4 ms·

Is this suppose to be /s? Because Wikileakes does not have 100% reliability and has proven to be biased.

by tradersam 9y ago

na85 9y ago
Please link to WikiLeaks articles or releases that were untrue.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  It is possible for something to be true, yet dishonest in its presentation or as a result of bias. Wikileaks is a political organization with political goals, most of them anti-American. While you probably can take what they reveal as fact, you cannot take their interpretations, their existence, or their stated goals as such.
  - blusterXY 9y ago
    Wikileaks is extremely pro-American, at least if your definition of American is civil liberties and not CIA.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - rakoo 9y ago
    That still doesn't change the initial point: that Wikileaks' releases are true.
sergiotapia 9y ago
Link to untrue leaks please. They're not 70% accurate, not 89% accurate, not 99.999% accurate - they're 100% accurate. Without this they are nothing.
- lstamour 9y ago
  How do they verify leaks to ensure no part of the leak is made up? If they can't, it's just a leak. Authenticity can only be confirmed by further leaks (unlikely) or newspapers and other organizations work in fact checking after release.
linkregister 9y ago
Were there any document dumps shown to be inauthentic? I don't think it's in dispute that Wikileaks is biased; it has an overt anti-American military/foreign policy stature. This is informed from Assange's experiences and upbringing. Assange shouldn't be expected to release documents that contradict his narrative. We don't get mad at RT.com for failing to expose Russian corruption or Voice of America for failing to report on U.S. bombings of noncombatants. I agree WL's press releases and Tweets are inaccurate and opportunistic.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  I do get mad at those publications, though. I hate that people who claim moral/ethical authority act contradictory to those morals and explain it as either a means to justify some "greater" end (as if moral consistency wasn't hard enough for our species) or as some reason why their standards don't apply in their situation. Yet Wikileaks seems to be in some weird guerilla moral territory that basically every corporation seems to occupy. They provide some necessary good, and because of it, many of us ignore the bad. I don't think we should though. For anyone :/

Is this suppose to be /s? Because Wikileakes does not have 100% reliability and has proven to be biased.

na85 9y ago

Please link to WikiLeaks articles or releases that were untrue.

ivraatiems 9y ago
It is possible for something to be true, yet dishonest in its presentation or as a result of bias. Wikileaks is a political organization with political goals, most of them anti-American. While you probably can take what they reveal as fact, you cannot take their interpretations, their existence, or their stated goals as such.
- blusterXY 9y ago
  Wikileaks is extremely pro-American, at least if your definition of American is civil liberties and not CIA.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rakoo 9y ago
  That still doesn't change the initial point: that Wikileaks' releases are true.

sergiotapia 9y ago

Link to untrue leaks please. They're not 70% accurate, not 89% accurate, not 99.999% accurate - they're 100% accurate. Without this they are nothing.

lstamour 9y ago
How do they verify leaks to ensure no part of the leak is made up? If they can't, it's just a leak. Authenticity can only be confirmed by further leaks (unlikely) or newspapers and other organizations work in fact checking after release.

linkregister 9y ago

Were there any document dumps shown to be inauthentic? I don't think it's in dispute that Wikileaks is biased; it has an overt anti-American military/foreign policy stature. This is informed from Assange's experiences and upbringing. Assange shouldn't be expected to release documents that contradict his narrative. We don't get mad at RT.com for failing to expose Russian corruption or Voice of America for failing to report on U.S. bombings of noncombatants. I agree WL's press releases and Tweets are inaccurate and opportunistic.

natecavanaugh 9y ago
I do get mad at those publications, though. I hate that people who claim moral/ethical authority act contradictory to those morals and explain it as either a means to justify some "greater" end (as if moral consistency wasn't hard enough for our species) or as some reason why their standards don't apply in their situation. Yet Wikileaks seems to be in some weird guerilla moral territory that basically every corporation seems to occupy. They provide some necessary good, and because of it, many of us ignore the bad. I don't think we should though. For anyone :/