The line between “removing poorly sourced speculation” and censorship is a dangerous one to walk. Especially for a social encyclopedia. Isn’t is usual for articles that do not have adequate source infrmation to survive, at least for some period of time, for the collective to augment them?

Additionaly, since you were in talks with the NY Times, you knew the information was not speculation but indeed accurate. So, indeed, you did stifle what you knew was good information. You used the lack of sources as a technicality for keeping information you knew to be correct, off the site. IMO, this is not a question of “Was it censorship?” I think it clearly was. The questions are “Was it justified?” and “What impact should this have on how we, as the larger community, view Wikipedia as a source of information?”

As I pointed out in the original post, maybe this is the line between Wikipedia as an encyclopedia v. as a source of late breaking events. An encyclopedia generally has a more stringent requiremnt for supporting references whereas news does not. We all know that reporters rarely divulge their sources.

You can grumble about a particular person’s article being closely watched for unreliably cited additions, but anyone can win a wikistalker.

In any case, I have other issues with Wikipedian’s love of ‘recentism’. It is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a news site.

For example, I recall working on an entry where other editors considered web site links to companies in the field to be valid, while excerpts from books and links to the reference material were considered spam from publishing companies. It seems to me that a published manuscript reference offers more value to Wikipedia readers than obvious attempts by a company to build link popularity using Wikipedia. Not so with this editing crew.

That said, I still find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, especially in pop culture references. The system seems to work when there are obviously passionate fans contributing and policing the facts around their idols.

1. “Will Wikipedia set up a new process now for “sanitizing” information and how would one go about requesting “sanitization?” Clearly the normal editing process was not sufficient or the “sanitizing” team wouldn’t have been needed and the story would never have been told.”

You are mistaken. This was handled through the normal editing process. There was no special team formed, and no unusual actions taken. Wikipedia has had for a long time safeguards to deal with issues relating to biographies of living persons and the need for reliable sources. This is a case of those processes working very well, not a case of them being altered in any special way.

2. “What is the line between editing and censorship?”

Censorship is the use of force in the suppression of information. Editorial judgment, right or wrong, is done voluntarily. In this case there was no use of force or threatened use of force: there was good judgment on the part of volunteers.

The major safeguard here is that the people involved are volunteers. They think and act independently. It would be impossible to pull this off if the facts did not justify it.

3. ““Sanitizing” content implies that the content was dirty (pornography, bad language, etc.) but this wasn’t the case here. This was a decision to actively stifle legitimate information that others may have corroborated had it not been deleted. Building on one another’s contributions until the content is more complete is a fundamental premise of the social computing movement. Did Wikipedia break a fundamental tenet?”

The word ’sanitizing’ was entirely that of the New York Times reporter who wrote about it. This was not a decision to “actively stifle legitimate information” – it was a decision to remove poorly sourced speculation, as is done routinely at Wikipedia, and for good reason.

This was a story specific to an individual – someone who was neither a high profile public figure nor someone of influence or power. So what harm was done to the public by withholding this information? None. On the other hand, was there a credible argument that by making this person’s plight public his life would be endangered. I think it’s safe to draw that conclusion.

So, what’s the fuss? Ask yourself, if you were in Mr. Rohde’s shoes how would you have liked the matter dealt with?

There’s a corollary issue here – one I think you need to add to your list. To what extent can an individual expect that they are in control over publication of information pertaining to their private life.

In this situation though, I’m marking this as a victory for common sense.