The New York Times and
Wikipedia have been in cohoots for 7 months all to save the life of NYT Journalist David Rohde.
Rohde was kidnapped by the Taliban, and to make him seem less "worthy" the NYT convinced several (over 35) major news outlets to sit on the story while they were trying to negotiate a release.
Wikipedia was the hard part. An anonymous
asshole in Florida decided he would update the kidnapping several times, even after Wikipedia admins were deleting it. And everytime he would send bitchy messages and retorts demanding his information to be valid and stay up.
The problem was this user was anonymous and there was no way for the Wiki's to say "back off douche." They were after all trying to save a man's life.
So for months the Wiki editors played a cat and mouse game with this person, locking the page for days to weeks at a time, but everytime it was unlocked he would be back.
Luckily they were able to keep playing the same game with him, until Rohde was able to escape.
Rohde apparently tuckered out the guards by playing numerous games of "checkers" and while they were tired/distracted he and another journalist were able to make a break for it.
There's a fairly big ethics uproar going on right now for these nerds with no lives over at Wikipedia, one person even
demanded that one man's life does not justify censorship.
I would like to see how this person felt if their wife or husband was kidnapped and some jack ass felt posting on wikipedia was more important than saving a loved on. Absolutely ridiculous.
Either way, Rohde escaped his Taliban confinement and made it home safely, most likely to the credit of Wikipedia and the New York Times for actually using their freedom of the press and freedom of speech, by NOT saying anything.
There is definitely freedom in America, but one must choose when is appropriate, because it could save someone's life.
I absolutely applaud both the New York Times and
Jimmy Wales. Bravo. Welcome home David.