda while publicly stating the opposite.  And one group with one position is fine IF that is acknowledged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is most disturbing is the paternalistic actions going on here .
If Wikipedia can be edited and censored to save one life , how much editing can we expect if SOMEONE , anonymously , in the background believes that editing and suppression of information will save 10 , 1000 , or 100,000 lives ? For example , if Wikipedia and Twitter had suppressed the information from Iran , think of all the people 's lives that could have been saved !
The protests would not have been kept going by outside " interference .
" Neda would be alive.Alas , sometimes evil people are willing to die for the cause of freedom and that is a good thing because that is how evil is fought.Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness , but as those of us who have followed along know , it is about control by one group with one agenda while publicly stating the opposite .
And one group with one position is fine IF that is acknowledged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is most disturbing is the paternalistic actions going on here.
If Wikipedia can be edited and censored to save one life, how much editing can we expect if SOMEONE, anonymously, in the background believes that editing and suppression of information will save 10, 1000, or 100,000 lives?For example, if Wikipedia and Twitter had suppressed the information from Iran, think of all the people's lives that could have been saved!
The protests would not have been kept going by outside "interference.
"  Neda would be alive.Alas, sometimes evil people are willing to die for the cause of freedom and that is a good thing because that is how evil is fought.Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness, but as those of us who have followed along know, it is about control by one group with one agenda while publicly stating the opposite.
And one group with one position is fine IF that is acknowledged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522411</id>
	<title>Re:Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1246282440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who said it was ok?  It's quite possibly hypocritical behavior.  Of course someone is more interested in saving the lives of colleagues and friends, that's human nature.  But should the remedy for this involve even more deaths for the sake of consistency?  Is truth, in the guise of timely reporting a fact, more important than someone's life?<br><br>If anything, criticize the NYT for their past actions when disregarding the safety of those who were not friends or colleagues.  Which should be a side issue regarding whether it's appropriate to report this information or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said it was ok ?
It 's quite possibly hypocritical behavior .
Of course someone is more interested in saving the lives of colleagues and friends , that 's human nature .
But should the remedy for this involve even more deaths for the sake of consistency ?
Is truth , in the guise of timely reporting a fact , more important than someone 's life ? If anything , criticize the NYT for their past actions when disregarding the safety of those who were not friends or colleagues .
Which should be a side issue regarding whether it 's appropriate to report this information or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said it was ok?
It's quite possibly hypocritical behavior.
Of course someone is more interested in saving the lives of colleagues and friends, that's human nature.
But should the remedy for this involve even more deaths for the sake of consistency?
Is truth, in the guise of timely reporting a fact, more important than someone's life?If anything, criticize the NYT for their past actions when disregarding the safety of those who were not friends or colleagues.
Which should be a side issue regarding whether it's appropriate to report this information or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522519</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246283040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate poster, rathar than a mindlessly rabid zealot, you might try citing and linking to real journalists' articles instead of right-wing propaganda rags like national review.</p><p>A goatsex or tubgirl link would have been more useful and relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate poster , rathar than a mindlessly rabid zealot , you might try citing and linking to real journalists ' articles instead of right-wing propaganda rags like national review.A goatsex or tubgirl link would have been more useful and relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate poster, rathar than a mindlessly rabid zealot, you might try citing and linking to real journalists' articles instead of right-wing propaganda rags like national review.A goatsex or tubgirl link would have been more useful and relevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524907</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>McSnarf</author>
	<datestamp>1246303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Schr&#195;dinger effect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Wikipedia should report information, not influence it, which might have happened in that case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Schr   dinger effect : ) Wikipedia should report information , not influence it , which might have happened in that case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SchrÃdinger effect :)Wikipedia should report information, not influence it, which might have happened in that case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</id>
	<title>I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1246277460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe strongly in free speech, especially on Wikipedia (I am a semi-active editor there). But this wasn't really Wikipedia's domain. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_is\_not\_a\_newspaper" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_is\_not\_a\_newspaper</a> [wikipedia.org]). It's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone's life until reliable news sources have already done so. In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe strongly in free speech , especially on Wikipedia ( I am a semi-active editor there ) .
But this was n't really Wikipedia 's domain .
Wikipedia is not a newspaper ( See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : Wikipedia \ _is \ _not \ _a \ _newspaper [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
It 's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone 's life until reliable news sources have already done so .
In other words , Wikipedia should never contain breaking news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe strongly in free speech, especially on Wikipedia (I am a semi-active editor there).
But this wasn't really Wikipedia's domain.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_is\_not\_a\_newspaper [wikipedia.org]).
It's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone's life until reliable news sources have already done so.
In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522895</id>
	<title>So we have proof, that noboy was an admin.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246285560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because else it would have gone their way. Period.</p><p>Freedom is slavery,<br>war is peace,<br>Wikipedia is truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because else it would have gone their way .
Period.Freedom is slavery,war is peace,Wikipedia is truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because else it would have gone their way.
Period.Freedom is slavery,war is peace,Wikipedia is truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733</id>
	<title>Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employees</title>
	<author>Alaska Jack</author>
	<datestamp>1246278900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely. Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.

</p><p>Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06. There were absolutely no questions that this program was
</p><ul>
<li> Constitutional</li>
<li> legal</li>
<li> briefed to the appropriate members of congress, and</li>
<li> working!</li>
</ul><p>Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.</p><p>Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -&gt; saving civilian lives. Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!</p><p>PS Good overview <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4ODFmMmI3ZmM5ZGE4ZDQxNmY1ODA5YTQ3NzkxZWQ=" title="nationalreview.com">here</a> [nationalreview.com], by the guy who led the Justice Department's prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.</p><p>

  - AJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , everyone is glad Rodheis home safely .
Neverthess , many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy .
Take , for example , the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program , which the Times did a big expose of back in '06 .
There were absolutely no questions that this program was Constitutional legal briefed to the appropriate members of congress , and working !
Yet that did n't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it , how to avoid getting caught by it , etc.Again , there is no dispute that this program was working ; in other words , nailing terrorists - &gt; saving civilian lives .
Too bad the lives it was saving were n't those of Times employees ! PS Good overview here [ nationalreview.com ] , by the guy who led the Justice Department 's prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers .
- AJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely.
Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.
Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06.
There were absolutely no questions that this program was

 Constitutional
 legal
 briefed to the appropriate members of congress, and
 working!
Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -&gt; saving civilian lives.
Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!PS Good overview here [nationalreview.com], by the guy who led the Justice Department's prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
- AJ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521581</id>
	<title>Not censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap the whining from the slashdot horde is deafening.</p><p>Look: Wikipedia isn't just a forum where you can sh*t whatever crap you want. It's an encyclopedia with formal rules for inclusion. They may be weird rules, and weak rules but they exist none the less and they are most of what distinguishes Wikipedia from failures like everything2.</p><p>In this case Wikipedia's rule on verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) comes into play. There were no other reliable sources reporting on this, so it was kept out just like your uncle jimbobs magic formula for turning cowpies into gold.</p><p>So sure, the rule here was enforced harder in this case than some others but those kinds of inconsistencies happen in all complex systems. At least Wikipedia is honest about their inconsistencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap the whining from the slashdot horde is deafening.Look : Wikipedia is n't just a forum where you can sh * t whatever crap you want .
It 's an encyclopedia with formal rules for inclusion .
They may be weird rules , and weak rules but they exist none the less and they are most of what distinguishes Wikipedia from failures like everything2.In this case Wikipedia 's rule on verifiability ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : Verifiability ) comes into play .
There were no other reliable sources reporting on this , so it was kept out just like your uncle jimbobs magic formula for turning cowpies into gold.So sure , the rule here was enforced harder in this case than some others but those kinds of inconsistencies happen in all complex systems .
At least Wikipedia is honest about their inconsistencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap the whining from the slashdot horde is deafening.Look: Wikipedia isn't just a forum where you can sh*t whatever crap you want.
It's an encyclopedia with formal rules for inclusion.
They may be weird rules, and weak rules but they exist none the less and they are most of what distinguishes Wikipedia from failures like everything2.In this case Wikipedia's rule on verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) comes into play.
There were no other reliable sources reporting on this, so it was kept out just like your uncle jimbobs magic formula for turning cowpies into gold.So sure, the rule here was enforced harder in this case than some others but those kinds of inconsistencies happen in all complex systems.
At least Wikipedia is honest about their inconsistencies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</id>
	<title>This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246277820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so you guys have the facts on this one, the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'</p><p><b><br>2. a.2.a transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.<br>
&nbsp; </b></p><p>This doesn't fall under that category, or any similar category. The Times wasn't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit, or because of judgement as to it's morality or offensiveness. They did it to protect the reporter.</p><p>As a citizen, or NYT subscriber, or Wikipedia contributor, you have no right as to the status of the reporters' personal situation. Just because something has occurred and someone knows doesn't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published. This is not a moral, heretical, or an issue of the reporters' conduct. </p><p>I'll say it slowly:<br><b><br>absolutely.<br>not.<br>censorship.<br></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so you guys have the facts on this one , the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'2 .
a.2.a transf .
One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct .
  This does n't fall under that category , or any similar category .
The Times was n't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit , or because of judgement as to it 's morality or offensiveness .
They did it to protect the reporter.As a citizen , or NYT subscriber , or Wikipedia contributor , you have no right as to the status of the reporters ' personal situation .
Just because something has occurred and someone knows does n't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published .
This is not a moral , heretical , or an issue of the reporters ' conduct .
I 'll say it slowly : absolutely.not.censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so you guys have the facts on this one, the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'2.
a.2.a transf.
One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
  This doesn't fall under that category, or any similar category.
The Times wasn't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit, or because of judgement as to it's morality or offensiveness.
They did it to protect the reporter.As a citizen, or NYT subscriber, or Wikipedia contributor, you have no right as to the status of the reporters' personal situation.
Just because something has occurred and someone knows doesn't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published.
This is not a moral, heretical, or an issue of the reporters' conduct.
I'll say it slowly:absolutely.not.censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522065</id>
	<title>I see no issue here</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1246280580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, the information about this reporter was suppressed to protect his life, not to prevent, say, someone else's embarrassment or to cover-up misconduct or otherwise prevent the publication of information the public should know to protect the democratic process.</p><p>Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran. One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address."</p><p>This is the sort of limited exception to the free publication of relevant information to the public where the news media can and does suppress a story <i>on a temporary basis</i> in order to prevent death or injury to others or where it is important to the issues involved that the story not be exposed for a short time.  When people talk about "responsible journalism," it is this sort of behavior they are referring to.</p><p>

