{ "schema_version": "uw.editorial_geo.v1", "representation_profile": "lossless_source_sections", "local_stage_only": true, "catalog_id": "WAR-167", "article_index": "WAR-167", "language": "en", "headline": "Journalists, Interpreters, and Documenters Working with Accounts of Violence", "description": "Journalists, Interpreters, and Documenters Working with Accounts of Violence", "short_answer": "The same account of wartime violence may be heard by a journalist, an interpreter, a human rights worker, or someone preserving a family archive. Their attention concerns an event, but their tasks differ. Reporting, interpreting, documenting, and offering personal support have different consequences for the person speaking. When these roles become unclear, agreement to a short conversation can quietly become agreement to recording, identification, or use in another process.\n\nThis article is for adults working with accounts of the consequences of any war. It considers accuracy, consent, professional boundaries, and the conditions for working with distressing material. A fictional meeting between a reporter, an interpreter, and someone willing to share only part of his story follows the work from invitation to publication and correction. There are no graphic descriptions, home tests of memory, or legal investigation procedures. It is possible to take an account seriously, retain questions about facts, and avoid making personal disclosure the price of respect. Professional care includes stopping an inappropriate step and stating what has actually been established.", "short_answer_source": { "kind": "explicit_about_h2", "role": "lead", "start_utf16": 445, "end_utf16": 1624, "sha256_utf8": "42f92b00a949128c1cea07d08de4606121e9fe27f6c31a0292cc4f292751f3b2" }, "headline_source": { "role": "h1_heading", "start_utf16": 2, "end_utf16": 78, "sha256_utf8": "2ecedf20a25fa450cc8f3d1154db29bc8a320ea3de05dd77524a1537fdc25353" }, "entities": [], "questions": [ { "q": "Epigraph", "a": "> “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”\n\nJohn Stuart Mill, *On Liberty*, chapter II, printed page 32. This concerns public discussion of opinions. It does not oblige a private person to disclose what happened to them. [Primary text](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm).", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 83, "end_utf16": 91, "sha256_utf8": "506164fa91d3fcc7e667c9b8789d7d1c30ae76c81c248df15c5c18c1cddf9826" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 93, "end_utf16": 412, "sha256_utf8": "e7a2f8cf6ba30f34bf163b65ca8a712f5c3b7ea767aca9a5caa5694bf45401cb" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0003", "p0004" ], "source_segment_index": 1 }, { "q": "What this article is about", "a": "The same account of wartime violence may be heard by a journalist, an interpreter, a human rights worker, or someone preserving a family archive. Their attention concerns an event, but their tasks differ. Reporting, interpreting, documenting, and offering personal support have different consequences for the person speaking. When these roles become unclear, agreement to a short conversation can quietly become agreement to recording, identification, or use in another process.\n\nThis article is for adults working with accounts of the consequences of any war. It considers accuracy, consent, professional boundaries, and the conditions for working with distressing material. A fictional meeting between a reporter, an interpreter, and someone willing to share only part of his story follows the work from invitation to publication and correction. There are no graphic descriptions, home tests of memory, or legal investigation procedures. It is possible to take an account seriously, retain questions about facts, and avoid making personal disclosure the price of respect. Professional care includes stopping an inappropriate step and stating what has actually been established.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 417, "end_utf16": 443, "sha256_utf8": "a53bdb09d3d545eddde325393d7fae0fb8be199cef905ef433da14435f905db9" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 445, "end_utf16": 1624, "sha256_utf8": "42f92b00a949128c1cea07d08de4606121e9fe27f6c31a0292cc4f292751f3b2" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0006", "p0007" ], "source_segment_index": 2 }, { "q": "I. Establish which conversation is being proposed", "a": "Imagine a fictional reporting assignment. Anton is preparing an article about people's lives after their neighbourhood was destroyed. Leila interprets. Pavel has agreed to explain why returning home is difficult for his family, but does not want to describe violence in detail. An organisation nearby is collecting information for its own human rights work. Anton thinks a single conversation could be useful to everyone. Combining tasks appears to save time, but changes the agreement. Pavel may expect a short housing story without understanding who else will receive the recording, why a question is being asked, or what status his answer will have. Everyone can be acting in good faith while their understanding of the meeting has already diverged.\n\nThe role needs to be explained before a detailed account begins. Who is conducting the conversation, and for what work? Will it be recorded? Who will hear the original, interpretation, and working material? What is intended for publication, and what is still undecided? “We are preserving your story” is insufficient if it conceals different possible actions. A personal archive and a public report, a journalistic interview and professional documentation, do not become one procedure because they share sympathetic intentions. If the purpose changes, that change needs separate discussion. It should not be treated as already covered. An interviewer must not promise a legal outcome, protection, or access to assistance they do not control.