4 ms·

So what's the solution? Stop publishing until they've caught up on Russian and Chinese leaks? Why just Russia and China? Should each country get a leak until we

So what's the solution? Stop publishing until they've caught up on Russian and Chinese leaks? Why just Russia and China? Should each country get a leak until we get back to the start of the cycle again? Why should Wikileaks care who's interests any leaks serve? They should leak interesting material they are given - that's their purpose.

dredmorbius 10y ago
One action that's been at least partially effective for combatting clear bias in the past and other contexts has to make clear that you are openly inviting contributions (or applications, involvement, etc.) from previously under-served or unaddressed quarters. A current example would be STEM outreach to underrepresented groups: disadvantaged minorities and women in particular. Housing, employment, and educational opportunity efforts would be other examples that come to mind. Can you point to any active solicitation Wikileaks have made, say, for materials specifically addressing political oppression within Russia or concerning its foreign policy? Sincere question. I'm not, though I've not particularly looked.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I understand your point. Mine is bias does not matter when it comes to this stuff. As long as the leak is factually accurate (and it seems like Wikileaks mostly jump dump the data they get) I want to know if a government is doing something shady and I don't care whether information is also getting leaked at the same rate about another government. Maybe they're not doing anything shady, or maybe they're just doing a better job with information security. Either way it doesn't take away from the fact I should know the information I can as long as it's factual. As an analogy when the US/UK/other western gov criticises Assad or Kim Jong Un over human rights abuses we don't generally complain that it's unfair because the US/UK also have plenty of human rights abuses under their belt. Yes that's a problem but it doesn't take away from the original complaint which is still valid.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    If Wikileaks tells me the sky is blue, I'd be inclined to believe them. But I'd wonder who wants me to know that, and why. Wikileaks is a spotlight. It shines brightly, and exposes much, but only where it shines. And if I notice that it's shining only in specific places ... well, that's a curious fact in itself. And I absolutely disagree with you that bias doesn't matter. Ultimately it's the only thing that matters. Much as, say, US print and broadcast news was conspicuously silent on matters concerning advertiser interests, or government interests in contexts in which the government had leverage over the press. Wikileaks themselves are no different in that regard, though the business model and relationships are slighly rearranged.
travmatt 10y ago
If Wikileaks didn't actively censor and threaten leakers of Russia related information you'd probably have some validity to your argument.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  any links to evidence of this?
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Source?
  - travmatt 10y ago
    Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report. If true, the report will likely have a lasting negative impact on Wikileaks’ credibility. The report alleges that the transparency organization betrayed its own core values of “pristine leaking,” and did so in a way that protects Russia’s public image. ... The report claims batch of emails were not included in the cache of documents Wikileaks published under the name the “Syria Files”in 2012. The emails allegedly show correspondence between the Central Bank of Syria and Russia’s VTB Bank. When the Daily Dot asked Wikileaks for comment, the transparency organization denied removing the batch of emails and vaguely threatened the journalist, saying, “You can be sure we will return the favor one day.” It’s entirely possible that the hackers removed the email batch from the data dump it provided to Wikileaks. But it also seems very unlikely. As Daily Dot reporters Dell Cameron and Patrick Howell O’Neill point out in their story, they received 500 pages showing every step the hackers went through to infiltrate the Syrian government’s networks. The reporters say, “the court records leaked to the Daily Dot reveal the Moscow bank’s emails were, in fact, part of the larger backup file containing numerous emails currently found on the WikiLeaks site.” https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992/amp https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-wi...
    - belorn 10y ago

dredmorbius 10y ago

One action that's been at least partially effective for combatting clear bias in the past and other contexts has to make clear that you are openly inviting contributions (or applications, involvement, etc.) from previously under-served or unaddressed quarters. A current example would be STEM outreach to underrepresented groups: disadvantaged minorities and women in particular. Housing, employment, and educational opportunity efforts would be other examples that come to mind. Can you point to any active solicitation Wikileaks have made, say, for materials specifically addressing political oppression within Russia or concerning its foreign policy? Sincere question. I'm not, though I've not particularly looked.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
I understand your point. Mine is bias does not matter when it comes to this stuff. As long as the leak is factually accurate (and it seems like Wikileaks mostly jump dump the data they get) I want to know if a government is doing something shady and I don't care whether information is also getting leaked at the same rate about another government. Maybe they're not doing anything shady, or maybe they're just doing a better job with information security. Either way it doesn't take away from the fact I should know the information I can as long as it's factual. As an analogy when the US/UK/other western gov criticises Assad or Kim Jong Un over human rights abuses we don't generally complain that it's unfair because the US/UK also have plenty of human rights abuses under their belt. Yes that's a problem but it doesn't take away from the original complaint which is still valid.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  If Wikileaks tells me the sky is blue, I'd be inclined to believe them. But I'd wonder who wants me to know that, and why. Wikileaks is a spotlight. It shines brightly, and exposes much, but only where it shines. And if I notice that it's shining only in specific places ... well, that's a curious fact in itself. And I absolutely disagree with you that bias doesn't matter. Ultimately it's the only thing that matters. Much as, say, US print and broadcast news was conspicuously silent on matters concerning advertiser interests, or government interests in contexts in which the government had leverage over the press. Wikileaks themselves are no different in that regard, though the business model and relationships are slighly rearranged.

travmatt 10y ago

If Wikileaks didn't actively censor and threaten leakers of Russia related information you'd probably have some validity to your argument.

throwaway2048 10y ago
any links to evidence of this?
k-mcgrady 10y ago
Source?
- travmatt 10y ago
  Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report. If true, the report will likely have a lasting negative impact on Wikileaks’ credibility. The report alleges that the transparency organization betrayed its own core values of “pristine leaking,” and did so in a way that protects Russia’s public image. ... The report claims batch of emails were not included in the cache of documents Wikileaks published under the name the “Syria Files”in 2012. The emails allegedly show correspondence between the Central Bank of Syria and Russia’s VTB Bank. When the Daily Dot asked Wikileaks for comment, the transparency organization denied removing the batch of emails and vaguely threatened the journalist, saying, “You can be sure we will return the favor one day.” It’s entirely possible that the hackers removed the email batch from the data dump it provided to Wikileaks. But it also seems very unlikely. As Daily Dot reporters Dell Cameron and Patrick Howell O’Neill point out in their story, they received 500 pages showing every step the hackers went through to infiltrate the Syrian government’s networks. The reporters say, “the court records leaked to the Daily Dot reveal the Moscow bank’s emails were, in fact, part of the larger backup file containing numerous emails currently found on the WikiLeaks site.” https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992/amp https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-wi...
  - belorn 10y ago