Paul Robinson - &lt;<a href="mailto:paul@paul-robinson.us" title="mailto">paul@paul-robinson.us</a> [mailto]&gt; - <a href="http://paul-robinson.us/" title="paul-robinson.us">My Blog</a> [paul-robinson.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , the information about this reporter was suppressed to protect his life , not to prevent , say , someone else 's embarrassment or to cover-up misconduct or otherwise prevent the publication of information the public should know to protect the democratic process.Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis , the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran .
One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of " giving the Nazis ' Anne Frank 's home address .
" This is the sort of limited exception to the free publication of relevant information to the public where the news media can and does suppress a story on a temporary basis in order to prevent death or injury to others or where it is important to the issues involved that the story not be exposed for a short time .
When people talk about " responsible journalism , " it is this sort of behavior they are referring to .
Paul Robinson - paul @ paul-robinson.us [ mailto ] &gt; - My Blog [ paul-robinson.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, the information about this reporter was suppressed to protect his life, not to prevent, say, someone else's embarrassment or to cover-up misconduct or otherwise prevent the publication of information the public should know to protect the democratic process.Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran.
One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address.
"This is the sort of limited exception to the free publication of relevant information to the public where the news media can and does suppress a story on a temporary basis in order to prevent death or injury to others or where it is important to the issues involved that the story not be exposed for a short time.
When people talk about "responsible journalism," it is this sort of behavior they are referring to.
Paul Robinson - paul@paul-robinson.us [mailto]&gt; - My Blog [paul-robinson.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521887</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1246279680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, it is not depriving anyone of his freedom of speech, just because Wikimedia doesn't want to publish something doesn't mean you are not still just as free to speak about it as before. Not to mention the fact that freedom of speech is intended to make sure that everybody is able to voice his opinion (and new != opnion) and to make sure everybody is able to check the actions of their government (which doesn't seem to be involved).<br>
Besides, doesn't freedom of speech also mean you're allowed to choose not to say certain things?<br>
And last but not least, the news was not hidden or blocked, it was delayed by 7 months, which of course is an extremely long delay, but it doesn't look like anyone seriously wanted to make sure we'd <i>never</i> know about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it is not depriving anyone of his freedom of speech , just because Wikimedia does n't want to publish something does n't mean you are not still just as free to speak about it as before .
Not to mention the fact that freedom of speech is intended to make sure that everybody is able to voice his opinion ( and new ! = opnion ) and to make sure everybody is able to check the actions of their government ( which does n't seem to be involved ) .
Besides , does n't freedom of speech also mean you 're allowed to choose not to say certain things ?
And last but not least , the news was not hidden or blocked , it was delayed by 7 months , which of course is an extremely long delay , but it does n't look like anyone seriously wanted to make sure we 'd never know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it is not depriving anyone of his freedom of speech, just because Wikimedia doesn't want to publish something doesn't mean you are not still just as free to speak about it as before.
Not to mention the fact that freedom of speech is intended to make sure that everybody is able to voice his opinion (and new != opnion) and to make sure everybody is able to check the actions of their government (which doesn't seem to be involved).
Besides, doesn't freedom of speech also mean you're allowed to choose not to say certain things?
And last but not least, the news was not hidden or blocked, it was delayed by 7 months, which of course is an extremely long delay, but it doesn't look like anyone seriously wanted to make sure we'd never know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526485</id>
	<title>No matter what...</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1246367100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what course of action Wikipedia or The Times took, half of the people here would be bitching about it and the other half would be defending it.<br>
<br>
Hurray for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what course of action Wikipedia or The Times took , half of the people here would be bitching about it and the other half would be defending it .
Hurray for / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what course of action Wikipedia or The Times took, half of the people here would be bitching about it and the other half would be defending it.
Hurray for /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521339</id>
	<title>the blackout was a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped.  You know what his captors want?  Publicity for their campaign.  If they get the world's attention, they kill him -- this gives them maximum returns on their actions.<br> <br>By keeping the secret, they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape.<br> <br>You may call it censorship, I call it protecting the life of a journalist.<br> <br>Or, since I DNRTFA, I could be completely off base.  But I did read about this kidnapping previously, and I think I'm on track here.  Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the reporter is kidnapped .
You know what his captors want ?
Publicity for their campaign .
If they get the world 's attention , they kill him -- this gives them maximum returns on their actions .
By keeping the secret , they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape .
You may call it censorship , I call it protecting the life of a journalist .
Or , since I DNRTFA , I could be completely off base .
But I did read about this kidnapping previously , and I think I 'm on track here .
Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped.
You know what his captors want?
Publicity for their campaign.
If they get the world's attention, they kill him -- this gives them maximum returns on their actions.
By keeping the secret, they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape.
You may call it censorship, I call it protecting the life of a journalist.
Or, since I DNRTFA, I could be completely off base.
But I did read about this kidnapping previously, and I think I'm on track here.
Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28547439</id>
	<title>Not Censorship, not even a little bit</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246479360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Merriam Webster "censor"<p><div class="quote"><p>: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable   ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable </p></div><p>

The information was not being suppressed as objectionable.  It was being suppressed as potentially dangerous to the well-being of one poor human being.  Is our right to know what's happening moment-to-moment more important than his right to have the best chance possible at staying alive?<br> <br>

Keeping a secret because you make the judgment that it will keep someone safe...that's not censorship, that's being a responsible member of the media. There was no outside force compelling these agencies to withhold information, they did it of their own volition. At worst this was <i>self</i>-censorship, at best it was lifesaving.</p><p>Mountains from molehills...there are plenty of things to be upset about that are actually important, if we're all through being idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Merriam Webster " censor " : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable The information was not being suppressed as objectionable .
It was being suppressed as potentially dangerous to the well-being of one poor human being .
Is our right to know what 's happening moment-to-moment more important than his right to have the best chance possible at staying alive ?
Keeping a secret because you make the judgment that it will keep someone safe...that 's not censorship , that 's being a responsible member of the media .
There was no outside force compelling these agencies to withhold information , they did it of their own volition .
At worst this was self-censorship , at best it was lifesaving.Mountains from molehills...there are plenty of things to be upset about that are actually important , if we 're all through being idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Merriam Webster "censor": to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable   ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable 