\n\nPavel may agree to one format and decline another. That is a substantive answer, not an obstacle to a worthwhile project. Refusal does not establish that he is concealing something, distrusts every professional, or fails to understand the subject's public importance. He may have his own assessment of risk and the amount he wants to contribute. It is unnecessary to know every reason for refusing in order to respect a particular boundary. If the professional task cannot be completed without certain information, the worker can state that limit honestly. A different report, or no report, may follow. An important purpose does not create a duty to make private life available to fulfil it.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 1629, "end_utf16": 1678, "sha256_utf8": "fbf09fb12b2f0d36600d33ac66a6e9aeb3094e945826e636b443a529afdb7ed6" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 1680, "end_utf16": 3868, "sha256_utf8": "efc2049641f869d6783f0e687794dc4cdf71ff9486d99f2c57df28d927e439a8" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0009", "p0010", "p0011" ], "source_segment_index": 3 }, { "q": "II. Consent concerns particular actions", "a": "Agreement to talk does not necessarily cover recording, a recognisable image, publication of a name, transfer to a third party, or later use in another project. These actions can be discussed together, but one should not silently be inferred from another. Pavel may consider an unnamed written account acceptable; a recognisable voice or background changes the arrangement. This article cannot determine whether consent is legally sufficient in a particular situation. The practical task is narrower: explain the actual actions clearly enough that the person's answer refers to those actions. An uncertain audience and uncontrolled redistribution need to be identified as limits where they matter to the decision.\n\nA professional tipsheet by Miles Moffeit and Kristen Lombardi discusses explaining use and identification, allowing pauses, and involving editors. The historical context is intimate-partner and sexual violence. Here it provides a limited anchor for organising an interview, not a clinical protocol for everyone affected by war. [The tipsheet](https://gcjt.org/content/ethics-and-practice-interviewing-victims).\n\nAnton can explain that the newsroom has not yet decided a headline or publication date. Leila conveys that limitation rather than replacing it with reassurance. If Pavel agrees only on a particular condition, the team needs to establish whether it can meet that condition. An impossible promise should not be accepted merely to start the interview, with a hope of sorting matters out later. Sometimes postponement is the honest outcome. Sometimes a smaller contribution works. Sometimes the person can approach someone else if they want to discuss a different task. Each option needs clarity about what has been agreed and what remains open, rather than an appearance that the process has smoothly continued unchanged.\n\nThe ability to stop must also be real. If interrupting the conversation brings an accusation of betraying collective memory, saying “you are free to refuse” explains little about the actual conditions. Someone need not finish a story in the form the listener expects. At the same time, unlimited reversibility should not be promised: others may retain a published copy. The limits of deletion and alteration are better discussed before distribution. A precise agreement preserves choice in the area that remains controllable without presenting technical impossibility as an extra sign of care. Respect continues after recording begins; it is not exhausted by obtaining the initial assent.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 3873, "end_utf16": 3912, "sha256_utf8": "d466e1a337762a27b9b9e1e648d2a6721dbb757e7b6475e09e082fd885ae778b" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 3914, "end_utf16": 6449, "sha256_utf8": "faee49c89f0340bcf93fae3b7b6143cb6333203b19204afe1db7914f15c15cec" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0013", "p0014", "p0015", "p0016" ], "source_segment_index": 4 }, { "q": "III. Attentive listening does not require a complete account", "a": "A professional interest in facts does not require starting with the most distressing part. In our example, Pavel is willing to discuss returning home, employment, and current practical difficulties. Those subjects have content of their own. If the reporter needs something different, that needs to be said openly. He should not quietly guide Pavel towards an account of violence through a sequence of apparently innocent questions. The person needs to understand the subject being proposed and retain the option not to discuss it. Declining a detail does not automatically make the account false. Willingness to describe everything does not independently establish every detail either.\n\nA clarifying question should address an actual gap. Anton does not understand whether Pavel saw an event himself or heard about it later. He can ask precisely that without requiring the whole story again. An unknown date should not be supplied for narrative flow. If Leila did not hear a word, she can identify an interpreting difficulty. A pause, approximate time, and “I don't remember” remain limitations of the material. They do not disclose hidden content or authorise a plausible reconstruction of the past. A well written scene needs to remain accurate about what its participants do not know as well as what they do.\n\nChecking an assertion also differs from judging the speaker's character. A discrepancy calls for examination of that detail, its origin, and the explanations available. It does not automatically make an entire life a fabrication. Equally, sympathy cannot turn every interpretation into an established fact. Pavel's words can be attributed accurately while identifying separately what is confirmed and what remains unchecked. This is not a compromise that gives each version an equal share of truth. Assertions have different grounds; respecting a person does not erase those distinctions. Careful attribution can preserve the significance of an account without asserting more than the evidence permits.