Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That being said, I don't think the first case regarding blocking information about a kidnapping is an example of abuse of power, rather an example of responsible journalists acticng to delay, not block, the release of information in order to protect a life. If anything, the only disturbing part of this is that newspapers etc. decided to go through Wales rather then one of the sysops, beaurocrats or anyone else in the chain of command, suggesting that perhaps Wales is overly entrenched in the project. That being said, the Wikimedia foundation is set up as a fairly democratic group, so the checks seem in place for the group to actually succeed at making decisions as a semi-representative democracy. If you have serious problems with this decision, you have several options: Run for a wikimedia board position, protest by not using wikipedia (or more to the point, not donating to the wikimedia foundation), set up your own site and put this news out into the public domain if you really think it needs to be there etc. Personally, I chose the second option - not because of this issue but because I think that Wales has too much influence and my charitable contributions could be better used elsewhere. Once Wales leaves (in 2010, I think) I might consider giving again. So I agree with the OP, sometimes there are very good reasons to lie; even or especially by ommision, and this was probably one of those times. What must be checked is who or what group has the power to make those decisions, and in this case, I think the power rests too heavily with Jimmy Wales.
This line of thought also raises the interesting possibility of using arbitrary terms of services to shield ones self from compulsory searches, such as drug screenings at work. You're asked to pee in a cup and reply "I'm sorry, but I just signed up for website X, and it forbids me from taking a drug screening when no probable use of illicit substances is shown. Violating the terms of service would be illegal."
"Sorry you're fired."
"oh really? You're firing me for refusing to break the law? I'm pretty sure that is grounds for a lawsuit, so the question is, do you want to pay my salary in exchange for me doing work for you, or after an expensive lawsuit?"
(Note, you wouldn't be able to agree to the terms of service if an existing employee agreement already requires you to submit to random drug tests, so don't be stupid. Also, again, IANAL, so don't blame me if you get fired/don't get a job.)