The information was not being suppressed as objectionable.
It was being suppressed as potentially dangerous to the well-being of one poor human being.
Is our right to know what's happening moment-to-moment more important than his right to have the best chance possible at staying alive?
Keeping a secret because you make the judgment that it will keep someone safe...that's not censorship, that's being a responsible member of the media.
There was no outside force compelling these agencies to withhold information, they did it of their own volition.
At worst this was self-censorship, at best it was lifesaving.Mountains from molehills...there are plenty of things to be upset about that are actually important, if we're all through being idiots.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521961</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246280040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Really, that's all I can say. You'd find great empoloyment in North Korea, Iran, or the UK as a person capable of fucking over the rest of the population with your totalitarion 'freedom of information must be destroyed' ideals.</p><p>Seriously. Fuck you, and stay the hell away from my internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.Really , that 's all I can say .
You 'd find great empoloyment in North Korea , Iran , or the UK as a person capable of fucking over the rest of the population with your totalitarion 'freedom of information must be destroyed ' ideals.Seriously .
Fuck you , and stay the hell away from my internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.Really, that's all I can say.
You'd find great empoloyment in North Korea, Iran, or the UK as a person capable of fucking over the rest of the population with your totalitarion 'freedom of information must be destroyed' ideals.Seriously.
Fuck you, and stay the hell away from my internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522059</id>
	<title>Re:why</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1246280520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The f'ing word is THAN moron!
<br>
It seems to you that this is more political <i>than </i> anything.
<br>
Otherwise we are left waiting to hear what anything did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The f'ing word is THAN moron !
It seems to you that this is more political than anything .
Otherwise we are left waiting to hear what anything did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The f'ing word is THAN moron!
It seems to you that this is more political than  anything.
Otherwise we are left waiting to hear what anything did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522255</id>
	<title>I guess I don't get it</title>
	<author>Sheafification</author>
	<datestamp>1246281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they spent a lot of effort to "hide" his kidnapping, but a cursory browse through the wikipedia page history shows all these changes. I understand that most people don't ever look at the history, but for anyone that was actually interested in David the information wasn't hidden at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they spent a lot of effort to " hide " his kidnapping , but a cursory browse through the wikipedia page history shows all these changes .
I understand that most people do n't ever look at the history , but for anyone that was actually interested in David the information was n't hidden at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they spent a lot of effort to "hide" his kidnapping, but a cursory browse through the wikipedia page history shows all these changes.
I understand that most people don't ever look at the history, but for anyone that was actually interested in David the information wasn't hidden at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729</id>
	<title>Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're getting off-topic.</p><p>What you <i>should</i> be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?</p><p>And if you truly believe that "Information wants to be Free", are you willing to die for that belief?  Are you willing to sacrifice a person's life?  Does that person have a say in the matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're getting off-topic.What you should be asking yourself is : is it ethical to withhold information to the public , when the release of said information will cause more harm than good ? And if you truly believe that " Information wants to be Free " , are you willing to die for that belief ?
Are you willing to sacrifice a person 's life ?
Does that person have a say in the matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're getting off-topic.What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?And if you truly believe that "Information wants to be Free", are you willing to die for that belief?
Are you willing to sacrifice a person's life?
Does that person have a say in the matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521419</id>
	<title>Disgusted</title>
	<author>bignetbuy</author>
	<datestamp>1246277400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where did this censorship policy originate?  And where was it when people were being kidnapped on a daily basis in Iraq?  Daniel Berg?  The Christian Science Monitor lady?  The media outlets were practically tripping over themselves to report every detail -- and feed airtime to the kidnappers -- yet one of their own gets nabbed and now the policy is "stfu so our guy doesn't get hurt" ?
<br>
<br>
Un-friggin-real.
<br>
<br>
Of course, now that the media outlets have revealed their little secret, you can bet the terrorists will take counter-measures.  This trick only works once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did this censorship policy originate ?
And where was it when people were being kidnapped on a daily basis in Iraq ?
Daniel Berg ?
The Christian Science Monitor lady ?
The media outlets were practically tripping over themselves to report every detail -- and feed airtime to the kidnappers -- yet one of their own gets nabbed and now the policy is " stfu so our guy does n't get hurt " ?
Un-friggin-real . Of course , now that the media outlets have revealed their little secret , you can bet the terrorists will take counter-measures .
This trick only works once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did this censorship policy originate?
And where was it when people were being kidnapped on a daily basis in Iraq?
Daniel Berg?
The Christian Science Monitor lady?
The media outlets were practically tripping over themselves to report every detail -- and feed airtime to the kidnappers -- yet one of their own gets nabbed and now the policy is "stfu so our guy doesn't get hurt" ?
Un-friggin-real.


Of course, now that the media outlets have revealed their little secret, you can bet the terrorists will take counter-measures.
This trick only works once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522517</id>
	<title>Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246282980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.</p></div><p>Yes! And to hell with whoever gets hurt or killed in the process - we must have our Information!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship , whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.Yes !
And to hell with whoever gets hurt or killed in the process - we must have our Information !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.Yes!
And to hell with whoever gets hurt or killed in the process - we must have our Information!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523365</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please reread the definition you provided.  By stifling information ("exercising officious supervision conduct") to protect the life of a friend ("exercising officious supervision over conduct"), <b>this is censorship</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please reread the definition you provided .
By stifling information ( " exercising officious supervision conduct " ) to protect the life of a friend ( " exercising officious supervision over conduct " ) , this is censorship</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please reread the definition you provided.
By stifling information ("exercising officious supervision conduct") to protect the life of a friend ("exercising officious supervision over conduct"), this is censorship</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522311</id>
	<title>Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1246281900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're getting off-topic.