\n\nIf the conversation becomes inappropriate or the person asks to stop, being nearly finished is not sufficient grounds to continue. The current part can end, with only necessary organisational details clarified within the agreement. Another meeting should not be presented as a compulsory route to relief. A considerate tone does not make an interview therapy. Nor does the listener need to obtain the whole account to acknowledge the seriousness of what has been heard. Sometimes a sound professional decision is to omit a vivid detail that would add colour without changing the public-interest question. The absence of that detail need not be disguised as incomplete cooperation by the person who declined it.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 6454, "end_utf16": 6514, "sha256_utf8": "142e23c50e627c7e848e2e28c65764b2ef7008e6a39311f03a54c71ee5c25aac" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 6516, "end_utf16": 9243, "sha256_utf8": "01b47bc61aa2019443aac9b71f1656a8ed7eeddcbd221c0625af630e159c7c8b" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0018", "p0019", "p0020", "p0021" ], "source_segment_index": 5 }, { "q": "IV. Interpreters convey meaning and identify their limits", "a": "An interpreter occupies a particular position: their words are heard as another person's words. If Pavel says “I think” and the interpretation becomes “I know,” the degree of certainty has changed. If an everyday description becomes a clinical term, an assessment has been added that Pavel did not make. These distinctions should not be polished away for a more compelling report. Leila can clarify an expression and openly state that she does not yet know the exact equivalent. That is important information about how the text was obtained and where another question or appropriate expertise is needed. It should not be hidden from the editor as an embarrassment.\n\nThe American Translators Association's code, approved in November 2022, addresses competence, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and accurate communication of meaning in context. It is an association's professional code, not a universal law or a guarantee of any particular interpreter's conduct. [ATA code](https://www.atanet.org/about-us/code-of-ethics/).\n\nRoles within the team can be discussed beforehand. Can Leila request a pause for accuracy? Who explains what the recording is for? What happens if a personal connection to the participants or subject creates a conflict? An interpreter need not pretend to have no history of their own. What matters is understanding which limitations affect this assignment and who needs to know. Origin or conversational fluency alone should not establish suitability for a sensitive task. A relative may also be unable to convey a conversation independently. The choice depends on the work and its conditions, not a single shared identity. An interpreter's personal reaction should not be used as corroboration of the entire account.\n\nTranslation and commentary also differ. If Leila considers cultural context important, it can be identified as her explanation, separate from Pavel's speech. A supposed motive must not be inserted into a first-person interpretation. The final material should retain, within the responsible process, which language was original, which words were checked, and how quotations were prepared. This does not require publishing an interpreter's identifying details against safety considerations. It requires traceability so that polished English or Russian does not become a new source of facts absent from the original.\n\nThe distinction can emerge in a short exchange. Pavel says he does not know who made a decision. Anton suggests a stronger formulation because it would connect the next paragraph better. Leila need not turn the reporter's inference into Pavel's answer. The question can be returned to both participants: whose assertion is being discussed? If no basis emerges, the interpretation retains the uncertainty. That small interruption protects the origin of a particular statement. It proves neither the truth of the entire story nor the reporter's bad faith. A specific transition between words is being corrected, rather than a general judgement delivered on the people involved.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 9248, "end_utf16": 9305, "sha256_utf8": "a349d7bea1ea19e83659a00488f9b1b584a9e5c5fd8c57f3cbd95746b0049a8d" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 9307, "end_utf16": 12346, "sha256_utf8": "5be7a049893f4a31f3b96d19c058bac78fc8f8a5e81481b34ee0bf758ab27df5" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0023", "p0024", "p0025", "p0026", "p0027" ], "source_segment_index": 6 }, { "q": "V. Decide what happens to material after recording", "a": "A recording may outlive its initial purpose. It is stored in a working folder, passed to an editor, transcribed, used in a short video, and later encountered elsewhere. Each transition may change the audience and the possibility of identification. “Who keeps this, and why?” therefore belongs to the substance of the assignment. A file is not necessarily safe because it is unpublished. Nor does an application's name establish protection. Storage and access require a competent organisational procedure. This article provides no technical security scheme and does not verify the safety of a particular channel. Unknown protection should remain unknown rather than becoming a reassuring assumption.\n\nThe developers' overview of the Berkeley Protocol identifies a professional framework for digital open-source investigation, jointly developed by the Human Rights Center and OHCHR. Its scope includes identifying, preserving, and verifying digital information. The project overview was read here, not the full protocol. No rule about a particular recording's admissibility, or procedure for interviewing witnesses, is inferred from it. [About the project](https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/projects/developing-the-berkeley-protocol-on-digital-open-source-investigations/).