The silence on David Rohde’s kidnapping has made a considerable amount of noise on the internet this week. The New York Times asked Wikipedia to keep news of Rohde’s kidnapping off the site. After printing an article explaining why, the rest of the blogosphere chimed in.

Stan Schroder, from Mashable, weighed in with his thoughts, including pointing out this is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. He also raises an important question, “who judges what news is dangerous and what’s OK to publish?”

Mathew Ingram posted his view that it was wrong of the NYT to conceal the kidnapping. Judging by the comments, this hasn’t made Ingram popular, but he raises important questions.

Does transparency trump lifesaving privacy? What is the role of the editor in crowdsourced journalism? How does a community manager know where that line is in social media? We often talk in the office about whether citizen reporting makes people more accountable, or just always “on,” but what’s the other side of it? Is transparency as harmful in some situations as it is it beneficial in others?

We’re actively exploring answers on these, and other questions, but for now, we’ll take a moment to appreciate Rohde’s driver, Asadullah Mangal, who did not escape, something everyone else seems to be less interested in discussing.