Talk:Report: hacker activist Aaron Swartz commits suicide

OR-ish notes

• "When he was 14, he worked on the RSS 1.0 specification, a standard for syndicating news articles in XML." → This is listed in The Tech story. The fact that it used XML can be confirmed by looking at the spec, specifically §4: "The RSS 1.0 design goal is an XML-based lightweight multipurpose extensible metadata description and syndication format."
• "a progressive activist group dealing with civil liberties issues." → see the Mission page on demandprogress.org: "Demand Progress works to win progressive policy changes for ordinary people through organizing, and grassroots lobbying."

I don't think this quite counts as Original Reporting, more basic Googling. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1768928 [Passed]

Revision 1768928 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We must report what we actually have multiple sources for: that The Tech reported he committed suicide. We do not have multiple sources to present the suicide as fact. We could have emailed an enquiry ourselves in order to have multiple sources for the suicide. The Tech did, by its own account, get two sources before running the story, due diligence. The point here is, in theory somebody at The Tech could be perpetrating a hoax (or screwing up in some utterly bizarre way), and by failing to get a second independent source we would be passing it on unverified. Do I think that remotely likely? Hell no, or I'd not-ready the article. But I do not know. Most notable edit during review: somehow "uncle" got transformed to "father". The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1768928 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We must report what we actually have multiple sources for: that The Tech reported he committed suicide. We do not have multiple sources to present the suicide as fact. We could have emailed an enquiry ourselves in order to have multiple sources for the suicide. The Tech did, by its own account, get two sources before running the story, due diligence. The point here is, in theory somebody at The Tech could be perpetrating a hoax (or screwing up in some utterly bizarre way), and by failing to get a second independent source we would be passing it on unverified. Do I think that remotely likely? Hell no, or I'd not-ready the article. But I do not know. Most notable edit during review: somehow "uncle" got transformed to "father". The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Interviews / WBC / Anonymous

Just pointing out we have a whole bunch of wikimedians in Boston and New York who either knew Aaron Swartz, or who can interview people who do! :-)

In other news, WBC may be at swartz funeral tomorrow/today? Anonymous is planning to deploy a counter-protest: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/anonymous_will_defend_swartzs_funeral_from_westboro_baptists/ -- Kim Bruning (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)