\n\nFor our fictional case, an editorial distinction is enough to begin: access to material and grounds for using it for another task are different. Pavel's link may contain information about other people. Permission to publish an extract does not necessarily make a whole personal archive available. A new colleague does not automatically need every recording merely because they assist the team. Purpose, necessary scope, and the actual transfer arrangements matter. A legal process needs its relevant professional requirements established separately. A journalist should not promise evidentiary value they have not checked; a documenter should not replace a specialised process with whichever format happens to be convenient.\n\nDerived versions need attention as well. A translation, shortened transcript, caption, or edit can lose a qualification that constrained the original account. “That was explained to me later” disappears, and a reported statement becomes direct observation. “I'm not sure” is removed, and approximation becomes certainty. These changes require comparing the output with the actual source, not the editor's memory of it. This is an editorial accuracy principle, not a claim that matching words resolves every problem. Context, use, and agreed restrictions need separate consideration even where a quotation is literally correct. A faithfully copied sentence can still be placed in a setting that substantially changes what readers understand it to establish.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 12351, "end_utf16": 12401, "sha256_utf8": "b9be11b1bd819e1bfbef946391811fff83e0279a08d12960328cbb1d7af0a96c" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 12403, "end_utf16": 15157, "sha256_utf8": "b98a265fabc4265f970a8e7b3174a54dfafbfa4d25234c75ddb667812a572747" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0029", "p0030", "p0031", "p0032" ], "source_segment_index": 7 }, { "q": "VI. Fact checking can preserve respectful treatment", "a": "An important public account may require independent checking. That task should not disappear for fear of seeming insensitive. Distinguish hearing a person, accurately conveying their words, confirming a circumstance, and establishing responsibility. These are different results. The first may be achieved while the third remains unfinished. A date may be established without a motive being known. Uncertainty belongs where it limits the conclusion. “Verified” is too broad if only one element has been confirmed. The reverse conclusion is also excessive: an unresolved point does not necessarily make all the material useless or remove a person's right to be heard.\n\nIn chapter II of *On Liberty*, Mill examines fallibility and the limits of a familiar circle's certainty. This is a philosophical argument about opinions, not a witness-verification procedure or an instruction to send a survivor to someone who harmed them. [The context read](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm).\n\nAnton may seek confirmation of timing through an available document while retaining questions about its origin. Pavel should not be assigned a dangerous search for corroboration. If another party's comment is needed, how to seek it and assess consequences belongs to the newsroom's professional work. The source should not be made an intermediary, required to attend another encounter, or identified without the appropriate basis. Particular legal duties and restrictions depend on the situation. This article does not resolve them universally. It maintains a narrower boundary: a need to verify does not automatically transfer the risk to the person who agreed to speak about what happened.\n\nChecking also should not become compulsory symmetry of responsibility. Several parties may have opportunities to respond while their assertions differ in evidential support. Acknowledging harm to one group does not excuse another's particular action. A speaker's identity proves neither truth nor falsehood. An established action can be named without a verdict against everyone of one origin. At the same time, respectful treatment of everyone does not require diluting established responsibility for a smoother tone. Accuracy concerns the scale of a conclusion as well as dates: who did what, on what grounds the report says so, and what the available material does not establish. Equal human dignity does not make evidence or actions interchangeable.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 15162, "end_utf16": 15213, "sha256_utf8": "bf9269bf5c2c43549a9e9cbde7afcf418775601e8d4eadfb590e760987fd162b" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 15215, "end_utf16": 17664, "sha256_utf8": "f87f475fdd40a8a7768419f0ffb5706291d42f56a8ae15ac7054f816586d74ce" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0034", "p0035", "p0036", "p0037" ], "source_segment_index": 8 }, { "q": "VII. The person working with an account also has limits", "a": "A journalist, interpreter, and documenter participate differently. One chooses the assignment; another repeatedly speaks the words of somebody else's account; another reviews material for a particular procedure. Each may have personal losses or continuing threats. A role establishes neither a diagnosis nor the capacity to endure any volume of material. Concrete working conditions need discussion: simultaneous assignments, a way to report difficulty, who can arrange a replacement, and how unfinished work is handed over. Strong feelings do not establish professional unfitness, while outward calm does not certify unlimited capacity. Neither impression should replace an actual conversation about the work.