What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?</p></div></blockquote><p>Your question contains an embedded assertion, and that is "the release of said information will cause more harm than good". That has certainly not been proven. In the case of the Italian journalist for instance, it is clear now that if there hadn't been a major public Italian outcry pushing for her release, the Italian government would never have gotten her back.  </p><p>And if any of you believe that the US is really in it to protect the life of the individual journalist of the moment who gets kidnapped, then ask yourself why they shot at the convoy that was bringing her back, killing the Italian official who was lying on top of her body trying to protect her from getting shot.</p><p> No, both the government and the media company may not want the story of a kidnapped journalist coming out, that's certainly true, but that's only because they want to avoid future kidnappings, and the life of the current individual journalist who is already kidnapped is just not that important in the grander scheme of things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're getting off-topic .
What you should be asking yourself is : is it ethical to withhold information to the public , when the release of said information will cause more harm than good ? Your question contains an embedded assertion , and that is " the release of said information will cause more harm than good " .
That has certainly not been proven .
In the case of the Italian journalist for instance , it is clear now that if there had n't been a major public Italian outcry pushing for her release , the Italian government would never have gotten her back .
And if any of you believe that the US is really in it to protect the life of the individual journalist of the moment who gets kidnapped , then ask yourself why they shot at the convoy that was bringing her back , killing the Italian official who was lying on top of her body trying to protect her from getting shot .
No , both the government and the media company may not want the story of a kidnapped journalist coming out , that 's certainly true , but that 's only because they want to avoid future kidnappings , and the life of the current individual journalist who is already kidnapped is just not that important in the grander scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're getting off-topic.
What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?Your question contains an embedded assertion, and that is "the release of said information will cause more harm than good".
That has certainly not been proven.
In the case of the Italian journalist for instance, it is clear now that if there hadn't been a major public Italian outcry pushing for her release, the Italian government would never have gotten her back.
And if any of you believe that the US is really in it to protect the life of the individual journalist of the moment who gets kidnapped, then ask yourself why they shot at the convoy that was bringing her back, killing the Italian official who was lying on top of her body trying to protect her from getting shot.
No, both the government and the media company may not want the story of a kidnapped journalist coming out, that's certainly true, but that's only because they want to avoid future kidnappings, and the life of the current individual journalist who is already kidnapped is just not that important in the grander scheme of things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522461</id>
	<title>Re:I see no issue here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran. One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address."</p></div><p>"Now over to Archie with breaking news from Amsterdam..."</p><p>"Thanks Tom.  Just to fill our listeners in a little bit I'm broadcasting live from in front of the house 263 Prinsingracht, Amsterdam, Holland.  An unidentified source reports that there is a little Jewish girl and her family hiding in the attic of the house.  I attempted to speak with the owners of the house but they didn't want to speak with me, they became quite agitated and told me to quote 'Go away!  Please just go away!'  I don't know about you Tom, but that seemed suspicious to me, almost as if they were hiding something.  I contacted a Major with the German Security Police to see if he could shed any light on the matter and he promised that he'd look into it and get back to me.  Ah, wait a moment, something seems to be happening...   yes, yes, something is happening.  Two large black Mercedes have pulled up in front of the house and it appears that some German Security Police have arrived on the scene.  They've kicking the door, correction they *have* kicked the door down and are now entering the premises.  Exciting developments here at the house at 263 Prinsingracht."</p><p>"Sorry to interrupt you Archie but we need to have a brief word from our sponsor and then we'll be back to see if there are any new developments in this breaking story."</p><p>Turing word: vacuous<br>In a sentence:  How the Anne Frank story would have ended if reporters back then were as vacuous as they are now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis , the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran .
One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of " giving the Nazis ' Anne Frank 's home address .
" " Now over to Archie with breaking news from Amsterdam... " " Thanks Tom .
Just to fill our listeners in a little bit I 'm broadcasting live from in front of the house 263 Prinsingracht , Amsterdam , Holland .
An unidentified source reports that there is a little Jewish girl and her family hiding in the attic of the house .
I attempted to speak with the owners of the house but they did n't want to speak with me , they became quite agitated and told me to quote 'Go away !
Please just go away !
' I do n't know about you Tom , but that seemed suspicious to me , almost as if they were hiding something .
I contacted a Major with the German Security Police to see if he could shed any light on the matter and he promised that he 'd look into it and get back to me .
Ah , wait a moment , something seems to be happening... yes , yes , something is happening .
Two large black Mercedes have pulled up in front of the house and it appears that some German Security Police have arrived on the scene .
They 've kicking the door , correction they * have * kicked the door down and are now entering the premises .
Exciting developments here at the house at 263 Prinsingracht .
" " Sorry to interrupt you Archie but we need to have a brief word from our sponsor and then we 'll be back to see if there are any new developments in this breaking story .
" Turing word : vacuousIn a sentence : How the Anne Frank story would have ended if reporters back then were as vacuous as they are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back during the Iranian Hostage crisis, the news media cooperatively agreed not to publicize the information that there were Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy until after they were able to get out of Iran.
One reporter likened the potential for publishing such information to be on the level of "giving the Nazis' Anne Frank's home address.
""Now over to Archie with breaking news from Amsterdam...""Thanks Tom.
Just to fill our listeners in a little bit I'm broadcasting live from in front of the house 263 Prinsingracht, Amsterdam, Holland.
An unidentified source reports that there is a little Jewish girl and her family hiding in the attic of the house.
I attempted to speak with the owners of the house but they didn't want to speak with me, they became quite agitated and told me to quote 'Go away!
Please just go away!
'  I don't know about you Tom, but that seemed suspicious to me, almost as if they were hiding something.
I contacted a Major with the German Security Police to see if he could shed any light on the matter and he promised that he'd look into it and get back to me.
Ah, wait a moment, something seems to be happening...   yes, yes, something is happening.
Two large black Mercedes have pulled up in front of the house and it appears that some German Security Police have arrived on the scene.
They've kicking the door, correction they *have* kicked the door down and are now entering the premises.
Exciting developments here at the house at 263 Prinsingracht.
""Sorry to interrupt you Archie but we need to have a brief word from our sponsor and then we'll be back to see if there are any new developments in this breaking story.
"Turing word: vacuousIn a sentence:  How the Anne Frank story would have ended if reporters back then were as vacuous as they are now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521731</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1246278840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SO stick your head in the sand because the big boys are ACTIVELY suppressing a story?   good plan.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SO stick your head in the sand because the big boys are ACTIVELY suppressing a story ?
good plan.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SO stick your head in the sand because the big boys are ACTIVELY suppressing a story?
good plan.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523495</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia Cannot be Trusted</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246289760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Wikipedia cannot be trusted. For anything. Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page. Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it."</p><p>Except that there are still those pesky citations which link to off-site resources. Kinda hard for even the omnipotent, evil Jimmy Wales to fake all those, hmm?</p><p>Yes, Wikipedia isn't completely free-range. Yes, it's done at least negative censorship. But frankly, the reason that censorship exists in the first place is because the genre is beseiged by trolls. Do you go to Everything2.com looking for anything sensible? What about consumerpedia.org? That was promising once, a few years ago... then the trolls invaded and decided it was all 'GFDL Corpus' this and that and how dare anyone remove any post, ever.</p><p>Don't trust Wikipedia to have *all* the information you want, sure. Don't trust anything which doesn't have citations. But... don't trust any other media outlet, either. And one person's 'information' is another person's 'mindless moronic garbage hazardous to life and sanity', isn't it? See also: Ufology, 9/11 Truth Movement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wikipedia can not be trusted .
For anything .
Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information , or what their intent is , on any page .
Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth ; only in their ability to control it .
" Except that there are still those pesky citations which link to off-site resources .
Kinda hard for even the omnipotent , evil Jimmy Wales to fake all those , hmm ? Yes , Wikipedia is n't completely free-range .
Yes , it 's done at least negative censorship .
But frankly , the reason that censorship exists in the first place is because the genre is beseiged by trolls .
Do you go to Everything2.com looking for anything sensible ?
What about consumerpedia.org ?
That was promising once , a few years ago... then the trolls invaded and decided it was all 'GFDL Corpus ' this and that and how dare anyone remove any post , ever.Do n't trust Wikipedia to have * all * the information you want , sure .
Do n't trust anything which does n't have citations .
But... do n't trust any other media outlet , either .
And one person 's 'information ' is another person 's 'mindless moronic garbage hazardous to life and sanity ' , is n't it ?
See also : Ufology , 9/11 Truth Movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Wikipedia cannot be trusted.
For anything.
Ever. There is no way whatsoever of knowing who controls the flow of information, or what their intent is, on any page.
Wikipedia and its admins have no interest in the truth; only in their ability to control it.
"Except that there are still those pesky citations which link to off-site resources.
Kinda hard for even the omnipotent, evil Jimmy Wales to fake all those, hmm?Yes, Wikipedia isn't completely free-range.
Yes, it's done at least negative censorship.
But frankly, the reason that censorship exists in the first place is because the genre is beseiged by trolls.
Do you go to Everything2.com looking for anything sensible?
What about consumerpedia.org?
That was promising once, a few years ago... then the trolls invaded and decided it was all 'GFDL Corpus' this and that and how dare anyone remove any post, ever.Don't trust Wikipedia to have *all* the information you want, sure.
Don't trust anything which doesn't have citations.
But... don't trust any other media outlet, either.
And one person's 'information' is another person's 'mindless moronic garbage hazardous to life and sanity', isn't it?
See also: Ufology, 9/11 Truth Movement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521835</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, the Times didn't censor Wikipedia.  Wikipedia censored its contributors.  I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that Jimmy Wales was not "exercising official supervision over conduct".  He's an official (in the context of Wikipedia) and he put a stop to certain conduct.  So, by your own definition, censorship.</p><p>I happen to think WP and the times did the right thing here; I still think it was censorship.  In the same scenario, if the government had been the one doing it, I'd have been a lot more skeptical that it was ok -- but I believe that how wrong censorship is depends on the circumstances, including the reasons to publish, the reasons not to publish, and who is exercising the control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , the Times did n't censor Wikipedia .
Wikipedia censored its contributors .
I 'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that Jimmy Wales was not " exercising official supervision over conduct " .
He 's an official ( in the context of Wikipedia ) and he put a stop to certain conduct .
So , by your own definition , censorship.I happen to think WP and the times did the right thing here ; I still think it was censorship .
In the same scenario , if the government had been the one doing it , I 'd have been a lot more skeptical that it was ok -- but I believe that how wrong censorship is depends on the circumstances , including the reasons to publish , the reasons not to publish , and who is exercising the control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, the Times didn't censor Wikipedia.
Wikipedia censored its contributors.
I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that Jimmy Wales was not "exercising official supervision over conduct".
He's an official (in the context of Wikipedia) and he put a stop to certain conduct.
So, by your own definition, censorship.I happen to think WP and the times did the right thing here; I still think it was censorship.
In the same scenario, if the government had been the one doing it, I'd have been a lot more skeptical that it was ok -- but I believe that how wrong censorship is depends on the circumstances, including the reasons to publish, the reasons not to publish, and who is exercising the control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522301</id>
	<title>Re:Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>CWRUisTakingMyMoney</author>
	<datestamp>1246281900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoD&#226;"at least after a while. Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it. This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk. I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim. Just like Amber Alerts. Now, the rules <i>should</i> change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping. Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends. If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing. They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after. Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably has to do with the fact that , generally , MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoD   " at least after a while .
Once the Pentagon 's gone public , there 's no reason not to report on it .
This sort of goes to my problem with some of the " double standard " replies here : It 's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they 're not kidnapped by terrorists , but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk .
I 'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting , but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim .
Just like Amber Alerts .
Now , the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping .
Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping , hyping , hyping , threatening , hyping , and then killing their captive , all for publicity and political ends .
If the hype and publicity are denied them , they might not cross the line into killing .
They 're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after .
Of course , part of the decision here was that it was a reporter , and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion ; and sometimes ( though not always ) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it 's detrimental to the hostages ' interests , but what the Times did here was probably the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoDâ"at least after a while.
Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it.
This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk.
I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim.
Just like Amber Alerts.
Now, the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping.
Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends.
If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing.
They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after.
Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28525961</id>
	<title>The outlaw Jimmy Wales</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1246360680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the last financial contribution Wikipaedia's getting out of me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the last financial contribution Wikipaedia 's getting out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the last financial contribution Wikipaedia's getting out of me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522807</id>
	<title>Re:Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it isn't constitutional or legal for the executive branch of government to have unchecked surveillance powers of financial activity.</p><p>I thought this was about kidnappings, not secret government programs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is n't constitutional or legal for the executive branch of government to have unchecked surveillance powers of financial activity.I thought this was about kidnappings , not secret government programs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it isn't constitutional or legal for the executive branch of government to have unchecked surveillance powers of financial activity.I thought this was about kidnappings, not secret government programs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521983</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this does is open themselves up for a major butt hurt when they report on the next kidnap victim and said victim is killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this does is open themselves up for a major butt hurt when they report on the next kidnap victim and said victim is killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this does is open themselves up for a major butt hurt when they report on the next kidnap victim and said victim is killed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522353</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is not news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When creating or editing an article, it should be duly noted that Wikipedia is never to be a primary source.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When creating or editing an article , it should be duly noted that Wikipedia is never to be a primary source.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : NOT # NEWS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When creating or editing an article, it should be duly noted that Wikipedia is never to be a primary source.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523583</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1246290480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe "breaking news" means you are the first to report the news story, i.e. "break" that story. In the case of Obama's inauguration, its moot because everyone knew about it at the same time - it was a scheduled event.</p><p>Wikipedia, an encyclopedia (which is generally a secondary or tertiary source), cannot report on events like a news source does. It has to cite a news source and establish that the news source has been reliable in the past and can be trusted. This is often a slow process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe " breaking news " means you are the first to report the news story , i.e .
" break " that story .
In the case of Obama 's inauguration , its moot because everyone knew about it at the same time - it was a scheduled event.Wikipedia , an encyclopedia ( which is generally a secondary or tertiary source ) , can not report on events like a news source does .
It has to cite a news source and establish that the news source has been reliable in the past and can be trusted .
This is often a slow process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe "breaking news" means you are the first to report the news story, i.e.
"break" that story.
In the case of Obama's inauguration, its moot because everyone knew about it at the same time - it was a scheduled event.Wikipedia, an encyclopedia (which is generally a secondary or tertiary source), cannot report on events like a news source does.
It has to cite a news source and establish that the news source has been reliable in the past and can be trusted.
This is often a slow process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524361</id>
	<title>Re:Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainly doesn't "beg the question."  That's a technical term in logic, lrn2logic, n00b: http://begthequestion.info/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly does n't " beg the question .
" That 's a technical term in logic , lrn2logic , n00b : http : //begthequestion.info/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly doesn't "beg the question.
"  That's a technical term in logic, lrn2logic, n00b: http://begthequestion.info/.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522057</id>
	<title>Slashdotted</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1246280460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? David Rohde was captured? Shit i better go post this on wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
David Rohde was captured ?
Shit i better go post this on wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
David Rohde was captured?
Shit i better go post this on wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522833</id>
	<title>Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246284900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?</i></p><p>Newspapers report on many other hostages, so apparently, they think it's OK.  They just have a double standard when it's one of their own.</p><p><i>And if you truly believe that "Information wants to be Free"</i></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information\_wants\_to\_be\_free" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">That phrase</a> [wikipedia.org] is loaded with all sorts of connotations that have little to do with this discussion.</p><p><i>are you willing to die for that belief?</i></p><p>I'm willing to die to defend the Constitution; I have sworn an oath to that effect.  That includes freedom of speech and the press.</p><p><i>Are you willing to sacrifice a person's life?</i></p><p>The murderers would be the people pulling the trigger, not the people reporting the kidnapping.</p><p><i>Does that person have a say in the matter?</i></p><p>When it comes to other people's free speech rights, no they don't.  Newspapers clearly have a Constitutional right to report that a person has been kidnapped.  Vague suppositions about what frame of mind the reporting might put the kidnappers into do not change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you should be asking yourself is : is it ethical to withhold information to the public , when the release of said information will cause more harm than good ? Newspapers report on many other hostages , so apparently , they think it 's OK. They just have a double standard when it 's one of their own.And if you truly believe that " Information wants to be Free " That phrase [ wikipedia.org ] is loaded with all sorts of connotations that have little to do with this discussion.are you willing to die for that belief ? I 'm willing to die to defend the Constitution ; I have sworn an oath to that effect .
That includes freedom of speech and the press.Are you willing to sacrifice a person 's life ? The murderers would be the people pulling the trigger , not the people reporting the kidnapping.Does that person have a say in the matter ? When it comes to other people 's free speech rights , no they do n't .
Newspapers clearly have a Constitutional right to report that a person has been kidnapped .
Vague suppositions about what frame of mind the reporting might put the kidnappers into do not change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?Newspapers report on many other hostages, so apparently, they think it's OK.  They just have a double standard when it's one of their own.And if you truly believe that "Information wants to be Free"That phrase [wikipedia.org] is loaded with all sorts of connotations that have little to do with this discussion.are you willing to die for that belief?I'm willing to die to defend the Constitution; I have sworn an oath to that effect.
That includes freedom of speech and the press.Are you willing to sacrifice a person's life?The murderers would be the people pulling the trigger, not the people reporting the kidnapping.Does that person have a say in the matter?When it comes to other people's free speech rights, no they don't.
Newspapers clearly have a Constitutional right to report that a person has been kidnapped.
Vague suppositions about what frame of mind the reporting might put the kidnappers into do not change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526203</id>
	<title>Except wikipedia is not a news site.</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1246364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is not a news site, it's meant to be an online open source encyclopedia.</p><p>Perhaps you should start a wiki based news source?</p><p>Damning wikipedia over this would be like damning mayfield dairies for also refusing to print this story on their milk cartons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is not a news site , it 's meant to be an online open source encyclopedia.Perhaps you should start a wiki based news source ? Damning wikipedia over this would be like damning mayfield dairies for also refusing to print this story on their milk cartons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is not a news site, it's meant to be an online open source encyclopedia.Perhaps you should start a wiki based news source?Damning wikipedia over this would be like damning mayfield dairies for also refusing to print this story on their milk cartons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521703</id>
	<title>Fuck Jimmy Wales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a piece of shit, as is Wikipedia.</p><p>Yes, this is a troll, but it's true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a piece of shit , as is Wikipedia.Yes , this is a troll , but it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a piece of shit, as is Wikipedia.Yes, this is a troll, but it's true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28555215</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only difference of a a VIP over a Non-VIP is the amount of money the UK would have to pay for his ransom. That's why they keep a low profile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference of a a VIP over a Non-VIP is the amount of money the UK would have to pay for his ransom .
That 's why they keep a low profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference of a a VIP over a Non-VIP is the amount of money the UK would have to pay for his ransom.
That's why they keep a low profile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What defines 'breaking news'?</p><p>Obama was listed on Wikipedia as "sworn in" two minutes after he took the oath of office. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack\_Obama&amp;oldid=265312210" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack\_Obama&amp;oldid=265312210</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>This guy was kidnapped for 7 months, and it was still considered breaking news at that point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What defines 'breaking news ' ? Obama was listed on Wikipedia as " sworn in " two minutes after he took the oath of office .
See : http : //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ? title = Barack \ _Obama&amp;oldid = 265312210 [ wikipedia.org ] This guy was kidnapped for 7 months , and it was still considered breaking news at that point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What defines 'breaking news'?Obama was listed on Wikipedia as "sworn in" two minutes after he took the oath of office.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack\_Obama&amp;oldid=265312210 [wikipedia.org]This guy was kidnapped for 7 months, and it was still considered breaking news at that point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526691</id>
	<title>So this is how Wikipedia dies</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1246368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With thunderous applause.</p><p>RIP Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With thunderous applause.RIP Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With thunderous applause.RIP Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522611</id>
	<title>Defective Rules of Engagement.</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1246283580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is the same stupidity which lead to 9/11.</p><p>PROTIP:  ***NEVER*** negotiate with terrorists.</p><p>A terrorist snatches one of ours, they are dead to us.  We publish their obituaries in the paper tomorrow, and then send in the Marines to recover the body.  It the terrorists are SMART, they'll hand the guy over as fast as they can, and take their chances in a Federal District Court; if they're DUMB, they're dead.</p><p>Instantly, hostages have ***ZERO*** value, and all this stupid discussion goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is the same stupidity which lead to 9/11.PROTIP : * * * NEVER * * * negotiate with terrorists.A terrorist snatches one of ours , they are dead to us .
We publish their obituaries in the paper tomorrow , and then send in the Marines to recover the body .
It the terrorists are SMART , they 'll hand the guy over as fast as they can , and take their chances in a Federal District Court ; if they 're DUMB , they 're dead.Instantly , hostages have * * * ZERO * * * value , and all this stupid discussion goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is the same stupidity which lead to 9/11.PROTIP:  ***NEVER*** negotiate with terrorists.A terrorist snatches one of ours, they are dead to us.
We publish their obituaries in the paper tomorrow, and then send in the Marines to recover the body.
It the terrorists are SMART, they'll hand the guy over as fast as they can, and take their chances in a Federal District Court; if they're DUMB, they're dead.Instantly, hostages have ***ZERO*** value, and all this stupid discussion goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522075</id>
	<title>Re:Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>rsw</author>
	<datestamp>1246280700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>begs the question</p></div><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging\_the\_question" title="wikipedia.org">I do not think that word means what you think it means.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>begs the question I do not think that word means what you think it means .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>begs the question
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523807</id>
	<title>Re:why</title>
	<author>nixish</author>
	<datestamp>1246292700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe the reason was to deter further kidnappings intended only to bolster the taliban's "popularity" or rather their show of power.
look at it this way: if the taliban have someone who is seen as valuable (even if at the start the person is not a prize but with media influence, the person could become a celebrity in a matter od days) then they have a) bargaining power b) a show of power which can be used to recruit more members (for the local people there).
That is how terrorists work and perhaps the higher ranked US government are working on exactly how to deal with these terrorists.

