3 ms·

In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?

jacquesm 10y ago
They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.

3 ms·

In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?

by Gargoyle 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.