\n\nThe professional interviewing tipsheet recommends editorial support and people with whom to discuss one's reactions. This does not make a friend a therapist or authorise disclosing a source's personal details. In the article's editorial approach, a worker can discuss their own difficulty using the minimum information needed while maintaining obligations concerning the material. Where professional help is needed, its suitable form and actual availability must be established separately. There is no requirement to stop feeling first or promise to withstand another recording. Equally, this article does not label all tiredness secondary trauma or offer a treatment based on a workload description. Asking for support need not begin with choosing a diagnosis.\n\nA team may find that the working arrangement itself creates the problem: one interpreter receives every distressing interview without an opportunity to transfer some work; review time is inadequate; or doubt about wording is treated as disloyalty to the subject. An individual pause cannot resolve all of that. The organisational address needs to be named: an editor, project lead, or person responsible for working conditions. Their role cannot be replaced by asking someone to become more resilient. A change in participation needs an actual handover to an authorised person, because an unexplained disappearance can also affect the source. Completing the agreed contribution does not require indefinite personal availability after the role has ended.\n\nAnother boundary matters: caring for the worker should not become an extra task for the person harmed. Pavel need not soothe Anton, certify Leila's strength, or finish his story so a documenter can feel their work is complete. A listener can identify a difficulty briefly and specifically without turning the meeting into their own confession. Sometimes the interview needs postponing, a different team, a reduced scope, or an end. Explain the change insofar as it concerns the agreement. It should not automatically be called professional betrayal or heroic self-preservation. What matters is the actual situation, a responsible next step, and protecting somebody else's history from being used as a measure of the listener's character.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 17669, "end_utf16": 17724, "sha256_utf8": "a3d1643defeea7051b154ef3988ec29685f85f389687cb377db55add3fa56732" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 17726, "end_utf16": 20693, "sha256_utf8": "465fac77b44896c67fbbdd00597cef4673befef95bc08f6b965bc80734556168" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0039", "p0040", "p0041", "p0042" ], "source_segment_index": 9 }, { "q": "VIII. Publication does not end responsibility for the encounter", "a": "Suppose the article is nearly ready. The headline now makes a categorical claim that Pavel presented as a possibility. Or a short video retains an identifying detail the team promised to exclude. The output can be compelling while violating its own basis. Final checking therefore concerns more than style: are the source, degree of certainty, identification limits, and actual agreement retained? Where editorial decisions change the output, someone needs responsibility for the dependent captions, translations, and short versions. Correcting the main article does not automatically correct an earlier video. Different representations need understandable versions and accountable people. Otherwise an accurate correction can coexist with the same mistake continuing elsewhere under the organisation's name.\n\nDiscussing particular quotations with a speaker may help check accuracy where such a process is agreed and professionally appropriate. It should not be represented as complete editorial control if that is not what the newsroom offers. Nor should approval of a date or quotation be described as approval of the entire report. Pavel may correct a word and remain unhappy with the chosen subject. Those are different answers. The team needs an honest account of the participation offered and its limits. A desire to protect someone does not permit inventing their acceptance or treating silence as agreement with a new headline. The content of assent remains limited to what the person actually addressed.\n\nAfter publication, an error may emerge or an assessment of risk may change. There needs to be a working route to receive a concern and pass it to someone responsible. No one should promise that every copy will disappear, that withdrawal will undo all consequences, or that every complaint will be upheld. The available correction, its limits, and its result can be named: what changed on a controlled page, who was notified, and what remains outside control. If a promise was broken, acknowledgement should address that action. The speaker need not be grateful for correction or immediately restore trust. Responsibility for the published version does not move to someone because they once agreed to an interview.\n\nAt the end of our fictional story, Pavel may say his words were represented accurately without feeling relieved. He may decline another interview or never answer a request to assess the outcome. None of these responses establishes a clinical effect. Reporting can matter publicly without promising a source personal healing. Interpretation can be accurate without giving complete access to another person's experience. A document can preserve information without guaranteeing justice in advance. Each result has its own scale. Professional care is retained when an important purpose does not absorb the individual, and accuracy extends beyond facts about the past to the agreements being made with people today.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 20698, "end_utf16": 20761, "sha256_utf8": "2fd76b696f29e719d6897b2f0aa51b044af105ff7408da3ede42b792a3d30a56" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 20763, "end_utf16": 23703, "sha256_utf8": "61c08eaec6d33189193f9c3a0ccdb2e9b21aeee82c4e1b0403a252e463946d41" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0044", "p0045", "p0046", "p0047" ], "source_segment_index": 10 }, { "q": "What this means in practice", "a": "If preparing for an ordinary professional contact, and it is safe to consider the arrangements now, choose an existing request. You need not open the most distressing material to complete an exercise. These are original editorial questions about process, not a clinical scale, legal protocol, or validated technique for reducing trauma. Special professional requirements and applicable rules need their own examination.