5 ms·

It's amazing to me that this guy doesn't realize what terrible damage he's doing to Wikileaks' credibility by editorializing this so aggressively. In one swoop

by gruseom 17y ago

It's amazing to me that this guy doesn't realize what terrible damage he's doing to Wikileaks' credibility by editorializing this so aggressively. In one swoop they've gone in my mind from neutral champion of transparency to just another advocacy group. It doesn't help if one happens to agree with the advocacy, either; what is destructive is that the ideological agenda is so obvious. (So, it seemed to me watching this, is his smug self-satisfaction.) What a shame.

jacquesm 17y ago
Spot on. Wikileaks should simply present the information, NOT editorialize, or even analyze beyond verification of veracity. They are destroying their credibility faster than they're increasing their profile. Effectively they're making this about them, and they are forgetting that they should simply be a neutral conduit. I have a strong feeling we're watching a pivot in progress, setting up a new domain name and releasing the video there is a big step in that direction.
- borism 17y ago
  I'm sorry, I totally disagree. I find his comments totally sensible.
  - tomhoward 17y ago
    That's not the point. Whether you find his comments sensible or reprehensible doesn't alter the fact that he's moving Wikileaks away from its traditional role. In doing so he risks destroying its most compelling feature and diminishing the impact of future leaks.
    - aw3c2 17y ago
      Wikileaks has provided articles about certain leaks when people who them. I do not understand why people are so eager to blame Wikileaks for doing something wrong with this release. It is showing a gross injustice which has not been shown before.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Sensible or not, they aren't neutral, and they imply that Wikileaks would not be hospitable to leaks that (for instance) enhance the credibility of US foreign policy. And if they're taking sides on this story, what other stories have they taken sides on? I think that's the "credibility" issue here. Wikileaks could have enormous value as a vector for transparency and accountability. But they may sacrifice some of that value by also trying to be an issue advocate.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
dsplittgerber 17y ago
I think there is currently no other alternative than to appear to be a brand-name organization, in order to encourage whistleblowers. These people need to know that their submissions are secure, their name withheld forever and their contribution exposed to the public. This would not happen at all without some amount of editorializing in order to broaden the mass appeal. I'm not condoning Wikileaks' behavior - I just see no currently viable alternative for whistleblowing. Deep Throat was seriously editorialized as well. Wikileaks is a step in the right direction, towards more openness. Absolute openness will take some time.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Honestly I'd accept their actions more if they split the media side of things from the whistleblower side. So Wikileaks stays as simply a conduit of information - and Sunshine Press (or whatever) can editorialize how they wish....
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    Totally agree, great idea. They should split the procurement part from the editorializing through chinese walls or something like that. It's interesting to see how they changed course. Some months ago they talked about giving some media (interested, big outlets) privileged prior access to leaks in order to enable them to prepare complete stories to be released at the same date as the leak. Looks like they think they can do a better job of editorializing than the big outlets, which weakens their neutrality. But it's a difficult job after all. Hopefully, they'll change course again.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
uriel 17y ago
Here is a great article about the inner workings of Wikileaks: http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets.aspx http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/...
- gruseom 17y ago
  The link doesn't work because the HN software strips out the single quote after "wikileaks" in the URL. This works: http://tinyurl.com/ylydrlj http://tinyurl.com/ylydrlj.

by gruseom 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Spot on. Wikileaks should simply present the information, NOT editorialize, or even analyze beyond verification of veracity. They are destroying their credibility faster than they're increasing their profile. Effectively they're making this about them, and they are forgetting that they should simply be a neutral conduit. I have a strong feeling we're watching a pivot in progress, setting up a new domain name and releasing the video there is a big step in that direction.

borism 17y ago
I'm sorry, I totally disagree. I find his comments totally sensible.
- tomhoward 17y ago
  That's not the point. Whether you find his comments sensible or reprehensible doesn't alter the fact that he's moving Wikileaks away from its traditional role. In doing so he risks destroying its most compelling feature and diminishing the impact of future leaks.
  - aw3c2 17y ago
    Wikileaks has provided articles about certain leaks when people who them. I do not understand why people are so eager to blame Wikileaks for doing something wrong with this release. It is showing a gross injustice which has not been shown before.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Sensible or not, they aren't neutral, and they imply that Wikileaks would not be hospitable to leaks that (for instance) enhance the credibility of US foreign policy. And if they're taking sides on this story, what other stories have they taken sides on? I think that's the "credibility" issue here. Wikileaks could have enormous value as a vector for transparency and accountability. But they may sacrifice some of that value by also trying to be an issue advocate.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

dsplittgerber 17y ago

I think there is currently no other alternative than to appear to be a brand-name organization, in order to encourage whistleblowers. These people need to know that their submissions are secure, their name withheld forever and their contribution exposed to the public. This would not happen at all without some amount of editorializing in order to broaden the mass appeal. I'm not condoning Wikileaks' behavior - I just see no currently viable alternative for whistleblowing. Deep Throat was seriously editorialized as well. Wikileaks is a step in the right direction, towards more openness. Absolute openness will take some time.

ErrantX 17y ago
Honestly I'd accept their actions more if they split the media side of things from the whistleblower side. So Wikileaks stays as simply a conduit of information - and Sunshine Press (or whatever) can editorialize how they wish....
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  Totally agree, great idea. They should split the procurement part from the editorializing through chinese walls or something like that. It's interesting to see how they changed course. Some months ago they talked about giving some media (interested, big outlets) privileged prior access to leaks in order to enable them to prepare complete stories to be released at the same date as the leak. Looks like they think they can do a better job of editorializing than the big outlets, which weakens their neutrality. But it's a difficult job after all. Hopefully, they'll change course again.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

uriel 17y ago

Here is a great article about the inner workings of Wikileaks: http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets.aspx http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/...

gruseom 17y ago
The link doesn't work because the HN software strips out the single quote after "wikileaks" in the URL. This works: http://tinyurl.com/ylydrlj http://tinyurl.com/ylydrlj.