What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
41 Comments
- geoken, on 06/29/2009, -5/+34Can someone clarify why maintaining the secret was vital to his safety?
- megaton, on 06/30/2009, -2/+24@yazheirx: Uhm, no. It's the public threat (and potential murder) that complicate captivity. They don't kidnap people for the heck of it--it's to deliver a message. If you prevent that message from being delivered (i.e. don't tell anybody that the guy was captive or missing), then they have no platform, and therefore much less reason to kill him immediately.
It is by no means a guarantee, but it typically buys time in these kinds of low turn-around scenarios. (In other words, it's not exactly easy to just keep kidnapping people en masse until someone reports it.) His being alive (and with the threat of murder) is more valuable to him than just offing him and disposing of the body.
It doesn't last forever, though. At some point someone says, "***** it, get rid of him," and that's that. With hope, the hostage is able to escape or be rescued before that point. - stubear, on 06/29/2009, -1/+21From the NYT article (sorry, I actually RTFA. Can I still keep my digg account?):
"Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohde’s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival."
and
“I knew from my jihad reporting that the captors would be very quick to get online and assess who he was and what he’d done, what his value to them might be,” he said. “I’d never edited a Wikipedia page before.”
You can read the rest on your own:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/inter ... - kcp12304, on 06/30/2009, -0/+15Actually, their reason was to prevent David Rohde's captors from turning him into a bigger bargaining chip if they found out that he was a somewhat famous journalist. He also worked for the Christian Science monitor so they removed the word 'Christian' so the Taliban wouldn't think he was some sort of crusader.
- yazheirx, on 06/29/2009, -14/+22If the information was released that he escaped between the time he escaped and was placed in a safe location it might inform people that may think they could profit by returning him to his captors.
- gdo01, on 06/30/2009, -0/+7"Wikipedia does not seem to be recognizing or respecting these situation where secrets are better kept than not."
This would imply that Wikipedia has done something like this many times before. Could you give examples of this already happening? - xtc46, on 06/30/2009, -0/+6to many, the ability to share information with the public, and the right to know that information is worth more than any individual.
Me? Id rather not know that a guy has been kidknapped if it means there is a better chance of him living. - Jaq524, on 06/30/2009, -0/+6"Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohde’s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival."
and
"Mr. Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan on Nov. 10, along with his interpreter and their driver. Two days after the kidnapping, a Wikipedia user altered the entry on Mr. Rohde to emphasize his work that could be seen as sympathetic to Muslims, like his reporting on Guantánamo, and his coverage of the Srebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims. Mr. Rohde won a Pulitzer Prize for his Bosnia coverage in 1996, when he worked for The Christian Science Monitor."
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/inter ... - shrudheuie, on 06/30/2009, -1/+7"But in the modern era of information, how did the New York Times do it? "
It's simple. They did everything the opposite of how they would handle the story if it was anyone except one of their own. If it was anyone else, the "public's right to know" AKA, their need to sell papers, would prevail. - JoaoPe, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5If any Wikipedia editor is able to write about it well... that's because it wasn't a military secret long time ago. What's your point? What can I read on Wikipedia to be able to build a nuclear device that I can't read on any printed encyclopedia? Any examples of secrets revealed on Wikipedia?
- tunafizzle, on 06/29/2009, -2/+7why?
- Psygnosis, on 06/30/2009, -1/+5The talk page for his Wikipedia article is depressing, there are people putting more value into the integrity[citation needed] of a web page then a mans life.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4The idea of a social media guide is stupid and these comments are stupid. I feel dumber for having viewed this.
- HavocXphere, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Lives at stake = f*ck the rules. If it sinks the entire wiki project then so be it.
It's just a (epic) website.
This "I'll gladly sacrifice X strangers" attitude is BS. - Pantheran, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3If something reaches a wikipedia edit page, it is no longer a secret.
- theymos, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3You don't need a direct line to Jimmy Wales to request oversight. In fact, it probably took longer to get him to remove it. All anyone has to do to get secret information permanently removed from Wikipedia is email the oversight mailing list.
- Black6x, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2I really wonder what the Wiki admins and community think of this. I can only hope that in the interest of keeping someone alive, no one would have fought to publish the info.
- HartlizBazTurd, on 06/30/2009, -3/+5Easy...simply hide in the burrows that is Eddie Murphy's acting career.
- blackbeltin, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1interesting article
- taibo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1If you would like to sacrifice your life to ensure the 'credibility of Wikipedia', go right ahead.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1
- IsraGeek, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1It's an amazing story. Great effort by The New York Times, other news agencies and Wikipedia to help save Rohde.
- Jaq524, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2I don't think sending an email to a semi-anonymous mailing list is the best way to keep something secret...
- theymos, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2The oversight list is only viewable by people with oversight capabilities, of which there are not many.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1*****, they kept it secret for 3 months before he escaped.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1The more famous you are the more valuable you are as a hostage.
Meaning: You will never be released, but instead will be maintained as a commodity to be further exploited.
If you, yourself ever get kidnapped, tell your mammy to just shut her yapper and keep you out of the headlines.
Capisce? - taibo, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1A classic problem of democracy: sometimes the truth, what people want, and whats best for the people are not the same.
/not a commie - Jaime2000, on 06/30/2009, -3/+3You don't. It's better that way.
- insanebrain, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1It's almost the same as crowd surfing :)
- JHW539, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2But if it isn't a newsman, well then it's headline news and to hell with their safety!
- magamiako, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2To be honest, this man's life or not, it seriously damages the credibility of Wikipedia to bend over to the powerful news media to make this happen. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you asked even the man himself, if he had any semblance of decency to his job and to the integrity of information, that he would support the people in saying that what both Times and Wikipedia did was wrong and hugely damaging.
But it's going to be hard to criticize the people that may have possibly saved your life....but he probably has at the very least sighed in disbelief. I'm sure he wouldn't want his own reports to be edited for the very same reasons. - HerrWolf, on 06/29/2009, -4/+3because
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -2/+0hypocrisy
- orangefly, on 06/30/2009, -4/+1it's
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -4/+1Jimmy Wales is a Bilderberg screw and a sellout.
- himanshuchanda, on 06/29/2009, -9/+3In case if you still dont know whats CrowdSourcing
http://bit.ly/C3MsY - maeon3, on 06/29/2009, -9/+3Secrets are important for many things, like military objectives and operations as well as detailed instructions on how to build a nuclear warhead that can turn small countries to glass in minutes.
Wikipedia does not seem to be recognizing or respecting these situations where secrets are better kept than not.
Ignoring the secrecy issue doesn't make the problem go away. - Retrodigg123, on 06/29/2009, -11/+4This is what I read : "The Troubles with Crowdsurfing: How do You Keep Up?"
And they say im not dyslexic :D - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -10/+1nice
- tunafizzle, on 06/29/2009, -17/+7Seriously though can someone clarify why maintaining the secret was vital to his safety?
- effer, on 06/29/2009, -19/+8BILLY MAYS HERE! DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH CROWDSOURCING AND KEEPING A SECRET? SAY GOODBYE TO WIKI LEAKS AND WHISTLE BLOWERS WITH KABOOM!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is