\n\nFirst name the role and intended result. Is the proposed conversation an interview, interpretation, documentation, or archival work? What is planned afterwards? Separate talking, recording, identification, publication, and transfer into another process. Do not promise control, deletion, or an outcome the team cannot provide. If a condition is unclear to the worker, the next step is an answer within the team, not the source's consent to a vague description.\n\nConsider one important accuracy question. What did the person see, hear from someone else, or infer? How will interpretation preserve the difference? What remains unknown? Do not seek a complete account merely to finish a scene or assign risky corroboration to the interviewee. Identify separately who checks the final translation, headline, and derived versions.\n\nFinally, clarify pausing and continuation. Who accepts unfinished work, how can difficulties be discussed without unnecessary disclosure, and who receives corrections after publication? If the interview is unnecessary or its conditions cannot be provided, not conducting it may be an accurate decision. That should not become a judgement of the person or the profession. The outcome may be one changed arrangement, a question for the person responsible, or the omission of an inappropriate detail. A clearer process with real limits is sufficient. Required relief, forgiveness, or gratitude is not part of the undertaking.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 23708, "end_utf16": 23735, "sha256_utf8": "cac0025fb51e434450b9925cf9a4977d85e79dc5ce2542d61d4355abea0cdd54" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 23737, "end_utf16": 25607, "sha256_utf8": "41bdc54c22244395f416062e22c1127856907bae43bc04df895617954d380ff1" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0049", "p0050", "p0051", "p0052" ], "source_segment_index": 11 }, { "q": "Key quotation", "a": "> “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”\n\nMill, *On Liberty*, chapter II, printed page 67. An argument about knowledge of opinions, not a requirement that a survivor discuss every position or meet a person who harmed them. [Context](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm).", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 25612, "end_utf16": 25625, "sha256_utf8": "b118466bf32094406f875582a1606883eea0c734aab123a1fe6f5352d863995a" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 25627, "end_utf16": 25948, "sha256_utf8": "6fba800123ba2b169c68647ea2f9f606324c13761901a19e9f48d6154bc7b2bc" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0054", "p0055" ], "source_segment_index": 12 }, { "q": "Connections between traditions", "a": "| Line of thought | Connection to the question | Limit |\n|---|---|---|\n| Mill's philosophy, chapter II | Personal certainty is not completed knowledge. | Freedom of public discussion does not create an obligation of private disclosure. |\n| Moffeit and Lombardi's professional interviewing guidance | Purpose and participation need explanation. | Historical guidance concerning violence is not treatment or a universal procedure. |\n| ATA interpreting and translation ethics | Accuracy, competence, and confidentiality have distinct content. | An association code is not worldwide law or a guarantee for a particular translation. |\n| Professional documentation of digital material | Origin, preservation, and checking need the appropriate framework. | The Berkeley Protocol overview was read; technical and legal procedures are not reproduced. |\n| The article's comparison of roles | Sympathy, accurate speech, confirmed facts, and responsibility differ. | This is an editorial map, not a shared doctrine of these sources or a validated therapy. |", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 25953, "end_utf16": 25983, "sha256_utf8": "dfc0387d996bf1ade440e38a114e456de1bcae05b8a3c016d2a665a9d38fbc05" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 25985, "end_utf16": 27030, "sha256_utf8": "f92034cf7a93cfa82888f4d916174e8f1b31281fd839ec4b8b0b5d03ffd93d05" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0057" ], "source_segment_index": 13 }, { "q": "Primary sources and research", "a": "1. [John Stuart Mill, *On Liberty*, chapter II](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm). Walter Scott edition transcription, Project Gutenberg 34901. Context around printed pages 32–34 and 67–68 was read, not the whole book.\n2. [Miles Moffeit and Kristen Lombardi, *Ethics and Practice: Interviewing Victims*](https://gcjt.org/content/ethics-and-practice-interviewing-victims), 19 January 2012. The main tipsheet was read. Professional guidance with a specific scope, not treatment research.\n3. [American Translators Association, *Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility*](https://www.atanet.org/about-us/code-of-ethics/), approved November 2022. All seven provisions were read; these are association professional standards.\n4. [UC Berkeley Human Rights Center, *Developing the Berkeley Protocol*](https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/projects/developing-the-berkeley-protocol-on-digital-open-source-investigations/). The overview of the joint project with OHCHR was read. Reading the complete protocol is not claimed.\n\nAnton, Leila, Pavel, the reporting situation, and the practical questions are fictional editorial examples. They are not actual testimony or the authors' personal experience. There is no evidence here that the proposed editorial process is effective as treatment. Reading scope, source limitations, rights, and exact library support are recorded in the package's research file.