All the News that's Fit to Censor

… Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

This isn't just some idealistic vision. As the three self-proclaimed journalists of the Wikimedia Foundation—Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin, and Erik Möller—could probably tell you, this is the opening statement of the Preamble to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The Code is a bold statement which insists that journalists

• Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Give voice to the voiceless …
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. …
• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

I would venture to say that the citizen journalists of Wikinews have attempted to maintain these values, even if the "professional" journalists at the Wikimedia Foundation make it difficult to do so. Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation has pulled two Wikinews articles: one concerning the Bauer Agency law suit against the Foundation, and the other concerning allegation of pornography in Wikipedia, which also referenced the Erik Möller story. According to Mike Godwin: "What probably needs to happen is some kind of process in which initial versions of news stories are vetted before they're made publicly available for further editing." Sue Gardner is perhaps the highest ranking journalist of the troika: as the head of the CBC website, she had arts/media and sports journalists reporting to her. She chimes in with a comment about how she is "really interested also in helping Wikinews construct some guidelines or policies around covering the Foundation."

The disturbing thing about this is that Godwin is partially correct. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should vet stories before they are made publicly available for future editing. I cannot comment on the legal ramifications, since at first glance it would seem that such vetting would transform the WMF into a publisher. On the other hand, why stop at Wikinews? It should also be true of Wikipedia, which publishes some very personal "articles" about people who happen to make the news for some scandal or other. Rachel Marsden, for instance, has been adamant that the Wikipedia article about her is an unfair portrayal of her career and recent events, yet no one is discussing a vetting process about it.

People would likely condemn me for suggesting that the Foundation is only interested in protecting its own reputation and not the reputation of others. Of course, they would then have to explain why Sue is concerned about "guidelines or policies around covering the Foundation" but no one else.

Of course this falls in the face of the last section of the Code of Ethics—Be Accountable. I quote:

Journalists should:

• Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
• Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

As a member of the public, I am now voicing my grievances. I hope that the WMF will now admit mistakes and correct them promptly, and abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.