also, good to know that he escaped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the reason was to deter further kidnappings intended only to bolster the taliban 's " popularity " or rather their show of power .
look at it this way : if the taliban have someone who is seen as valuable ( even if at the start the person is not a prize but with media influence , the person could become a celebrity in a matter od days ) then they have a ) bargaining power b ) a show of power which can be used to recruit more members ( for the local people there ) .
That is how terrorists work and perhaps the higher ranked US government are working on exactly how to deal with these terrorists .
also , good to know that he escaped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the reason was to deter further kidnappings intended only to bolster the taliban's "popularity" or rather their show of power.
look at it this way: if the taliban have someone who is seen as valuable (even if at the start the person is not a prize but with media influence, the person could become a celebrity in a matter od days) then they have a) bargaining power b) a show of power which can be used to recruit more members (for the local people there).
That is how terrorists work and perhaps the higher ranked US government are working on exactly how to deal with these terrorists.
also, good to know that he escaped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524583</id>
	<title>Re:Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>dakohli</author>
	<datestamp>1246299960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NYT is not the only ones doing this:

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/533435" title="thestar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestar.com/article/533435</a> [thestar.com]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper was made aware of the kidnapping, which occurred two days before last month's election, almost immediately but honoured requests by the CBC, on the advice of security experts, that any attention or media coverage of such kidnappings escalates the incident, and often leads to dire results. "

Melissa Fung, a CBC reporter was held for awhile in Afghanistan, and they too decided to protect their reporter.  This is all fine and dandy, but lets get serious here, whenever someone is kidnapped and it make the news the bad guys have what they want:  PUBLICITY

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Report after the fact if you must, but lets think of the kidnapees!</htmltext>
<tokenext>NYT is not the only ones doing this : http : //www.thestar.com/article/533435 [ thestar.com ] " Prime Minister Stephen Harper was made aware of the kidnapping , which occurred two days before last month 's election , almost immediately but honoured requests by the CBC , on the advice of security experts , that any attention or media coverage of such kidnappings escalates the incident , and often leads to dire results .
" Melissa Fung , a CBC reporter was held for awhile in Afghanistan , and they too decided to protect their reporter .
This is all fine and dandy , but lets get serious here , whenever someone is kidnapped and it make the news the bad guys have what they want : PUBLICITY What 's good for the goose is good for the gander .
Report after the fact if you must , but lets think of the kidnapees !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYT is not the only ones doing this:

http://www.thestar.com/article/533435 [thestar.com]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper was made aware of the kidnapping, which occurred two days before last month's election, almost immediately but honoured requests by the CBC, on the advice of security experts, that any attention or media coverage of such kidnappings escalates the incident, and often leads to dire results.
"

Melissa Fung, a CBC reporter was held for awhile in Afghanistan, and they too decided to protect their reporter.
This is all fine and dandy, but lets get serious here, whenever someone is kidnapped and it make the news the bad guys have what they want:  PUBLICITY