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 27035, "end_utf16": 27063, "sha256_utf8": "a2c96cce349e6e757134c2d066d18d0b105cc58fe8678cac01d1e42deff11158" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 27065, "end_utf16": 28484, "sha256_utf8": "d09722876ec3909c71db005e20ecf6ec7e1f414314336d689265988b59228f42" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0059", "p0060" ], "source_segment_index": 14 }, { "q": "Tags", "a": "war, consequences of war, journalism, interpreting, documentation, testimony, violence, consent, recording, publication, privacy, identification, accuracy, certainty, sources, fact checking, professional roles, competence, editors, pauses, boundaries, digital material, archives, responsibility, correction, Mill, ATA, Berkeley Protocol, public interest, dignity", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 28489, "end_utf16": 28493, "sha256_utf8": "1331275bc537b4c2bf1e46f7275677967515342e30b572e6852fa6f51b831fe8" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 28495, "end_utf16": 28857, "sha256_utf8": "ad5d3d26d94332ad7f87bce99dbe9cdfa2e2dc5bd9fde912d7230fd3fd0fb03e" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0062" ], "source_segment_index": 15 }, { "q": "About the authors", "a": "Andrey Zarinsh is the author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue, and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh.\n\nMaria Evilkut is a co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside her research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.", "source_spans": [ { "role": "h2_heading", "start_utf16": 28862, "end_utf16": 28879, "sha256_utf8": "e120452a2b9952200310f55df00e52d0bbd068d32bba8a322511ed65e3d4967d" }, { "role": "h2_answer", "start_utf16": 28881, "end_utf16": 29332, "sha256_utf8": "78d206398e486d8c46c49f0cab5c88212598ae201edb176b63289c446c3117f2" } ], "block_ids": [ "p0064", "p0065" ], "source_segment_index": 16 } ], "claims": [], "claims_policy": "no_reclassified_claims", "sources": [ { "id": "src_40e4aeb3c679de34", "title": "John Stuart Mill, *On Liberty*, chapter II", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm", "source_spans": [ { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 338, "end_utf16": 411, "sha256_utf8": "4f3928965ad46870f4a912f8acd409db56447ae8d13f0b5a5d57671a0d337dd5" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 16139, "end_utf16": 16216, "sha256_utf8": "961f95cba45d0732b48a9aff2c729e6bdf934fa4d572d60390ea1f49762faf4c" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 25879, "end_utf16": 25947, "sha256_utf8": "172dd2808a91f7ae9fdc069ec1f112df7a352c35c0965430a6261ca2e351ce11" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 27068, "end_utf16": 27171, "sha256_utf8": "aa8af77d98ed3f9fbbcd7f4ca6a568bae33f201fc2ce58751b20409f1a1aac33" } ], "read_scope": "1. [John Stuart Mill, *On Liberty*, chapter II](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm). Walter Scott edition transcription, Project Gutenberg 34901. Context around printed pages 32–34 and 67–68 was read, not the whole book.", "read_scope_kind": "verbatim_bibliography_entry", "read_scope_span": { "role": "bibliography_entry", "start_utf16": 27065, "end_utf16": 27308, "sha256_utf8": "ca98c5a35e91c6130b886484557da4807b4b99e532fd38984d805dbb4224eaf8" }, "shared_entry_urls": [] }, { "id": "src_7735585c871f97ef", "title": "Miles Moffeit and Kristen Lombardi, *Ethics and Practice: Interviewing Victims*", "url": "https://gcjt.org/content/ethics-and-practice-interviewing-victims", "source_spans": [ { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 4957, "end_utf16": 5038, "sha256_utf8": "71501e25a5dee89d9f1b5f1471cabf4f8fb291e242945b8a51628e6db9349fad" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 27312, "end_utf16": 27460, "sha256_utf8": "bba48983b387d9348a3787a0ede3181dd8ce87244b0911ac0136c9f662fd0e2b" } ], "read_scope": "2. [Miles Moffeit and Kristen Lombardi, *Ethics and Practice: Interviewing Victims*](https://gcjt.org/content/ethics-and-practice-interviewing-victims), 19 January 2012. The main tipsheet was read. Professional guidance with a specific scope, not treatment research.", "read_scope_kind": "verbatim_bibliography_entry", "read_scope_span": { "role": "bibliography_entry", "start_utf16": 27309, "end_utf16": 27575, "sha256_utf8": "bc7bd1480ad6d2d3f8ec9834dc45017484bdf7e6bb183cbafd701d7df05d9a54" }, "shared_entry_urls": [] }, { "id": "src_b059ab69804cea4b", "title": "American Translators Association, *Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility*", "url": "https://www.atanet.org/about-us/code-of-ethics/", "source_spans": [ { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 10275, "end_utf16": 10334, "sha256_utf8": "9e91f2c5d4819b05095ad3d8c27ff47f371786ad4096b4f9deba3eede776bf5a" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 27579, "end_utf16": 27712, "sha256_utf8": "80a59cc7222edf71f778c16c11700d085cfd4a25f13e06559525a4230f26a9e7" } ], "read_scope": "3. [American Translators Association, *Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility*](https://www.atanet.org/about-us/code-of-ethics/), approved November 2022. All seven provisions were read; these are association professional standards.", "read_scope_kind": "verbatim_bibliography_entry", "read_scope_span": { "role": "bibliography_entry", "start_utf16": 27576, "end_utf16": 27815, "sha256_utf8": "6255cea2e4fe7215a3bb9ec8d5596bb90f95fd6e2c30756bbcad3e433799ed4a" }, "shared_entry_urls": [] }, { "id": "src_9ed97057f03381ae", "title": "UC Berkeley Human Rights Center, *Developing the Berkeley Protocol*", "url": "https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/projects/developing-the-berkeley-protocol-on-digital-open-source-investigations/", "source_spans": [ { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 13538, "end_utf16": 13672, "sha256_utf8": "19cb678e15dcb04957df87d1a6a47d49595a6a938b04e0028940d87b1a4ce3b3" }, { "role": "markdown_link", "start_utf16": 27819, "end_utf16": 28003, "sha256_utf8": "9e3c694b8af48a6e20e33e6099029348fa9fd94a9ca7c72cae0387783858fae9" } ], "read_scope": "4. [UC