5 ms·

This isn't a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn't what a onymou

This isn't a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn't what a onymous source would be able to say, I see no reason to doubt them. I don't have an extraordinarily high confidence in a claim based on an anonymous witness alone, but journalists (lets squint hard enough to still call Assange a journalist for a moment) do this all the time. Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Irrelevant to your point, but I hadn't heard “onymous” as the antonym of “anonymous” before, thank you for that.
- thingexplainer 10y ago
  It isn't a real word I'm afraid, but an FBI invention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous
  - Etzos 10y ago
    It is a real word though. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=onymous&searchmode=none http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
    - thingexplainer 10y ago
      Thanks, learned something new.
    - zem 10y ago
      interesting, I've always used "nonymous" for that, but "onymous" is etymologically sounder
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        Yeah, I was going to say "nonymous" was etymologically superior, but then I looked up the etymology for anonymous before hitting send. Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
- antman 10y ago
  This is Ancient Greek and the antonym is "eponymous". Unfortunately it has a double meaning, used more often as "named after". So we got 'onymous' which has no meaning as an old root.
Berobero 10y ago
I don't know that there's a reason to specifically doubt a or b, but in contrast to their other major (and known valid) leaks, this one is much more tied to their organizational interests, so there's that much more reason to be healthily skeptical of it.
revelation 10y ago
Ascribing government propaganda to anonymous sources is basically 70% of the New York Times "reporting".
- thingexplainer 10y ago
  But what seems to be in question here is if WikiLeaks said "US officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that enhanced interrogation was vital to finding Osama Bin Laden," did WikiLeaks actually talk to those officials and did they really say that? Or are they promoting their brand as a marginalized alternative news source that the government is trying to fight?
untog 10y ago
If the quote is about Wikileaks then I certainly see reason to doubt them. They have obvious motivations.
dntrkv 10y ago
On the one hand we have a reputable media company reporting quotes from reputable sources, and on the other we have WikiLeaks (with a very well documented agenda) claiming the exact opposite from an anonymous source. The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse. Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...) Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true. Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/781838706030313472 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  >anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
  - 10y ago
unprepare 10y ago
> that is a.) completely believable How so? If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange? Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different? you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them? Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)
- thingexplainer 10y ago
  Because they're willing to do one thing but not the other?

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Irrelevant to your point, but I hadn't heard “onymous” as the antonym of “anonymous” before, thank you for that.

thingexplainer 10y ago
It isn't a real word I'm afraid, but an FBI invention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous
- Etzos 10y ago
  It is a real word though. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=onymous&searchmode=none http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
  - thingexplainer 10y ago
    Thanks, learned something new.
  - zem 10y ago
    interesting, I've always used "nonymous" for that, but "onymous" is etymologically sounder
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      Yeah, I was going to say "nonymous" was etymologically superior, but then I looked up the etymology for anonymous before hitting send. Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
antman 10y ago
This is Ancient Greek and the antonym is "eponymous". Unfortunately it has a double meaning, used more often as "named after". So we got 'onymous' which has no meaning as an old root.

Berobero 10y ago

I don't know that there's a reason to specifically doubt a or b, but in contrast to their other major (and known valid) leaks, this one is much more tied to their organizational interests, so there's that much more reason to be healthily skeptical of it.

revelation 10y ago

Ascribing government propaganda to anonymous sources is basically 70% of the New York Times "reporting".

thingexplainer 10y ago
But what seems to be in question here is if WikiLeaks said "US officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that enhanced interrogation was vital to finding Osama Bin Laden," did WikiLeaks actually talk to those officials and did they really say that? Or are they promoting their brand as a marginalized alternative news source that the government is trying to fight?

untog 10y ago

If the quote is about Wikileaks then I certainly see reason to doubt them. They have obvious motivations.

dntrkv 10y ago

On the one hand we have a reputable media company reporting quotes from reputable sources, and on the other we have WikiLeaks (with a very well documented agenda) claiming the exact opposite from an anonymous source. The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse. Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...) Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true. Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/781838706030313472 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
- 10y ago

unprepare 10y ago

> that is a.) completely believable How so? If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange? Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different? you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them? Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)

thingexplainer 10y ago
Because they're willing to do one thing but not the other?