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Report after the fact if you must, but lets think of the kidnapees!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522261</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246281720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>you.</b> </p><p><b>are.</b> </p><p><b>writing.</b> </p><p><b>not.</b> </p><p><b>speaking.</b> </p><p>Unless you are only targeting blind users with screen readers.</p><p>Signed, You're friendly Annoying-Habit-Pointer-Outer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you .
are. writing .
not. speaking .
Unless you are only targeting blind users with screen readers.Signed , You 're friendly Annoying-Habit-Pointer-Outer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you.
are. writing.
not. speaking.
Unless you are only targeting blind users with screen readers.Signed, You're friendly Annoying-Habit-Pointer-Outer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521613</id>
	<title>Re:why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what was the purpose of censoring the information?</p></div></blockquote><p>These days, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely unintentional.  Wikipedia has a very bad habit lately of marking just about anything for deletion, and for making it impossible to contribute without holding exactly the same view of reality as the core (read: constantly unemployed and constantly watching) team.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what was the purpose of censoring the information ? These days , I would n't be surprised if it was entirely unintentional .
Wikipedia has a very bad habit lately of marking just about anything for deletion , and for making it impossible to contribute without holding exactly the same view of reality as the core ( read : constantly unemployed and constantly watching ) team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what was the purpose of censoring the information?These days, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely unintentional.
Wikipedia has a very bad habit lately of marking just about anything for deletion, and for making it impossible to contribute without holding exactly the same view of reality as the core (read: constantly unemployed and constantly watching) team.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28525703</id>
	<title>Oh, well isn't THAT nice. . ?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1246356780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two articles, one in the NYT and the other in the Christian Science Monitor, both taking the slant that, of course, suppressing information is the right thing to do, and gee, look, here's a case where they were right to do so.</p><p>This sickening example of self-serving behavior smacks not just of opportunism but of <i>deliberation.</i>  --Remember all those episodes of various prime time shows including Alias, and 24 and even ****ing Star Trek (Enterprise) which laid out the compelling argument for the use of torture using the exact same narrative template?  No?  I'll recap in one paragraph. . .</p><p>There's a *ticking bomb of some sort* (oh no!) but We, (the Good Guys) have caught the Bad Man who knows *The Secret Code*.  But we would NEVER torture for the information; we're Good People, after all.  So instead we set up an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming mind-game sham act to trick the captive into thinking that he's escaped, forgotten he's escaped, and that the person who helped him escape should be told *The Secret Code*!  But alas, the captive sees through the whole act at the last moment and laughs his cruel Bad Guy laugh, enraging us.  And we, the Good Guys TRIED so hard!  --Can anybody blame us for bowing as the ALPHA MALE character of the show who stomps in and sets to work on the captive's finger nails with a pair of pliers, retrieving the information in under five minutes and *Saves The Day*?  Heck no!  We cheer!</p><p>The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor?  Come on!  One is the CIA's lap dog and the other is the product of a 2000 year-old hate-on for anybody in a turban.  This current bit of bullshit is a handy bit of spy craft.  Please allow me to present the following narrative. . .</p><p>A journalist is kidnapped.  Nothing new there; it happens all the time.  Except this just happened to be a kidnapping which fits nicely.  So just when this opportune kidnapping occurs, enter the CIA or Homeland Security or whoever is in charge of sculpting public perception through the media.  Back in the World War, it was an office called, "The Department of Propaganda" which did this kind of thing, boasting clandestine relationships with a whole stack of willing (and perhaps not-so-willing journalists) during the war.  --We'd be insane to believe anything has changed except for the worse.</p><p>The result?  We get this latest bit of horse manure designed to make people think that it's good and noble not JUST to pull out people's finger nails, but that we should applaud the choking off of reliable public sector information using this retarded, "Real Life and totally honest and un-massaged example" to show why Big Brother has its reasons for the news seeming 'wrong' somehow.  (Though you'll never know which parts or why.)  What's that?  It just can't be, you say?  --Two men's lives were at stake, after all.  They wouldn't risk the lives of two of their own just to perpetrate a mind game on the public.  They just wouldn't DO that!  --Well, if this emotionalism seems like a rational bit of thinking to you, then I'd suggest a quick review of the last hundred years to see just how much the corporate/government cares about the human lives in its care.</p><p>In short, I get a strong sense that This Is Crap.</p><p>Anybody who falls for this kind of scam and says, "Oh yes.  I see your reasonable argument, and because it happens to make sense, I will allow you to lie to me and I will submit to this willingly."  <b>News Flash: Socrates illustrated just how bullshit so-called "Logic" is; a good debater can prove that the sky is plaid.  Anybody who falls for this latest scam will probably also tell you that in some instances, it's okay to get out the waterboard.  Do not trust such people.</b>  --They're too stupid to think clearly and therefore too dangerous to trust.  How much would it take to convince them that YOU are a "Bad Guy" and that YOUR fingers should be the ones being snipped off?  Not very much, I'd wager.  Such people are only one week of manipulated news away from burning you and your family alive on your front lawn.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two articles , one in the NYT and the other in the Christian Science Monitor , both taking the slant that , of course , suppressing information is the right thing to do , and gee , look , here 's a case where they were right to do so.This sickening example of self-serving behavior smacks not just of opportunism but of deliberation .
--Remember all those episodes of various prime time shows including Alias , and 24 and even * * * * ing Star Trek ( Enterprise ) which laid out the compelling argument for the use of torture using the exact same narrative template ?
No ? I 'll recap in one paragraph .
. .There 's a * ticking bomb of some sort * ( oh no !
) but We , ( the Good Guys ) have caught the Bad Man who knows * The Secret Code * .
But we would NEVER torture for the information ; we 're Good People , after all .
So instead we set up an elaborate , expensive , time-consuming mind-game sham act to trick the captive into thinking that he 's escaped , forgotten he 's escaped , and that the person who helped him escape should be told * The Secret Code * !
But alas , the captive sees through the whole act at the last moment and laughs his cruel Bad Guy laugh , enraging us .
And we , the Good Guys TRIED so hard !
--Can anybody blame us for bowing as the ALPHA MALE character of the show who stomps in and sets to work on the captive 's finger nails with a pair of pliers , retrieving the information in under five minutes and * Saves The Day * ?
Heck no !
We cheer ! The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor ?
Come on !
One is the CIA 's lap dog and the other is the product of a 2000 year-old hate-on for anybody in a turban .
This current bit of bullshit is a handy bit of spy craft .
Please allow me to present the following narrative .
. .A journalist is kidnapped .
Nothing new there ; it happens all the time .
Except this just happened to be a kidnapping which fits nicely .
So just when this opportune kidnapping occurs , enter the CIA or Homeland Security or whoever is in charge of sculpting public perception through the media .
Back in the World War , it was an office called , " The Department of Propaganda " which did this kind of thing , boasting clandestine relationships with a whole stack of willing ( and perhaps not-so-willing journalists ) during the war .
--We 'd be insane to believe anything has changed except for the worse.The result ?
We get this latest bit of horse manure designed to make people think that it 's good and noble not JUST to pull out people 's finger nails , but that we should applaud the choking off of reliable public sector information using this retarded , " Real Life and totally honest and un-massaged example " to show why Big Brother has its reasons for the news seeming 'wrong ' somehow .
( Though you 'll never know which parts or why .
) What 's that ?
It just ca n't be , you say ?
--Two men 's lives were at stake , after all .
They would n't risk the lives of two of their own just to perpetrate a mind game on the public .
They just would n't DO that !
--Well , if this emotionalism seems like a rational bit of thinking to you , then I 'd suggest a quick review of the last hundred years to see just how much the corporate/government cares about the human lives in its care.In short , I get a strong sense that This Is Crap.Anybody who falls for this kind of scam and says , " Oh yes .
I see your reasonable argument , and because it happens to make sense , I will allow you to lie to me and I will submit to this willingly .
" News Flash : Socrates illustrated just how bullshit so-called " Logic " is ; a good debater can prove that the sky is plaid .
Anybody who falls for this latest scam will probably also tell you that in some instances , it 's okay to get out the waterboard .
Do not trust such people .
--They 're too stupid to think clearly and therefore too dangerous to trust .
How much would it take to convince them that YOU are a " Bad Guy " and that YOUR fingers should be the ones being snipped off ?
Not very much , I 'd wager .
Such people are only one week of manipulated news away from burning you and your family alive on your front lawn.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two articles, one in the NYT and the other in the Christian Science Monitor, both taking the slant that, of course, suppressing information is the right thing to do, and gee, look, here's a case where they were right to do so.This sickening example of self-serving behavior smacks not just of opportunism but of deliberation.
--Remember all those episodes of various prime time shows including Alias, and 24 and even ****ing Star Trek (Enterprise) which laid out the compelling argument for the use of torture using the exact same narrative template?
No?  I'll recap in one paragraph.
. .There's a *ticking bomb of some sort* (oh no!
) but We, (the Good Guys) have caught the Bad Man who knows *The Secret Code*.
But we would NEVER torture for the information; we're Good People, after all.
So instead we set up an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming mind-game sham act to trick the captive into thinking that he's escaped, forgotten he's escaped, and that the person who helped him escape should be told *The Secret Code*!
But alas, the captive sees through the whole act at the last moment and laughs his cruel Bad Guy laugh, enraging us.
And we, the Good Guys TRIED so hard!
--Can anybody blame us for bowing as the ALPHA MALE character of the show who stomps in and sets to work on the captive's finger nails with a pair of pliers, retrieving the information in under five minutes and *Saves The Day*?
Heck no!
We cheer!The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor?
Come on!
One is the CIA's lap dog and the other is the product of a 2000 year-old hate-on for anybody in a turban.
This current bit of bullshit is a handy bit of spy craft.
Please allow me to present the following narrative.
. .A journalist is kidnapped.
Nothing new there; it happens all the time.
Except this just happened to be a kidnapping which fits nicely.
So just when this opportune kidnapping occurs, enter the CIA or Homeland Security or whoever is in charge of sculpting public perception through the media.
Back in the World War, it was an office called, "The Department of Propaganda" which did this kind of thing, boasting clandestine relationships with a whole stack of willing (and perhaps not-so-willing journalists) during the war.
--We'd be insane to believe anything has changed except for the worse.The result?
We get this latest bit of horse manure designed to make people think that it's good and noble not JUST to pull out people's finger nails, but that we should applaud the choking off of reliable public sector information using this retarded, "Real Life and totally honest and un-massaged example" to show why Big Brother has its reasons for the news seeming 'wrong' somehow.
(Though you'll never know which parts or why.
)  What's that?
It just can't be, you say?
--Two men's lives were at stake, after all.
They wouldn't risk the lives of two of their own just to perpetrate a mind game on the public.
They just wouldn't DO that!
--Well, if this emotionalism seems like a rational bit of thinking to you, then I'd suggest a quick review of the last hundred years to see just how much the corporate/government cares about the human lives in its care.In short, I get a strong sense that This Is Crap.Anybody who falls for this kind of scam and says, "Oh yes.
I see your reasonable argument, and because it happens to make sense, I will allow you to lie to me and I will submit to this willingly.
"  News Flash: Socrates illustrated just how bullshit so-called "Logic" is; a good debater can prove that the sky is plaid.
Anybody who falls for this latest scam will probably also tell you that in some instances, it's okay to get out the waterboard.
Do not trust such people.
--They're too stupid to think clearly and therefore too dangerous to trust.
How much would it take to convince them that YOU are a "Bad Guy" and that YOUR fingers should be the ones being snipped off?
Not very much, I'd wager.
Such people are only one week of manipulated news away from burning you and your family alive on your front lawn.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522275</id>
	<title>Next time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246281720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope the next time the NY Times reports on an overseas kidnapping of an engineer, doctor, technician, soldier or other professional and that person(s) are killed, that the NY Times is held responsible.</p><p>By this action, they are stating they know their reporting can kill or save an overseas kidnapped victim and are selectively doing so.  I hope there is a prosecutor reading this news that is comprehending the double standard here and is looking to make a name for him or herself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the next time the NY Times reports on an overseas kidnapping of an engineer , doctor , technician , soldier or other professional and that person ( s ) are killed , that the NY Times is held responsible.By this action , they are stating they know their reporting can kill or save an overseas kidnapped victim and are selectively doing so .
I hope there is a prosecutor reading this news that is comprehending the double standard here and is looking to make a name for him or herself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the next time the NY Times reports on an overseas kidnapping of an engineer, doctor, technician, soldier or other professional and that person(s) are killed, that the NY Times is held responsible.By this action, they are stating they know their reporting can kill or save an overseas kidnapped victim and are selectively doing so.
I hope there is a prosecutor reading this news that is comprehending the double standard here and is looking to make a name for him or herself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522041</id>
	<title>Re:This was not censorship.</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1246280400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Oxford American Dictionary has four definitions for "censor" and another for censorship.  This event isn't an example of the one definition you chose.</p><p>What's your point again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Oxford American Dictionary has four definitions for " censor " and another for censorship .
This event is n't an example of the one definition you chose.What 's your point again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Oxford American Dictionary has four definitions for "censor" and another for censorship.
This event isn't an example of the one definition you chose.What's your point again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28532137</id>
	<title>Human Life vs. Free Speech</title>
	<author>sozomai</author>
	<datestamp>1246388820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If human life must always prevail over free speech, then the many who have died to protect it have done so in vain. I'm not usually utilitarian, but I concede that some must be lost for the protection of a principle which serves to shield mankind from tyranny and oppression.

I wonder what the opinion is of the man in question; would he willingly give his life for the principle? If not, then I admit I am conflicted, for it is a separate thing entirely to demand another to die for principles not his own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If human life must always prevail over free speech , then the many who have died to protect it have done so in vain .
I 'm not usually utilitarian , but I concede that some must be lost for the protection of a principle which serves to shield mankind from tyranny and oppression .
I wonder what the opinion is of the man in question ; would he willingly give his life for the principle ?
If not , then I admit I am conflicted , for it is a separate thing entirely to demand another to die for principles not his own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If human life must always prevail over free speech, then the many who have died to protect it have done so in vain.
I'm not usually utilitarian, but I concede that some must be lost for the protection of a principle which serves to shield mankind from tyranny and oppression.
I wonder what the opinion is of the man in question; would he willingly give his life for the principle?
If not, then I admit I am conflicted, for it is a separate thing entirely to demand another to die for principles not his own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28547557</id>
	<title>Something I don't get</title>
	<author>bitspotter</author>
	<datestamp>1246479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose I can understand if it's censorship if Wales, et al., were interfering with consensual, non-duressed communication of wikipedians posting about the kidnapping and the wiki audience. But how is it censorship if the details of the kidnapping remain in publicly-accessible revision history?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose I can understand if it 's censorship if Wales , et al. , were interfering with consensual , non-duressed communication of wikipedians posting about the kidnapping and the wiki audience .
But how is it censorship if the details of the kidnapping remain in publicly-accessible revision history ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose I can understand if it's censorship if Wales, et al., were interfering with consensual, non-duressed communication of wikipedians posting about the kidnapping and the wiki audience.
But how is it censorship if the details of the kidnapping remain in publicly-accessible revision history?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521971</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Jimmy Wales</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1246280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761</id>
	<title>Just thought I'd ask.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not trying to troll but this behavior begs the question;  Why is it OK to self censor and ask others to censor to protect a reporter, but it's not OK to do the same when coalition soldiers are involved?