Berkeley Human Rights Center, *Developing the Berkeley Protocol*](https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/projects/developing-the-berkeley-protocol-on-digital-open-source-investigations/). The overview of the joint project with OHCHR was read. Reading the complete protocol is not claimed.", "read_scope_kind": "verbatim_bibliography_entry", "read_scope_span": { "role": "bibliography_entry", "start_utf16": 27816, "end_utf16": 28105, "sha256_utf8": "3ce228cc87e5e36cb2633613215aab167f7302c27dbafa6590f7106a542e14d4" }, "shared_entry_urls": [] } ], "retrieval_limits": [ "This local GEO representation applies only to the specified source article version and its SHA-256.", "Qualifications, sources and attributions remain in the full sections and byte-identical Markdown copy.", "No new source research was conducted in this GEO stage." ], "master_sha256": "530aaddebccd9db99a6fa15d3bf45fa6826e77e2c6f08829dc170f1a8a497feb", "provenance": { "raw_reader_sha256": "530aaddebccd9db99a6fa15d3bf45fa6826e77e2c6f08829dc170f1a8a497feb", "ru_master_sha256": "5119ddeaa07938b0cdbc6d4f5b39ce78794eb2783426f8f8764323c72c3295e0", "reader_path": "outputs/uw-war-corpus-20261018/branch-d/articles/WAR-167/ARTICLE_EN.md", "review_pointer": "outputs/uw-war-corpus-20261018/branch-d/articles/WAR-167/AUTHOR_QA.json", "review_sha256": "e09da332be91e32455186d636ea15e4ceba610ffeeafea1b586bcb43c9e2c7f9", "clean_md_relative_filename": "GEO.en.md", "body_length_utf16": 29333, "source_segments": [ { "kind": "opening", "index": 0, "heading": null, "start_utf16": 0, "end_utf16": 80, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "8bf3dccf56babddfdc32cf92d6ec933b9c1effc6152d734d8019ac12ca13ab33" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 1, "heading": "Epigraph", "start_utf16": 80, "end_utf16": 414, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "6ab6260a9e5ebb373b56b3938da915c05960f065c7d35409ef900b690b4d82ad" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 2, "heading": "What this article is about", "start_utf16": 414, "end_utf16": 1626, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "12375c4d3109f28072502a7854fd79ae14c486d1882f5ac5cc155d68d9a1bc64" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 3, "heading": "I. Establish which conversation is being proposed", "start_utf16": 1626, "end_utf16": 3870, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "e1c3b71dfb5eb5bf810044686c3bd9bbccb15e380468a5607b38042eac4a0581" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 4, "heading": "II. Consent concerns particular actions", "start_utf16": 3870, "end_utf16": 6451, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "2f05d39147e990d2d5ca50a5c2492b5fff01b5eee55b091f02ea60e202925eb3" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 5, "heading": "III. Attentive listening does not require a complete account", "start_utf16": 6451, "end_utf16": 9245, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "b6f3c7387135fd1c253e460513ad801a05df1d2d922506ad3691b61654915013" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 6, "heading": "IV. Interpreters convey meaning and identify their limits", "start_utf16": 9245, "end_utf16": 12348, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "7ca702136ff713a23e70adfcfab268a9e21112d29e9d211567f437974da3b489" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 7, "heading": "V. Decide what happens to material after recording", "start_utf16": 12348, "end_utf16": 15159, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "ad90bad13a3e9887e8a61a265516a9a9790b1fab072f36b611c4332ec503f2d9" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 8, "heading": "VI. Fact checking can preserve respectful treatment", "start_utf16": 15159, "end_utf16": 17666, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "324342ac211cb208e2fa98afd2ea9c08f5dd167726b3d5ef6b68064be23dd2ae" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 9, "heading": "VII. The person working with an account also has limits", "start_utf16": 17666, "end_utf16": 20695, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "2baab987e2516edcb7e60e44db6684cb642abfd87986b1188cf54b5108696911" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 10, "heading": "VIII. Publication does not end responsibility for the encounter", "start_utf16": 20695, "end_utf16": 23705, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "a8a11701c694b2ca2fd7cbdec6cb1c18d4f58cc83de7d512e741ea91b94cd333" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 11, "heading": "What this means in practice", "start_utf16": 23705, "end_utf16": 25609, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "3ba9862184968816275069f90a8ae2d11223bac3699cf963ce3417055ba49bde" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 12, "heading": "Key quotation", "start_utf16": 25609, "end_utf16": 25950, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "fe714e7de3950d5c5482c9c701bb50a4b1e46f7e644e912c49e4fa3ee0c515bf" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 13, "heading": "Connections between traditions", "start_utf16": 25950, "end_utf16": 27032, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "df73b02c20a65549b83bf741d0221bca5c1775e7db5631451ada36624fb3b3aa" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 14, "heading": "Primary sources and research", "start_utf16": 27032, "end_utf16": 28486, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "c2e9ae544aaafba49c3c6fd6195a7b027024545861640a90990c0d309ea9e473" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 15, "heading": "Tags", "start_utf16": 28486, "end_utf16": 28859, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "7b0bab5c026370305d24e68dac57395691dff3ff822c19f874635b4372418d2d" }, { "kind": "h2_section", "index": 16, "heading": "About the authors", "start_utf16": 28859, "end_utf16": 29333, "sha256_utf8_raw_slice": "4685d02f4c3cb7bfed3148c4d5ab392e8d89fe5dc3d6e9cbfb61ab06db34c48a" } ], "common_blocks_module_sha256": "6cf638661a819f960c39d08058bf6d0d0696e8b816f677d95b389f5f1d11e4d2" } }