-cluge</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to troll but this behavior begs the question ; Why is it OK to self censor and ask others to censor to protect a reporter , but it 's not OK to do the same when coalition soldiers are involved ?
-cluge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to troll but this behavior begs the question;  Why is it OK to self censor and ask others to censor to protect a reporter, but it's not OK to do the same when coalition soldiers are involved?
-cluge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526179</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True! However, there's also <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/WP\%3ACENSORED" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">WP:CENSORED</a> [wikimedia.org]. Granted, that page (part) mostly refers to sexual material, but the general principle is clear: Wikipedia Isn't Censored.</p><p>In other words, removing information because it's not properly sourced is fine. Removing information because you want to suppress it is, generally speaking, not fine. It's unclear to me whether the ends justify the means in this particular case, but at the very least, I see a rather slippery slope here, and I'm concerned about principles such as the lack of censorship being outright ignored so easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True !
However , there 's also WP : CENSORED [ wikimedia.org ] .
Granted , that page ( part ) mostly refers to sexual material , but the general principle is clear : Wikipedia Is n't Censored.In other words , removing information because it 's not properly sourced is fine .
Removing information because you want to suppress it is , generally speaking , not fine .
It 's unclear to me whether the ends justify the means in this particular case , but at the very least , I see a rather slippery slope here , and I 'm concerned about principles such as the lack of censorship being outright ignored so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True!
However, there's also WP:CENSORED [wikimedia.org].
Granted, that page (part) mostly refers to sexual material, but the general principle is clear: Wikipedia Isn't Censored.In other words, removing information because it's not properly sourced is fine.
Removing information because you want to suppress it is, generally speaking, not fine.
It's unclear to me whether the ends justify the means in this particular case, but at the very least, I see a rather slippery slope here, and I'm concerned about principles such as the lack of censorship being outright ignored so easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522667</id>
	<title>Re:newspapers capable and willing to censor</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1246283880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?</i> <p>
No, what you should be asking yourself first, is WHO gets to make the decision that some piece of information will cause more harm than good, and only THEN should we care if it is ethical to actually withhold that information. I don't believe that you can answer YOUR question without first answering the "who" part of mine.</p><p>
Should the newspaper be allowed to make that decision?</p><p>
Should a government employee be allowed to make the decision?</p><p>
If the newspaper decides it will cause more harm than good, is it ethical for someone ELSE to decide differently?</p><p>
If a government employee decides it will cause harm, is it ethical for a newspaper to decide differently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you should be asking yourself is : is it ethical to withhold information to the public , when the release of said information will cause more harm than good ?
No , what you should be asking yourself first , is WHO gets to make the decision that some piece of information will cause more harm than good , and only THEN should we care if it is ethical to actually withhold that information .
I do n't believe that you can answer YOUR question without first answering the " who " part of mine .
Should the newspaper be allowed to make that decision ?
Should a government employee be allowed to make the decision ?
If the newspaper decides it will cause more harm than good , is it ethical for someone ELSE to decide differently ?
If a government employee decides it will cause harm , is it ethical for a newspaper to decide differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you should be asking yourself is: is it ethical to withhold information to the public, when the release of said information will cause more harm than good?
No, what you should be asking yourself first, is WHO gets to make the decision that some piece of information will cause more harm than good, and only THEN should we care if it is ethical to actually withhold that information.
I don't believe that you can answer YOUR question without first answering the "who" part of mine.
Should the newspaper be allowed to make that decision?
Should a government employee be allowed to make the decision?
If the newspaper decides it will cause more harm than good, is it ethical for someone ELSE to decide differently?
If a government employee decides it will cause harm, is it ethical for a newspaper to decide differently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28528091</id>
	<title>Angry 14 year old kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just funny to see the history logs:<br><i>11 February 2009 97.106.52.36 (talk) (4,616 bytes) (We can do this months. I don't give a shit that this is on your watchlist.</i></p><p><i>13:56, 11 February 2009 PrisonBreakguy (talk | contribs) (4,616 bytes) (NOT gonna work boy genius. Should have stuck to indefinite.) </i></p><p><i>16:25, 20 June 2009 97.106.45.230 (talk) (4,779 bytes) (Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right. You were WRONG.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</i></p><p>Also funny that PrisonBreakGuy is now blocked!</p><p>Hahaha... ppl take their wikipedia edits so damn seriously!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just funny to see the history logs : 11 February 2009 97.106.52.36 ( talk ) ( 4,616 bytes ) ( We can do this months .
I do n't give a shit that this is on your watchlist.13 : 56 , 11 February 2009 PrisonBreakguy ( talk | contribs ) ( 4,616 bytes ) ( NOT gon na work boy genius .
Should have stuck to indefinite .
) 16 : 25 , 20 June 2009 97.106.45.230 ( talk ) ( 4,779 bytes ) ( Is this enough proof you fucking retards ?
I was right .
You were WRONG .
: P ) Also funny that PrisonBreakGuy is now blocked ! Hahaha... ppl take their wikipedia edits so damn seriously !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just funny to see the history logs:11 February 2009 97.106.52.36 (talk) (4,616 bytes) (We can do this months.
I don't give a shit that this is on your watchlist.13:56, 11 February 2009 PrisonBreakguy (talk | contribs) (4,616 bytes) (NOT gonna work boy genius.
Should have stuck to indefinite.
) 16:25, 20 June 2009 97.106.45.230 (talk) (4,779 bytes) (Is this enough proof you fucking retards?
I was right.
You were WRONG.
:P)Also funny that PrisonBreakGuy is now blocked!Hahaha... ppl take their wikipedia edits so damn seriously!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523061</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem with this</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1246286640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're aware that the post you replied to contains a definition of breaking news, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're aware that the post you replied to contains a definition of breaking news , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're aware that the post you replied to contains a definition of breaking news, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522633</id>
	<title>Funny how the press keeps their hostages secret</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1246283700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't hesitate to spill everyone else's beans because "people have the right to know", but when one of their own is in danger, they resort to censorship. (And I do not mean "discretion" or "self-censorship", but rather the censorship of others.)</p><p>They have not hesitated to endanger people's lives by saying they're US military, etc. They have not hesitated to give the throat-slitters a platform to encourage them to slaughter innocents. Perhaps if we could send a few NYT editors to get kidnapped, they might not be so eager to demand that we have a right to know things that get people killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't hesitate to spill everyone else 's beans because " people have the right to know " , but when one of their own is in danger , they resort to censorship .
( And I do not mean " discretion " or " self-censorship " , but rather the censorship of others .
) They have not hesitated to endanger people 's lives by saying they 're US military , etc .
They have not hesitated to give the throat-slitters a platform to encourage them to slaughter innocents .
Perhaps if we could send a few NYT editors to get kidnapped , they might not be so eager to demand that we have a right to know things that get people killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't hesitate to spill everyone else's beans because "people have the right to know", but when one of their own is in danger, they resort to censorship.
(And I do not mean "discretion" or "self-censorship", but rather the censorship of others.
)They have not hesitated to endanger people's lives by saying they're US military, etc.
They have not hesitated to give the throat-slitters a platform to encourage them to slaughter innocents.
Perhaps if we could send a few NYT editors to get kidnapped, they might not be so eager to demand that we have a right to know things that get people killed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28528149</id>
	<title>Would this apply to Guantanamo captives too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would Jimmy Wales censor Wikipedia in order for a Guantanamo captive to escape?</p><p>I didn't think so. And these guys are essentially kidnapped and held illegally, just like David Rohde was.</p><p>So Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but only a handful of Americans (or, rather, a single American) get to make moral choices, and it's clear which way these choices will go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would Jimmy Wales censor Wikipedia in order for a Guantanamo captive to escape ? I did n't think so .
And these guys are essentially kidnapped and held illegally , just like David Rohde was.So Wikipedia is a " free encyclopedia that anyone can edit " , but only a handful of Americans ( or , rather , a single American ) get to make moral choices , and it 's clear which way these choices will go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would Jimmy Wales censor Wikipedia in order for a Guantanamo captive to escape?I didn't think so.
And these guys are essentially kidnapped and held illegally, just like David Rohde was.So Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but only a handful of Americans (or, rather, a single American) get to make moral choices, and it's clear which way these choices will go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28527991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28525283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28529045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2120257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28529973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28525283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28529045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28526203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28527991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28532137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28523365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28524361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28522075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2120257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2120257.28521945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
